Comment on A cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inman

• ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  it’s just colors and noise.

  But that’s exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye…might as well just get it auto-generated.

  source

  • ech@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.

    source

    • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I would honestly argue that the way an artist makes art is also completely irrelevant. The art is only meaningful in the way it’s perceived, how the artist physically makes it is of very little importance. The tools and materials are just a means to an end, it’s the finished product that inspires feelings and thoughts, not the process of how it came to be.

      source

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Right, but people who type prompts into AI art generators aren’t actually “making” anything though, are they?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ech@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        You’ve stated as much already. If we’re just repeating ourselves here, I’ll just copy-paste.

        That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important.

        source