People had the same complaints about photography many years ago. Times change.
People putting boundaries on what is and isn’t art has probably existed for as long as art has.
Comment on People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You mean when you strip away people’s knee-jerk negative bias to AI art, people really just like art that looks good? Shocking. It’s almost as if the push against AI art is futile as despite people’s complaints it can produce a good product.
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Mastengwe@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Photography takes skill. Punching a sentence into a computer takes no skill. AI does not create art. It creates pictures.
Humans create art.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And now humans create art by punching a sentence into a computer. Are the images nice? Can they provoke thoughts and feelings? Then they’re art. Don’t like it? Too bad, AI art is here to stay because of how easy it is. Learn to cope.
knightly@pawb.social 2 months ago
You’ve gotten art and beauty mixed up.
The natural world can be beautiful, but it isn’t a work of art. Likewise, computer generated imagery can be pretty but it doesn’t express any person’s thoughts or feelings and therefore cannot be art.
Mastengwe@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Sorry my opinion upset you. But I’m keeping it.
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Photography is just pointing a camera and pressing a button. It takes no skill.
See, it’s easy to be reductive.
How do you define art? Is it dependent on the amount of “skill” required to create it? What even is artistic skill? Is one allowed to use auto-focus for a photograph to be considered art? Do you have to develop your own film?
These are all irrelevant thresholds on the inputs for something to be considered art. What determines whether or not something is art is the output of a creative process.
Mastengwe@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Ahhh, the whole photography bit.
Well, let’s see. I’d agree with you if:
-
it didn’t take a human to find a subject or location worthy of shooting, know what angle to shoot from, what time of day to shoot….
-
it didn’t take a human to know how to adjust the lighting and color vibrancy to bring life to the picture.
-
it didn’t take a human to know what camera to use, what zoom level, what aperture….
There are TONS of legendary photographers taken that a computer would never have been able to do.
Stop with the photography argument. It’s bad.
-
Daxtron2@startrek.website 2 months ago
StableDiffusion is more than just throwing a prompt in lmao. You clearly have not spent any time learning what it is and decided to hate it based on people putting in minimum effort and posting their raw gens.
Mastengwe@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Sorry to upset you, but in my opinion- it’s not art. You can keep being bothered by this, or you can move on.
I’m allowed to have this opinion
Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 months ago
Is it futile because of how easy to use and usually used by creatively bankrupt annoying tech bro, or is it futile because they have multibillion company backing them?
Idk, i can’t tell.
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
I dislike AI art because of the process of its creation, rather than its quality. Everyone faking art with AI can fuck right off.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So let me ask you something. Like with the people in this article, if you see an image and it captures your attention, inspires you, makes you go “wow that’s stunning & thought provoking!”, then after the fact you learn it was made by AI, do all those previous feelings become invalid?
It just seems like you’re having to convince yourself that it’s bad. Like suddenly deciding you don’t like a cake because the badder was mixed in a pink mixing bowl. As if your enjoyment of the final product is somehow meaningless compared to how you got there.
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
All those feelings become invalid because the thought that was provoked by the image will be some generic and unoriginal thing picked up by the GenAI during training rather than new, original ideas by the author. If that thought was intended by the author of the GenAI image that’d be cool with me, but there’s frankly no way of knowing for sure and it’s very unlikely, so I just reject all GenAI art.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I see we have a fundamental disagreement on what ultimately matters in a piece of art. You believe it is the artist’s thoughts and intentions that are important, while I believe that it is the thoughts and emotions each individual feels when experiencing the final product.
Personally, I try to learn as little about the artist as possible before judging a work. It doesn’t matter to me if the artist was an accomplished French artisan with decades of experience, or if they were a 7 year old Chinese girl. I don’t really care if the artist was channeling their feelings of loneliness in a chaotic world by depicting a lone rowboat in a lake, or if they just passingly thought a rowboat would be a good addition to their pretty lake painting. I prefer interpreting a work from an unbiased perspective, I suppose that’s why it doesn’t matter to me if a work of art was made by a human or AI, because it doesn’t fundamentally change the final product.
Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 2 months ago
people really just like art that looks good?
This is simply false, and completely misses the point of art.
xor@infosec.pub 2 months ago
not everything you don’t like is knee-jerk reaction…
a lot of people have minds with or without your ability to imagine other perspectives
KeenFlame@feddit.nu 2 months ago
True but irrelevant as the sudden general hatred for generative art truly is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.
xor@infosec.pub 2 months ago
for some, i suppose… but by and large, these individuals do have actual reasons…
you can pretend like everyone that hates it is just following a trend, but it’s not useful and just a strawman.
it may seem like a “sudden general hatred” but generative images are relatively only suddenly good… so any reaction would be likewise sudden.
personally, i’m on both sides. i’ve seen some cool stuff, and see it as a great tool for artists to build off of, and for enabling non-artists to create cool pictures for whatever reason…
however, the fact that the data set is mostly copyrighted works and the artists who actually trained the ai aren’t being compensated… and never gave permission…
as well as a shit load of poseur artists pretending like they made something, or pretending like tweaking prompts makes them an artist…
there’s a whole thing in studying art with understanding the background of the artist… the context and environment, and the meaning of the work…
there is no perspective in ai generated images… (until AGI, i suppose)
it might be the same to the average person, but that doesn’t really matter. the average person wouldn’t appreciate most contemporary artwork…
KeenFlame@feddit.nu 2 months ago
As someone been in the field a long time before tha AI boom, just trust me. It’s knee jerk. They have no good reason to hate generative art, even the idiotic way they fed copyrighted work into some models does not explain in the least why anyone should hate an entire way of making art
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
yOu JuSt DoN’t LiKe iT is almost never an honest argument.