Comment on People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 months agoPhotography 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.
bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Everything you just listed can be human inputs to AI generated art. Humans still drive/manipulate the inputs, it’s just in a different way. A human can still come up with an artistic vision or idea and manipulate the tools (prompt) to that end.
Obviously you can use minimal creativity to get unremarkable AI art, but you can do the same in photography with a point and shoot camera. It’s about the creativity and artistic vision, not the tool.
I agree, there are tons of photographs a computer can’t generate. Because it’s a different artform. Just as there are tons of paintings a photographer could never create.
Mastengwe@lemm.ee 2 months ago
If programming a robot to throw a football doesn’t make the programmer an athlete, then AI “art” isn’t art.
Period.