You really don’t see the nuance to that? A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art. You can ask it to make up some absurd idea, or even to generate a realistic image of it, but it’s not likely to resonate with humans as well as human-made art does.
It’s okay if this all sounds like gobbledygook - not everyone connects to art in the same way. But those that get it know exactly what I’m talking about.
A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion, and it’s not the fault of the AI that the stupid human controlling it typed in “big titty goth gf” instead of something that illustrates a better concept.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
For a lot of people, art is about expressing themselves. If you have an absurd idea to troll art by doing something inane like taping a banana to a wall, that is still expressing one’s self even if it seems low-effort. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, just as you don’t have to like or agree with what another person says.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
The banana art resembles something made by someone who has no hand-eye coordination or technical skill required to make visual art, and also lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
Yeah, and that’s because the people using AI art generators are just expressing base shitty things, and the AI haters don’t see the pieces with effort put into them. This also goes against your other statement of
The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art.
AI art can do that, since it’s still a human generating the message in the end.
EDIT : Can you meaningfully differenciate between a person writing a “plan” for a curator to tape a banana to a wall , and a person writing a “prompt” for a computer to generate an image that has a certain composition, lighting, colour, etc?
No man, that doesn’t mean that. I’m saying the artist for the banana piece is depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece, just like the guy writing the prompts for the AI is depending on the AI to create the piece.
depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece
We might as well attribute that work to the curator, then, hm?
Does the artist also get credit for how high up the wall the piece was displayed? Which floor or wing it’s displayed in? Because this is what AI prompter’s claim. They paint nothing but enter painter’s competitions.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don’t. LLMs are built to decide for you.
They paint nothing but enter painter’s competitions.
Yeah, so that’s a stupid thing that individual humans are doing. If you “hand made” a 3d model in Blender and printed it out and submitted it to a painting competition, you are not doing something right.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don’t.
So the banana guy doesn’t get credit for making the piece. what did they actually do then? This is my point: Either the banana guy is doing nothing and getting paid shitloads, in which case, not art, (lots of ) humans make trash, here’s an example, which means the AI guy is also not an artist, so fine.
Or Banana guy is an artist because he came up with the concept and is an artist, and so is the AI guy because he also came up with the concept.
I’m fine with either. I’m not fine with “banana guy is an artist, AI guy is not”
You really don’t see the nuance to that? A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art. You can ask it to make up some absurd idea, or even to generate a realistic image of it, but it’s not likely to resonate with humans as well as human-made art does.
It’s okay if this all sounds like gobbledygook - not everyone connects to art in the same way. But those that get it know exactly what I’m talking about.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion, and it’s not the fault of the AI that the stupid human controlling it typed in “big titty goth gf” instead of something that illustrates a better concept.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
For a lot of people, art is about expressing themselves. If you have an absurd idea to troll art by doing something inane like taping a banana to a wall, that is still expressing one’s self even if it seems low-effort. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, just as you don’t have to like or agree with what another person says.
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
The banana art resembles something made by someone who has no hand-eye coordination or technical skill required to make visual art, and also lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
Yeah, and that’s because the people using AI art generators are just expressing base shitty things, and the AI haters don’t see the pieces with effort put into them. This also goes against your other statement of
AI art can do that, since it’s still a human generating the message in the end.
EDIT : Can you meaningfully differenciate between a person writing a “plan” for a curator to tape a banana to a wall , and a person writing a “prompt” for a computer to generate an image that has a certain composition, lighting, colour, etc?
If we can’t explain the difference, AI must be sentient? This argument reminds me of “God of the gaps”.
No man, that doesn’t mean that. I’m saying the artist for the banana piece is depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece, just like the guy writing the prompts for the AI is depending on the AI to create the piece.
We might as well attribute that work to the curator, then, hm?
Does the artist also get credit for how high up the wall the piece was displayed? Which floor or wing it’s displayed in? Because this is what AI prompter’s claim. They paint nothing but enter painter’s competitions.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don’t. LLMs are built to decide for you.
Yeah, so that’s a stupid thing that individual humans are doing. If you “hand made” a 3d model in Blender and printed it out and submitted it to a painting competition, you are not doing something right.
So the banana guy doesn’t get credit for making the piece. what did they actually do then? This is my point: Either the banana guy is doing nothing and getting paid shitloads, in which case, not art, (lots of ) humans make trash, here’s an example, which means the AI guy is also not an artist, so fine.
Or Banana guy is an artist because he came up with the concept and is an artist, and so is the AI guy because he also came up with the concept.
I’m fine with either. I’m not fine with “banana guy is an artist, AI guy is not”
Good thing they didn’t choose paints or acrylics, then, huh? That might have been embarrassing.
Why do you think this is a gotcha?