Interesting take. It is indeed difficult to determine what is original vs plagiarized data at times. The unknowable soul of creativity is locked away in an unfathomable box from which proceeds that spark of inspiration, be it digital, analogue, biological, or the approaching hybridization
I agree that ai art is a bad thing but, on a technical note, all artists gets influence from other art they have seen and been taught. is anyone in an artistic vacuum?
there is no such thing as "art". its an arbitrary economic category, alienating objects from their function and wildly exaggerating their exchange value.
the point is, I think, that photography was at one point not seen as art because it was non-representational of concepts but instead derivative of 'the real thing'
what is at the core of all of this is 'story' and if AI 'art' can tell a real story, then it is art, agnostic of the medium itself.
Consumers don't care how shit is made they consume. Only small amount do. That's reality. Same in music. Nobody cares you spent hours mixing and mastering a song lol. They care about whether they like the song and that's it.
Imagine your child crying from hunger, and you can't do anything to help.
Imagine your husband in pain, sick, with no medicine available.
Please help me, even with something small—even just a share.
What is art? I value your perspective. Imagine someone without formal art education, using AI to express inner thoughts, like a poet with a typewriter or a visual artist with a brush. Isn’t that the essence of art?
Not exactly. That person gives instructions, looks at the output and then decides if it expresses their "innermost thoughts." That's less like making art, more like "commissioning" art. A typewriter can't write a single letter that the poet doesn't already intend. And what if...
...the AI gets my "innermost thoughts" all wrong? I look and say, "That's not what I meant at all." Would we say that's art? A painting that nobody wanted at all, not even the "artist"?
They aren't expressing anything though. A program is stealing from other artists to put together an approximate amalgamation of the thing the person wished to express. If they were actually expressing anything it would come from them.
That is an interesting topic… In Buddhism, art reflects the impermanent, interconnected flow of life — an extension of our creativity. Both arguments hold weight: one can view it as plagiarism, or as an extension of our collective creativity. it depends on how you choose to see the world.
I disagree. I understand that some of the images might infringe on the rights of others. I also think that in different forms it can be a way to express oneself. I have no ability to express myself in physical form. But in my mind I see lots of things. Good art vs bad art? Good art goes on my fridg.
Comments
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/andy-warhol-yours-truly-an-important-private-collection/campbells-soup-ii?gQT=0
It rubs my artistic side the wrong way.
what is at the core of all of this is 'story' and if AI 'art' can tell a real story, then it is art, agnostic of the medium itself.
Imagine your husband in pain, sick, with no medicine available.
Please help me, even with something small—even just a share.
https://gofund.me/55437a4e
But what do I know!!!
Human "art" is always soulless copying and recombination.