You aren't an artist if you put words into a computer program and post the resulting output as if you did something. That's not what art is. You have no craft. You've done no work. You've engaged no creativity. You're nothing. Tagging that shit as art of any kind is just lying.
Comments
😂😂
Jeff Koons did not make his Ballon Dog series. He used a team of skilled fabricators and designers.
He argued the idea and direction are primary creative acts.
Personally I think they’re shit. But everyone does seem to have accepted them as ‘art’.
I don’t think it’s right, or fair.
But if we say that machines doing what we do - learning from others - is theft, I can easily see greedy copyright lawyers coming after humans as well.
Wonder how long it will take with AI?
You didn't claim them as art, so that's okay.
Regardless of how you feel about AI, it is here and it isn't going away. It's going to impact the art community. We can resist it or we can learn how to critique it for what it is.
Oh wait, no it didn't. Damn. I was really hoping "fuck 'em" was the solution to this problem. Alas, I think we may have to engage a little more deeply.
AI is generative, not creative. Art requires creativity. Until AI doesn't need a prompt, the role of artists cannot be diminished.
But in the Ai topic: totally agree.
Let’s say on all counts your take is true.
Why is that part specifically upsetting?
To me, the more unsettling part is no on owning their data, owning their IP.
There is quite a large variety and they can be refined and retrained on new data.
The context/model, when promoted with certain words can combine and recombine shapes and colors and even combine them to get a certain style.
Often these outputs still have a certain AI-ness to them. Especially if someone didn’t put in any effort.
But let’s not throw the dog out with the bathwater.
I use these outputs as guides and inspiration for my drawings and paint.
And am looking to fine-tune certain models with my own work so that its outputs better match my work.
And it’s unfortunate but they probably did in in some legally ambiguous way.
You could look at a naturally occurring formation of fungus and declare it art.
At least not in its absolute sense.
In some cases something is rare, or done by someone (something?) very skilled.
And we value that.
Or be slightly more informed and still not like it.
Or it moves you. And it deeply resonates.
But in terms of perceived value both can be seen as equally valuable by the market.
Hence you might be correct. Art == Intent.
If intent is all that is needed for art.
Then I saw the comments.
Original take Could’ve been worded better.
Problem solving is art, whether through code, paint, sound or words.
But it stops short of actually addressing that the core issue is intellectual property theft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Lomas
Ever.
art is a long game, we'll see in 300 years any of this output in a book about history, meaning, truth, beauty or hipster crap
My art. Your art. My kids art. It's everybody's art. It's everybody's and it's all been researched, documented, copied, altered, combined and called "original" 🤬
I call it bullshit, but "Ai" is a lot shorter.
Ai art has been around A LONG time. Desmond Paul Henry was using it to make art in the 1960s.
Michel Duchamp took a urinal, laid it on its side and called it art.
A camera can copy the image of a thing with a button.
We humans, machines, etc. are more like different shapes lenses. Art is the beam of light passing through and being refracted on the other side.
Or like a virus that infects its host, and then spreads to others
Assuming an author's intentions can lead to misinterpretations.
AI generated imagery is and will always be utter dogshit.