Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
76 comments

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

    have a read before you defend modern art

    • I'd like to know the point you think this link is making in this conversation. 🤨

      • that dumbass shit is not art, and isn't art because some idiot curated it into a museum.

        • By all means, tell us what art is then.

          • people expressing their feelings or "visions" of a medium using skill within that medium. Taping bananas to walls is not art, since there is zero skill involved.

            AI art is art the same way children's drawings are art; they can be an expression of a feeling or a personal "vision", or bullshit made with a desire to gain some kind of resource (social approval, money) at which point it becomes about as artistic as a fast food hamburger.

            • Art is about thought, not skill.

              Skill is required for craft. Can art be well crafted? Hell yeah. Does it have to be? Hell no.

              • Art is about thought, not skill.

                great, so by putting your thoughts into text, then putting them in a computer that you know will realise your thoughts into a visual artifact is making art then.

                • In a way, sure. What's unfortunate with such a medium is what a small proportion of the thoughts in the final product are the prompter's. The machine references countless works that the prompter has no knowledge of, whereas in a medium controlled by the artist, those references (both conscious and subconscious) add meaning to the piece.

                  • In a way, sure.

                    🤝

                    What’s unfortunate with such a medium is what a small proportion of the thoughts in the final product are the prompter’s. The machine references countless works that the prompter has no knowledge of, whereas in a medium controlled by the artist, those references (both conscious and subconscious) add meaning to the piece.

                    Here's the part where I get mad at people in the thread that say I have no understanding of art (history). There's been several ways of creating art that have been discussed that have the artist leave aspects to chance. It's been done by Cage, people using radios in musical performances, introducing animals into artworks, using the brush like an idiot (Pollock) to achieve these things; in more modern mediums, the entire genre of rougelikes rely on chance to have certain things not be completely fixed, and emergent behaviour is a valuable aspect of creating interactive worlds that contain automatons.

                    Is there too much uncurated content in a Gen-AI work? Depends how much effort the creator put into the work, and what they are trying to do with it. I'm pretty sure for the actual scenario at the heart of the discussion, shitposts and strawberry textured elephants can have a few "happy accidents" without harming the central message... of the strawberry elephant.

                    • The difference here is that an artist has control over the medium. Every letter was put there with intent, every stroke carries meaning. Deciding not to do these things can also carry weight, and even the decision to let chaos decide is a choice.

                      GenAI isn't that, it removes the creative process entirely. Sure, you can get creative with prompt engineering, but the resulting art is the prompt not the AI generation.

                      It doesn't matter how much work you put into micromanaging an artist, a commission is not your art. Similarly, it doesn't matter how intricate and elegant your prompt is, you did not generate the result.

                      • The difference here is that an artist has control over the medium. Every letter was put there with intent, every stroke carries meaning. Deciding not to do these things can also carry weight, and even the decision to let chaos decide is a choice.

                        no they don't. That's my whole point that there's artworks where the artist doesn't have complete control over the end result, and it's the point.

                        It’s been done by Cage, people using radios in musical performances, introducing animals into artworks, using the brush like an idiot (Pollock) to achieve these things; in more modern mediums, the entire genre of rougelikes rely on chance to have certain things not be completely fixed, and emergent behaviour is a valuable aspect of creating interactive worlds that contain automatons.

                        And I would gladly take pollock out of the artistic cannon if I could.

            • So by your own admission skill is what makes art art. Taping a banana to the wall is a zero skill act so that's not art. Typing "make a picture of a banana taped to a wall" into an text box has skill? Working as an artist also means that you aren't creating art, but that's exactly the point of the AI slop machines; an attempt to demonetize a skill and save money for businesses. I feel like you're arguing to argue at this point and doing a very poor job.

              • EDIT :

                So by your own admission skill is what makes art art.

                Absolutely. if that's what it gets to discredit the fucking banana tape guy, hell yeah. Fuck all of those people, the basketball guy too.

                END EDIT

                Typing “make a picture of a banana taped to a wall” into an text box has skill?

                here's the thing that AI haters don't get. You can just do that sure, but you can also put more effort into it, spend time crafting specific Loras and even input visual outlines as starting points. You can also do commonly accepted things to the image after, color correction, edits, shading etc etc. You can write more vivid descriptions to further hone what you are getting the machine to make.

                And as I said before : books are just text written on a typewriter/word processor. We haven't disawoved literature as an art form just yet.

                but that’s exactly the point of the AI slop machines; an attempt to demonetize a skill and save money for businesses.

                Yeah, that's a downside when used in an industrial sense. I would prefer coca cola to pay out the ass for anything they do, instead of paying a modicum. But the topic we're discussing here isn't the next cola ad, it's shitposts. I'm pretty sure that taking time to crudely photoshop a strawberry elephant is just as valid an expression of a shitpost as putting in "Strawberry textured elephant" into a generative ai.

                You could probably also do it by searching for a free use elephant model and free to use strawberry texture and combining the two in blender to get the same shitpost.

                At the end of the day,it's a fucking shitpost. It doesn't matter. You're just pushing out a concept, not trying to win the prize for best artist.

                I feel like you’re arguing to argue at this point and doing a very poor job.

                The point is that 1) "Indie" use of generative AI for shitposts doesn't make the creator deserve crucifixion 2) Generative AI is a valid use case for talentless people who want to communicate a visual idea 3) The art world has set themselves up for this fucking argument for too long with the goddamn basketballs in folmadehyde and bananas duct taped to walls, while actually talented artists get ignored. It's the same fucking thing with music. The greatest composers of our time are slaving away at generic jobs to make ends meet, and risking going bankrupt every time they tour. All the attention goes to shitty pop musicians, and slop made by boardrooms and focus testing. The stuff being produced already had no soul.

                Sidenote : I still have no fucking idea how Igorrr is making ends meet while creating the best music known to recorded history.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMAPWtAqpbg

        • I see. So you truly do not understand art to the point where you can't even make a coherent argument supporting your position on it.

          Glad we sorted that out.

          • https://lemmy.world/post/36502343/19614582

            people expressing their feelings or "visions" of a medium using skill within that medium. Taping bananas to walls is not art, since there is zero skill involved.

            AI art is art the same way children's drawings are art; they can be an expression of a feeling or a personal "vision", or bullshit made with a desire to gain some kind of resource (social approval, money) at which point it becomes about as artistic as a fast food hamburger.

76 comments