I don't believe that there is near enough room for creativity to shine through in the prompt-generation pipeline, and I find the mention of a talent like Ansel Adams in this context asinine. There is no control there, and without control over creation I don't believe that creativity CAN flourish, but I may be wrong.

Electronic music is analogous to digital art made by humans, not generated art.

▲

LogicFailsMe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Defining art in this way is like defining intelligence as the possession of a degree from Stanford. It's just branding.

Art shouldn't make you feel comfortable and safe. It should provoke you and in this sense AI art is doing the job better than traditional art at the moment here.

Other than the technological aspect, there's nothing new under the sun here. And at its very worst, AI art is just Andy Warhol at hyperscale.

https://wbpopphilosopher.wordpress.com/2023/05/07/andy-warho...

▲

caconym_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's actually quite apt to look at all of "AI art" as a single piece, or suite, with a unified argument or theme. Maybe in that sense it is some kind of art, even if it wasn't intended that way by its creators.

Similarly, I'm not sure that argument is making the point those who deploy it intend to make.

▲

LogicFailsMe 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the entire fear of AI schtick to farm engagement is little more than performance art for our FAANNG overlords personally. It behaves precisely like the right wing manosphere but with different daily talking points repeated ad nauseum. Bernie Sanders has smelled the opportunity here and really stepped up his game.

But TBF, performance art theatre is art as well.

The end game IMO will be incorporation of AI art toolsets into commercial art workflows and a higher value placed on 100% human art (however that ends up being defined) and then we'll find something new and equally idiotic to trigger us or else we might run out of excuses and/or scapegoats for our malaise.

▲

caconym_ 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> incorporation of AI art toolsets into commercial art workflows and a higher value placed on 100% human art

I don't even really believe serious artists need to totally exclude themselves from using genAI as a tool, and I've heard the same from real working artists (generally those who have established careers doing it). Unfortunately, that point inhabits the boring ideological center and is drowned out by the screaming from both extremes.

	▲	LogicFailsMe 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They aren't, but some are already using pseudonyms to experiment with it to avoid the haters condemning them for doing so. And their work is predictably far superior from the get-go to asking Sora to ghiblify your dog.

▲

bogzz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I Ghiblified a photo of my dog when chatgpt 4 came out. I was utterly horrified by the results.

It's exciting being able to say that I am an artist, I always wondered what my life would have been had I gone into the arts, and now I can experience it! Thank you techmology.

▲

LogicFailsMe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you really want to experience the struggles and persecution of an artist, you should empty your bank account and find a life partner to support you while you struggle with your angst and inner trauma that are the source of your creativity. But, to be fair, complaining about AI art is a great start down that path!

▲

bogzz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Logic might fail you, but snark is Ol' Faithful it seems.

	▲	LogicFailsMe 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How else would you address the incessant ramblings of people who figuratively curse the sunset daily? After AI art has been integrated into the already existing suite of digital art applications (which themselves were once not considered art), whatever shall you complain about next? Now if you wanted to define art to require 100% bodily fluids and solids 100% handcrafted to be the only real art, now that I'd understand.

▲

yunwal 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

what you did was not even close to an attempt at making good art.

▲

IlliOnato 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You may check these videos by Oleg Kuvaev. 100% generated using AI. Everything: text, music, characters, voices, editing -- all done via prompts, using multiple engines (I think he mentioned about a dozen services involved). I would not call it "high art", but it's definitely not a slop, it's an artist skillfully using AI as a tool.

https://youtu.be/A2H62x_-k5Q?si=EHq5Y4KCzBfo0tfm

https://youtu.be/rzCpT_S536c?si=pxiDY4TPhF_YLfRc

https://youtu.be/wPVe365vpCc?si=AqhpaZHYb4ldSf3F

https://youtu.be/EBaGqojNJfc?si=1CoLn4oeNxK-7bpe

	▲	shayway 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While we're sharing AI generated videos, IGORRR's ADHD music video [0] is definitively art, zero question about it. I don't think typing a prompt in and taking the output as it comes is art -- good art, anyway (the point-and-shoot photography comparison is apt) -- but that doesn't mean AI can't be used to make truly new, creative and unique art too. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGIvO4eh190 (warning, lots of disturbing imagery)
	▲	dgroshev 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is absolutely slop. Higher quality slop, but slop nonetheless. Ask yourself: what does it say? What does it change in you? How this makes you feel? Artists use their medium to communicate. More often than not, everything in a piece is deliberate. What is being communicated here? Who deliberated on the details? Those videos are as much "art" as Marvel's endless slop is "art".

▲

Pet_Ant 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't believe that there is near enough room for creativity to shine through in the prompt-generation pipeline

I mean you are building a prompt and tweaking it. I mean even if you didn't do that you could still argue that finding it is in itself a creative akin to found art [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object

▲

bogzz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I suppose. You're "finding" something that didn't exist and that nobody ever cared about. Something that you wrote, mashed against the tensors trained on real artist creations, and out came the thing that you "found".

I'm genuinely amazed at how some people perceive art.

	▲	Pet_Ant 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To me art has always been "an interesting idea". Decorative things that take skill to me are crafts. Sure, it's a water color of your garden, but what does it tell us about the human condition? Sure, it's skilled... but it's empty. Give me Jackson Pollock or Picasso. Give me a new way to see the world. Pure skill to me is as impressive as cup-stacking personally. Not saying you have to agree, but it is a distillation of how some portion of the world sees the world.

▲

api 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How much room for creativity is there with a camera? Angle, lighting, F-stop, film type, film processing? I have a local image generator app called Draw Things that has many times more options than this.

Early synthesizers weren't that versatile either. Bands like Pink Floyd actually got into electronics and tore them apart and hacked them. Early techno and hip-hop artists did similar things and even figured out how to transform a simple record player into a musical instrument by hopping the needle around and scratching records back and forth with tremendous skill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnRVmiqm84k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekgpZag6xyQ

Serious AI artists will start tearing apart open models and changing how they work internally. They'll learn the math and how they work just like a serious photographer could tell you all about film emulsions and developing processes and how film reacts to light.

Art's never about what it does. It's about what it can do.

▲

caconym_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> How much room for creativity is there with a camera? Angle, lighting, F-stop, film type, film processing?

How many subjects exist in the world to be photographed? How many journeys might one take to find them? How many stories might each subject tell with the right treatment?

> Serious AI artists will start tearing apart open models and changing how they work internally. They'll learn the math and how they work just like a serious photographer could tell you all about film emulsions and developing processes and how film reacts to light.

I agree that "AI art" as it exists today is not serious.

	▲	api 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"AI art" today is mostly play, which is usually the first thing you get with new artistic tools. People just fool around with them in an un-serious way. There's also some porn. Porn is always early. It was one of the first uses for moving pictures, for example. "The early adopters of new technologies are usually porn and the military." Forget where I heard that but it's largely true.

▲

bogzz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I do not think that the things you say will happen, will ever happen.

Also, photography has the added benefit of documenting the world as it is, but through the artist's lens. That added value does not exist when it comes to slop.

	▲	CamperBob2 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do not think that the things you say will happen, will ever happen. When's the last time someone who said something like that was right?

▲

CamperBob2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't believe that there is near enough room for creativity to shine through in the prompt-generation pipeline

You seem so sure that you'll always be able to tell what you're looking at, and whether it's the result of prompting or some unspecified but doubtlessly-noble act of "creativity."

LOL. Not much else can be said, but... LOL.