A good painting is never “just a good painting.” The context, the artist, etc. are part of the art. To remove that is to make it no longer art because it’s no longer an actual expression of anything personal. Pretty words with no intent behind them don’t mean anything.

Plenty of Holiday Inn’s have lovely painted landscapes on the walls. People aren’t paying for them to be in their homes.

▲

mparramon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

With tools like this, the artist is not removed from the art. He just has more leverage.

I would argue the opposite even: this is more personal, as a singular artist can now do more by himself, without relying on others to do the parts that he couldn't do before.

▲

AuthAuth 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

AI strips a lot of the intention from the work. The artist might want a wooden house with a straw roof and while they design the house they might add framing and other small touches to the house and to the viewer the small decisions could be as important as the choice for a straw roof.

When the artist AI generates it they get a house with wooden house with a straw roof and nothing else has any thought or intention. Its less personal, the viewer previously did not have to question what the artists intention was now they do because its likely the artist had no intention or thought towards a particular part of the art.

	▲	mparramon 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So the artist simply accepts the AI generated wooden house. Might it be possible that he does not? Furthermore, before AI, artists also used assets that came from other creators, accepting them wholesale. No intention, then? The issue I see here is that we're judging the tool, not the artist. It reminds me so much of the digital photography backlash. But here we are.