The thing people seem to forget in this argument is that art is more than making pretty pictures. Art is used to convey emotional messages -it’s a unique act of human expression.
To create art (whether it be through image, writing, or something else) brings a cathartic sense to the artist, and if done well, it can communicate intended emotions to a viewer. Are there people carefully programming modern AI to make art that fits that concept? Maybe - I have heard people talk about that scenario, but I haven’t seen any such art yet. Rather, the vast majority of modern AI images lack the nuance and emotional impact that real art carries. It’s hollow, uncoordinated, and lacks the “soul” people connect to in human-made art.
You really don’t see the nuance to that? A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art. You can ask it to make up some absurd idea, or even to generate a realistic image of it, but it’s not likely to resonate with humans as well as human-made art does.
It’s okay if this all sounds like gobbledygook - not everyone connects to art in the same way. But those that get it know exactly what I’m talking about.
A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion, and it’s not the fault of the AI that the stupid human controlling it typed in “big titty goth gf” instead of something that illustrates a better concept.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
For a lot of people, art is about expressing themselves. If you have an absurd idea to troll art by doing something inane like taping a banana to a wall, that is still expressing one’s self even if it seems low-effort. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, just as you don’t have to like or agree with what another person says.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
The banana art resembles something made by someone who has no hand-eye coordination or technical skill required to make visual art, and also lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
Yeah, and that’s because the people using AI art generators are just expressing base shitty things, and the AI haters don’t see the pieces with effort put into them. This also goes against your other statement of
The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art.
AI art can do that, since it’s still a human generating the message in the end.
EDIT : Can you meaningfully differenciate between a person writing a “plan” for a curator to tape a banana to a wall , and a person writing a “prompt” for a computer to generate an image that has a certain composition, lighting, colour, etc?
No man, that doesn’t mean that. I’m saying the artist for the banana piece is depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece, just like the guy writing the prompts for the AI is depending on the AI to create the piece.
depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece
We might as well attribute that work to the curator, then, hm?
Does the artist also get credit for how high up the wall the piece was displayed? Which floor or wing it’s displayed in? Because this is what AI prompter’s claim. They paint nothing but enter painter’s competitions.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don’t. LLMs are built to decide for you.
the vast majority of human art lacks the real nuance and emotional impact real art carries.
It by-definition does not. The fact that you can’t see this I think makes you an inhuman monster.
If this were true, why would I want any of it? Do you seriously consume art you think is garbage for no reason? Are you not busy? Is your life really so boring?
The top 40 charts of music? 35 out of the 40 are pure crap, manufactured by people that are playing it by the numbers based on market studies, all in the pursuit of money. Now on top of that, imagine the majority of amateur fluff that people produce that are just low quality, or things that people make that aren’t full of gravitas, nuance and actually emotionally impactful.
The top 40 charts of music? 35 out of the 40 are pure crap,
Wow. This is a very old-man opinion.
imagine the majority of amateur fluff that people produce that are just low quality,
Are you comparing people’s weekend projects to, I dunno, Marvel movies?
I like amateur fluff, you know? I look for niche indie games on steam or itch.io just because I want to see what people are up to—what fun ideas they have. That it seems to bother you they’re not Casablanca is very strange to me.
Ok, so why is the visual idea that some computer hobbyist came up with but didn’t have the artistic capability to create not something interesting to you?
AI images lack the nuance and emotional impact that real art carries. It’s hollow, uncoordinated, and lacks the “soul” people connect to in human-made art.
This exact same criticism was used in the past but aimed at digital art, and, before that, to photography.
This may shock you but you wanting to see something bears no relevance on whether that something is considered art. Your opinion is not that important.
So, from a mathematician’s perspective, mathematical operations are careful constructs. Their validity and creation being an effort in creativity and, indeed, final catharsis.
To separate the two, one need only dictate the medium of expression.
The thing people seem to forget in this argument is that art is more than making pretty pictures. Art is used to convey emotional messages -it’s a unique act of human expression.
To create art (whether it be through image, writing, or something else) brings a cathartic sense to the artist, and if done well, it can communicate intended emotions to a viewer. Are there people carefully programming modern AI to make art that fits that concept? Maybe - I have heard people talk about that scenario, but I haven’t seen any such art yet. Rather, the vast majority of modern AI images lack the nuance and emotional impact that real art carries. It’s hollow, uncoordinated, and lacks the “soul” people connect to in human-made art.
the vast majority of human art lacks the real nuance and emotional impact real art carries.
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)
You really don’t see the nuance to that? A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, “Fuck your idea of art,” but that’s still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can’t do that. An AI can’t understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art. You can ask it to make up some absurd idea, or even to generate a realistic image of it, but it’s not likely to resonate with humans as well as human-made art does.
It’s okay if this all sounds like gobbledygook - not everyone connects to art in the same way. But those that get it know exactly what I’m talking about.
The AI art doesn’t appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion, and it’s not the fault of the AI that the stupid human controlling it typed in “big titty goth gf” instead of something that illustrates a better concept.
What’s the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You’re talking like there’s some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as “art,” as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That’s not how art works, and that’s not the issue with AI.
For a lot of people, art is about expressing themselves. If you have an absurd idea to troll art by doing something inane like taping a banana to a wall, that is still expressing one’s self even if it seems low-effort. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, just as you don’t have to like or agree with what another person says.
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
The banana art resembles something made by someone who has no hand-eye coordination or technical skill required to make visual art, and also lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
Yeah, and that’s because the people using AI art generators are just expressing base shitty things, and the AI haters don’t see the pieces with effort put into them. This also goes against your other statement of
AI art can do that, since it’s still a human generating the message in the end.
EDIT : Can you meaningfully differenciate between a person writing a “plan” for a curator to tape a banana to a wall , and a person writing a “prompt” for a computer to generate an image that has a certain composition, lighting, colour, etc?
If we can’t explain the difference, AI must be sentient? This argument reminds me of “God of the gaps”.
No man, that doesn’t mean that. I’m saying the artist for the banana piece is depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece, just like the guy writing the prompts for the AI is depending on the AI to create the piece.
We might as well attribute that work to the curator, then, hm?
Does the artist also get credit for how high up the wall the piece was displayed? Which floor or wing it’s displayed in? Because this is what AI prompter’s claim. They paint nothing but enter painter’s competitions.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don’t. LLMs are built to decide for you.
Good thing they didn’t choose paints or acrylics, then, huh? That might have been embarrassing.
Why do you think this is a gotcha?
It by-definition does not. The fact that you can’t see this I think makes you an inhuman monster.
If this were true, why would I want any of it? Do you seriously consume art you think is garbage for no reason? Are you not busy? Is your life really so boring?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon’s_law
The top 40 charts of music? 35 out of the 40 are pure crap, manufactured by people that are playing it by the numbers based on market studies, all in the pursuit of money. Now on top of that, imagine the majority of amateur fluff that people produce that are just low quality, or things that people make that aren’t full of gravitas, nuance and actually emotionally impactful.
Wow. This is a very old-man opinion.
Are you comparing people’s weekend projects to, I dunno, Marvel movies?
I like amateur fluff, you know? I look for niche indie games on steam or itch.io just because I want to see what people are up to—what fun ideas they have. That it seems to bother you they’re not Casablanca is very strange to me.
Ok, so why is the visual idea that some computer hobbyist came up with but didn’t have the artistic capability to create not something interesting to you?
I dunno. What is it communicating to me?
That was actually a great article. Thanks for sharing it. There was a lot more context around that event than I’d thought.
This exact same criticism was used in the past but aimed at digital art, and, before that, to photography.
And then they proved themselves by showing they do have soul and wit.
Consider this a challenge: make something with AI I actually want to see.
This may shock you but you wanting to see something bears no relevance on whether that something is considered art. Your opinion is not that important.
As Royal Prince Clown of the High Appraiser’s Guild in Denmark, unfortunately, my opinion matters the most.
So, from a mathematician’s perspective, mathematical operations are careful constructs. Their validity and creation being an effort in creativity and, indeed, final catharsis.
To separate the two, one need only dictate the medium of expression.