Memes

Poe's law is evolving!

I feel like that applies to most art.
Effort and feeling rarely show in the final piece, because most people aren't good artists and even good artists don't usually produce good art. Even what's "good" here is subjective.

I tend to agree that AI art isn't art in the way that we usually mean it, but also this is turning into a big grey area because people are using AI for touchups and stuff. Mixed media and photomontage artists have a field day I'm sure.

You're on par with NFT and crypto folks.

They don't really care, they think they are "innovating" by doing this. I mean, this is a genuine question: why are they so amazed by an algorithm like this when they never did any art in their life? Aren't they busy coding or "X'ing" with their checkmarks?

We sure do not have the same definition of art!

Art does not, in my opinion, need an observer to be art.

If you think the sky is beautiful then that does not make it art, or everything would be art so nothing would be art.

I respectfully disagree with you saying ai generated images are not art, it is "a form" of art, and saying so doesn't equate to saying art is unimportant or that the human aspect doesn't matter. Art is important, the human aspect does matter a great deal. Art is about ideas and means to express them, AI-gen does allow it in different ways than previously but right now you still have a sentient being with an idea to prompt the AI.

What you are saying looks a lot like what people used to say about photography not being art, and fear mongering about photography replacing other forms of art like painting. The opposite happened, photography shaped into its own form of art, and painting evolved to new era of amazing ideas.

Let's make the term "AI images" be more popular instead

That's fine, but ai "artists" act like their prompts(and even the images they didn't do shit to make) are things they put their heart and soul into and get so mad that they have any people calling them out

Me when people are lying about images being generated works and submitting them to art contests and winning stuff like college scholarships:

AI "Artists" are idea guys. They don't care about the process or the knowledge or the experience of creation, only the Content that gets produced that they can consume. They're middle managers claiming the work created by the skills of the workers under them as their own effort. Image generators simply allow them to do a corporation and avoid paying people for those skills or putting in the effort to learn themselves. It's just a new form of coloring books, only created using ethically dubious methods because the companies creating the programs are likely violating fair use laws.

Edit: This isn't to say that people who use coloring books are inherently bad or anything, but when you're trying to pass your page from a coloring book off as a gallery-worthy exhibit and the book was made by a company tracing artwork and using it without permission to make a profit? Yeah, then you're a bad person. Especially if you go on to talk down to artists because you made yours so quickly, etc.

I think what you're describing is more like 3d rendering.

IMO using AI is more like directing in a film. You're not the one creating the art, and the level of control you have is restricted to providing guidance and retrying.

But at the end of the day, the only action they're taking to capture the art is they press a button.

Wut? Are you serious? You're just going to boil down an entire artform to that? That's an unbelievably reductive opinion.

Anyone can take a photo, sure but making art via photography is incredibly complex. I'm not a photographer at all and even I can understand that. It's the photographer's tastes and years of learning and practice that ultimately creates an impactful photo. You must think playing drums is just hitting tubes with plastic lids with sticks then, right?

I struggle to believe that you have put any thought into this opinion of yours.

Photography is capturing something real in the physical world. Even if the action can be boiled down to "push a button" the photographer needs to have at least some presence where the real event is taking place.

AI art is not a depiction of a real event and requires no physical presence. It's also not being brought to life by the person taking credit for it. That's not to say AI generated images can't be cool or useful but I don't think they are art. If your definition of art is loose enough to apply to AI generated images then the I think the artist credit should belong to the AI itself or the team that wrote the software, not the person typing in prompts.

First you confirm they have to spend a lot of time to set everything up, then you claim it's just pressing a button? 🤨

Taking a picture with your phone maybe looks like that, when you don't care, but knowing one's gear and using it properly is already many levels above just pressing a button. Then only a few questions and one presses the button. Questions like: what will be blurred? what will stand out? how the picture will be composed? will colours play? or textures? are there relations between objects in the picture?

What in trying to say is: I don't agree with you, that it's just pressing a button. Programming is also just pressing buttons, right? 😉

I kinda get you, but ultimately the design of the printed materials had to be created by someone. Creation is the key in all of this.

In this comparison, ideally that creator is the person printing the materials. There's a disconnect if someone just downloaded the CAD files and printed it up then claimed 100% ownership of the creation credit.

I don't see anything wrong with someone designing all the pieces in CAD, which is an artform in itself IMO, printing them and proudly wearing them. Its just a different tool. You use hand tools, they used digital tools.