Replace “AI bro” with photographer and “AI art” with photographs here and you have a very tired argument more than a century old at this point. Same with drum kits, autotune and production software in music, any time a technology comes along that makes making art easier a lot of “OG” artists will say it’s the “blood sweat and tears” that make art.
Don’t get me wrong, the VAST majority of ai images are slop, just like the vast majority of photographs are shit. When you make creating images that easy and accessible a lot of people with no concept of aesthetics or creativity will make garbage, but that doesn’t mean that some can be good and true expressions of creativity.
No i don’t know this? Explain how they’re different
The argument the post is making is that making “real art” requires effort, practice, technical skill and talent and that ai art is too easy and thus is not art. The same can be said of taking a photograph of a landscape vs painting that same landscape. The painter might say that there technical ability and effort makes there rendering art, while the photographers isn’t. Therefore anything that makes creating art easier makes that art less valid, which is a very tired old man yelling at clouds argument.
I’m not saying photography and ai image generation are the same, there are other arguments you could make against it like it “stealing” work from other artists, or the environmental cost etc. But on the “its too easy argument” they’re both just pushing a button to make an image at this point.
At its most basic, and the way 90% of people interact with the medium, that is it.
Yes you can control settings on the camera and change the angle etc. Just like with ai image generators you can change the settings, prompt etc. To get your desired output.
You can put in effort and take creative license with both photography and ai image generation, most people don’t though. But if what makes a medium valid is the ability to configure and adjust it to fit an aesthetic then both photography and image generation allow that.
Replace “AI bro” with photographer and “AI art” with photographs here and you have a very tired argument more than a century old at this point. Same with drum kits, autotune and production software in music, any time a technology comes along that makes making art easier a lot of “OG” artists will say it’s the “blood sweat and tears” that make art.
Don’t get me wrong, the VAST majority of ai images are slop, just like the vast majority of photographs are shit. When you make creating images that easy and accessible a lot of people with no concept of aesthetics or creativity will make garbage, but that doesn’t mean that some can be good and true expressions of creativity.
Two points:
The arguments are not even remotely the same beyond sharing a grammatical parallel. Sort of.
You know this.
No i don’t know this? Explain how they’re different
The argument the post is making is that making “real art” requires effort, practice, technical skill and talent and that ai art is too easy and thus is not art. The same can be said of taking a photograph of a landscape vs painting that same landscape. The painter might say that there technical ability and effort makes there rendering art, while the photographers isn’t. Therefore anything that makes creating art easier makes that art less valid, which is a very tired old man yelling at clouds argument.
I’m not saying photography and ai image generation are the same, there are other arguments you could make against it like it “stealing” work from other artists, or the environmental cost etc. But on the “its too easy argument” they’re both just pushing a button to make an image at this point.
Tell me you’ve never spent even five minutes doing artistic photography.
Ah, yes. That’ll do.
At its most basic, and the way 90% of people interact with the medium, that is it.
Yes you can control settings on the camera and change the angle etc. Just like with ai image generators you can change the settings, prompt etc. To get your desired output.
You can put in effort and take creative license with both photography and ai image generation, most people don’t though. But if what makes a medium valid is the ability to configure and adjust it to fit an aesthetic then both photography and image generation allow that.
The latte does not.
Thanks for playing.