AI art is art, it’s right there in the name. It’s often perfectly aesthetic to look at too.
The issue is that there’s nothing deeper behind it, and you know there’s nothing deeper behind it. The most blase painting done by a human has a thinking person behind it, and in some way the art is an expression of at least their intent to create it.
For the most part, the intent to create an aesthetic image isn’t particularly interesting. But if you convey an intent or something that’s more compelling, you have more compelling art.
Other art has been done by random process and, as you mentioned, it becomes much more about the context than the actual piece.
If you go by the language, AI (artificial intelligence) is intelligent. No, it isn’t. The words don’t mean anything until proven. I would argue art requires intent and intelligence. “AI art” does not.
The term is created by capitalists selling a product. That doesn’t make it an accurate description.
AI is intelligent, it just lacks sapience, sentience and other things humans have.
The term was created by academics to describe the usage of computers to solve problems previously only solvable by humans or other intelligent creatures.
One of the things learned most quickly is that “intelligence” is a much lower bar to cross than you would expect.
A thermostat can measure how the temperature changes in response to it’s actions, and then apply that information later to alter how it heats and cools.
That’s intelligence. It’s very simple intelligence, unless it’s a particularly odd thermostat, but that doesn’t make it not intelligence.
If someone hangs a print of a famous painting on the wall, have they hung art on the wall? The print required zero creative skill or intelligence, and was a rote process done without human intention. It is still a creation chosen for it’s artistic value, in this case for being a representation of something that’s indisputably art.
Is an object representing art itself art? I say yes, if someone says it is.
Can poetry be art? What about poetry that describes a scene, or a point in time?
I’m not saying that an AI generated image is interesting or good art. If someone swinging a brush at random can create art, or playing a set of radios all at once can be art, then I don’t see why using a pile of math, numbers and random noise to make an image can’t be art.
Pollack and Cage can be interesting because of what they intended to say with their art, and how they chose to say it inside their medium.
I’m not going to say that the process of art becoming interesting because of the intent of the artist is only valid in certain media. AI image generation just happens to be a medium or tool that is nearly entirely the intent and creativity of the artist. The idea for an image, no matter how unique and ornate, isn’t that interesting if that’s all there is. That’s why the vast majority of AI art just isn’t interesting. Regardless of the results, a few sentences or a short paragraph describing a scene is unlikely to provide much interest. It’s dentist office art. A pretty picture you enjoy seeing and then forgot.
It’s totally possible for that sentence or paragraph to be compelling or interesting, but in that case, you don’t need the associated image.
Unless that combination is part of it, or something.
Point being: “art” isn’t some mystical human only thing. The threshold for both it and intelligence is very low.
Being an example of art or intelligence doesn’t make it interesting or clever.
Don’t gatekeep art based on the medium or method. AI art, due to being able to create aesthetic results easily, usually lacks the inspiration, creativity, or depth of equivalent not-ai art, so it’s not nearly as impressive.
Like how a photorealistic painting of a swimming pool is significantly more impressive than an actual photo of that swimming pool. It’s not that photography can’t be art, it’s that a perfect representation of a scene isn’t impressive or interesting in that medium or with that tool.
AI is intelligent, it just lacks sapience, sentience and other things humans have.
It is not. A key component of intelligence is being able to infer knowledge based on generalizations of previously obtained knowledge. Convolution neural networks are not capable of this. They need to be trained on the data to predict results. They can’t conceptualize abstract ideas and apply them to predict never-before-seen circumstances.
The term was created by academics to describe the usage of computers to solve problems previously only solvable by humans or other intelligent creatures.
Correct, but that’s not what the modern usage is referring to. The academic term is referring to artificial general intelligence (AGI). The thing the capitalists are trying to sell using the term AI currently is just a predictive model.
If someone hangs a print of a famous painting on the wall, have they hung art on the wall?
No one is calling the printer an artist. Yes, the print is a piece of art. It’s a copy of something created with intent by the artist, not the printer. It doesn’t really matter that it’s a copy. That’s a very stupid argument if you’re going to “ship of Thesius” a print. It’s still a version of the original, just not the original itself.
If someone swinging a brush at random can create art…
How do you swing a brush randomly? Have you tried doing something random? You can’t really. Maybe they could build a machine that swings it randomly, though I’d say the act of building the machine is intentional, and artistic. The thing it creates is a piece of that process.
… I don’t see why using a pile of math, numbers and random noise to make an image can’t be art.
Because there’s no intention. A pile of math and numbers can be art. That’s all that anything digital is. They aren’t necessarily though. Without some intent behind those numbers being a particular set of numbers it isn’t art though.
AI image generation just happens to be a medium or tool that is nearly entirely the intent and creativity of the artist.
How so? I’m assuming “artist” here is referring to the prompt creator. Their intent is not taken into account by the AI tool. Only their prompt is. If you put the same prompt in then it’ll generate different results each time, even if the intent of the prompt creator is the same. That would imply their intent is not part of the creation process.
Point being: “art” isn’t some mystical human only thing.
I never implied such a thing. I think a sufficiently intelligent creature other than humans could create art. Again though, the product currently being called “AI” is not intelligent though. It can’t abstract ideas into concept that can be applied to unrelated subjects. That’s what would be required to make art.
Don’t gatekeep art based on the medium or method.
I’m not. I’m gatekeeping it on being creative. I don’t care that it’s digital.
AI art is art, it’s right there in the name. It’s often perfectly aesthetic to look at too.
The issue is that there’s nothing deeper behind it, and you know there’s nothing deeper behind it. The most blase painting done by a human has a thinking person behind it, and in some way the art is an expression of at least their intent to create it.
For the most part, the intent to create an aesthetic image isn’t particularly interesting. But if you convey an intent or something that’s more compelling, you have more compelling art.
Other art has been done by random process and, as you mentioned, it becomes much more about the context than the actual piece.
Buffalo wings, the name proves nothing.
If you go by the language, AI (artificial intelligence) is intelligent. No, it isn’t. The words don’t mean anything until proven. I would argue art requires intent and intelligence. “AI art” does not.
The term is created by capitalists selling a product. That doesn’t make it an accurate description.
AI is intelligent, it just lacks sapience, sentience and other things humans have.
The term was created by academics to describe the usage of computers to solve problems previously only solvable by humans or other intelligent creatures.
One of the things learned most quickly is that “intelligence” is a much lower bar to cross than you would expect.
A thermostat can measure how the temperature changes in response to it’s actions, and then apply that information later to alter how it heats and cools.
That’s intelligence. It’s very simple intelligence, unless it’s a particularly odd thermostat, but that doesn’t make it not intelligence.
If someone hangs a print of a famous painting on the wall, have they hung art on the wall? The print required zero creative skill or intelligence, and was a rote process done without human intention. It is still a creation chosen for it’s artistic value, in this case for being a representation of something that’s indisputably art.
Is an object representing art itself art? I say yes, if someone says it is.
Can poetry be art? What about poetry that describes a scene, or a point in time?
I’m not saying that an AI generated image is interesting or good art. If someone swinging a brush at random can create art, or playing a set of radios all at once can be art, then I don’t see why using a pile of math, numbers and random noise to make an image can’t be art.
Pollack and Cage can be interesting because of what they intended to say with their art, and how they chose to say it inside their medium.
I’m not going to say that the process of art becoming interesting because of the intent of the artist is only valid in certain media. AI image generation just happens to be a medium or tool that is nearly entirely the intent and creativity of the artist. The idea for an image, no matter how unique and ornate, isn’t that interesting if that’s all there is. That’s why the vast majority of AI art just isn’t interesting. Regardless of the results, a few sentences or a short paragraph describing a scene is unlikely to provide much interest. It’s dentist office art. A pretty picture you enjoy seeing and then forgot.
It’s totally possible for that sentence or paragraph to be compelling or interesting, but in that case, you don’t need the associated image.
Unless that combination is part of it, or something.
Point being: “art” isn’t some mystical human only thing. The threshold for both it and intelligence is very low.
Being an example of art or intelligence doesn’t make it interesting or clever.
Don’t gatekeep art based on the medium or method. AI art, due to being able to create aesthetic results easily, usually lacks the inspiration, creativity, or depth of equivalent not-ai art, so it’s not nearly as impressive.
Like how a photorealistic painting of a swimming pool is significantly more impressive than an actual photo of that swimming pool. It’s not that photography can’t be art, it’s that a perfect representation of a scene isn’t impressive or interesting in that medium or with that tool.
It is not. A key component of intelligence is being able to infer knowledge based on generalizations of previously obtained knowledge. Convolution neural networks are not capable of this. They need to be trained on the data to predict results. They can’t conceptualize abstract ideas and apply them to predict never-before-seen circumstances.
Correct, but that’s not what the modern usage is referring to. The academic term is referring to artificial general intelligence (AGI). The thing the capitalists are trying to sell using the term AI currently is just a predictive model.
No one is calling the printer an artist. Yes, the print is a piece of art. It’s a copy of something created with intent by the artist, not the printer. It doesn’t really matter that it’s a copy. That’s a very stupid argument if you’re going to “ship of Thesius” a print. It’s still a version of the original, just not the original itself.
How do you swing a brush randomly? Have you tried doing something random? You can’t really. Maybe they could build a machine that swings it randomly, though I’d say the act of building the machine is intentional, and artistic. The thing it creates is a piece of that process.
Because there’s no intention. A pile of math and numbers can be art. That’s all that anything digital is. They aren’t necessarily though. Without some intent behind those numbers being a particular set of numbers it isn’t art though.
How so? I’m assuming “artist” here is referring to the prompt creator. Their intent is not taken into account by the AI tool. Only their prompt is. If you put the same prompt in then it’ll generate different results each time, even if the intent of the prompt creator is the same. That would imply their intent is not part of the creation process.
I never implied such a thing. I think a sufficiently intelligent creature other than humans could create art. Again though, the product currently being called “AI” is not intelligent though. It can’t abstract ideas into concept that can be applied to unrelated subjects. That’s what would be required to make art.
I’m not. I’m gatekeeping it on being creative. I don’t care that it’s digital.