I concur with the sad detective, but disagree on one point. The prompt can be art in itself. After all, it’s literature, and literature is art. But the output of a machine that you feed that literature into isn’t art. It’s a commission, a request for someone else to draw a picture. But because no one is actually drawing a picture, the picture produced is not art. At best, it’s a preview of what it might look like of someone did draw the thing.
Like a photograph? A machine actually produced the image, the human just indicated what they would like the image to be of.
I feel like there’s a lot less need to apply caveats and exceptions if we accept that a machine can create art, but that what makes art interesting is what the person using the machine puts into the process.
If I take a picture of a bird with my phone while walking past, it’s less impressive than in I carefully find the right shot and angle, and meticulously take a photo. Same for an oil painting.
Some methods of creating an image require less work than others. What matters isn’t the difficulty, but what you actually put into it.
Direct correlations, like I told mindbleach. A camera is a tool that does exactly what the photographer makes it do. An image generator takes the place of a commissioned artist. You describe what you want to see, and the machine generates it. Prompters aren’t artists, they’re commissioners. And since machines aren’t artists either, the output of a such a machine isn’t art.
Why do you draw a distinction between the “direct correlation” of a camera and how an image generator works? Image generators are just as deterministic as a camera is. If you give it the same inputs, it returns the same output. A lot of tools implicitly put a random input with the user supplied input, but if you keep that the same, there’s no difference.
Do you know how they generally work? Technically, not from what an interface presents you with since that’s variable.
Beyond that, I don’t think that determinism or simple relationships between action and output are what constitutes an art tool either. Otherwise any artistic tool that intentionally plays with randomness wouldn’t be art, and neither would a complicated tool or medium.
That is one of the more baffling tells for the sneer-club absolutists. How can a person spend hours tweaking a block of text and not imbue it with meaning?
But consider: I don’t play any instruments. I have written music. If you’re hearing it, did I make that?
The text can have meaning, but the image generated when you feed that text into a machine does not. You have no control over what the machine does with your inputs—there is no direct correlation between the words you type and the resulting image. If you’re commissioning an artist to make a work for you, then no matter how much care you put into describing the picture you want to see, you aren’t the one drawing it.
But consider: I don’t play any instruments. I have written music. If you’re hearing it, did I make that?
If there’s a direct correlation between the music you write and the output of a machine interpreting it, then yes.
Your control over what the machine does is that input. It put your ideas into a JPEG, and that JPEG put those ideas into my brain. What do you mean, that cannot have meaning?
If there’s a direct correlation between the music you write and the output of a machine interpreting it, then yes.
But it’s not music. Right? The part you’re listening to, the playback or the recording, is just a machine doing things. What you’re hearing is not music. It’s something else, somehow. What is it? Fuck if I know, but y’all are convinced there’s some other thing that a song can be.
Re: images. You have no control over what the machine does. You give it a prompt, it generates an image, you decide it’s good enough and save the picture, or it’s not good enough and tweak the prompt. You don’t control the machine. It doesn’t put your ideas into a jpeg, it generates a jpeg that’s consistent with the description you gave. If that picture is also consistent with your ideas, cool. You can’t give the machine an idea to put into the JPEG in the first place, because the machine cannot have ideas.
Re: music. The part I’m listening to, the playback or the recording, is a machine doing things that have a direct correlation with your input. You do control the machine, because it only does precisely what you tell it to do. You decide where every individual note goes, how every individual note sounds. There is, again, direct correlation between your input and the output.
I concur with the sad detective, but disagree on one point. The prompt can be art in itself. After all, it’s literature, and literature is art. But the output of a machine that you feed that literature into isn’t art. It’s a commission, a request for someone else to draw a picture. But because no one is actually drawing a picture, the picture produced is not art. At best, it’s a preview of what it might look like of someone did draw the thing.
Like a photograph? A machine actually produced the image, the human just indicated what they would like the image to be of.
I feel like there’s a lot less need to apply caveats and exceptions if we accept that a machine can create art, but that what makes art interesting is what the person using the machine puts into the process.
If I take a picture of a bird with my phone while walking past, it’s less impressive than in I carefully find the right shot and angle, and meticulously take a photo. Same for an oil painting.
Some methods of creating an image require less work than others. What matters isn’t the difficulty, but what you actually put into it.
I’d go further and say appreciation is enough. If bliss.jpg was taken accidentally, it would mean the same thing to all the people who saw it.
This idea that beauty requires deliberate authorship is giving creationism.
Direct correlations, like I told mindbleach. A camera is a tool that does exactly what the photographer makes it do. An image generator takes the place of a commissioned artist. You describe what you want to see, and the machine generates it. Prompters aren’t artists, they’re commissioners. And since machines aren’t artists either, the output of a such a machine isn’t art.
Why do you draw a distinction between the “direct correlation” of a camera and how an image generator works? Image generators are just as deterministic as a camera is. If you give it the same inputs, it returns the same output. A lot of tools implicitly put a random input with the user supplied input, but if you keep that the same, there’s no difference.
Do you know how they generally work? Technically, not from what an interface presents you with since that’s variable.
Beyond that, I don’t think that determinism or simple relationships between action and output are what constitutes an art tool either. Otherwise any artistic tool that intentionally plays with randomness wouldn’t be art, and neither would a complicated tool or medium.
That is one of the more baffling tells for the sneer-club absolutists. How can a person spend hours tweaking a block of text and not imbue it with meaning?
But consider: I don’t play any instruments. I have written music. If you’re hearing it, did I make that?
The text can have meaning, but the image generated when you feed that text into a machine does not. You have no control over what the machine does with your inputs—there is no direct correlation between the words you type and the resulting image. If you’re commissioning an artist to make a work for you, then no matter how much care you put into describing the picture you want to see, you aren’t the one drawing it.
If there’s a direct correlation between the music you write and the output of a machine interpreting it, then yes.
How can an image not mean anything?
Your control over what the machine does is that input. It put your ideas into a JPEG, and that JPEG put those ideas into my brain. What do you mean, that cannot have meaning?
But it’s not music. Right? The part you’re listening to, the playback or the recording, is just a machine doing things. What you’re hearing is not music. It’s something else, somehow. What is it? Fuck if I know, but y’all are convinced there’s some other thing that a song can be.
Re: images. You have no control over what the machine does. You give it a prompt, it generates an image, you decide it’s good enough and save the picture, or it’s not good enough and tweak the prompt. You don’t control the machine. It doesn’t put your ideas into a jpeg, it generates a jpeg that’s consistent with the description you gave. If that picture is also consistent with your ideas, cool. You can’t give the machine an idea to put into the JPEG in the first place, because the machine cannot have ideas.
Re: music. The part I’m listening to, the playback or the recording, is a machine doing things that have a direct correlation with your input. You do control the machine, because it only does precisely what you tell it to do. You decide where every individual note goes, how every individual note sounds. There is, again, direct correlation between your input and the output.
Tweaking the prompt is control. The tool is weird and limited, but that is how you use it.
If you can describe your ideas, then an image consistent with that description… contains your ideas.
Damn, you’re right, so anything conveyed by the image must come from a human being. Wild.
Re: music, all the music I’ve written is procedural.