the output remains not art because it’s produced by a machine incapable of imparting meaning on the images it generates
What is “meaning”, and how would I measure it to determine if an image was created with or without it? Can a human create art without meaning, or is the addition of meaning intrinsic to human actions?
Can a photograph count as art? What’s the difference between a photograph, created by a simple machine which bends light onto a chemical strip, and AI images, which feed letters into a complex equation and tweak colors in a grid to minimize an error equation?
They’re both deterministic processes whereby a human selected input is transformed via a human configured machine into an output.
The difference to me is the degree of effort the human involved puts in. One involves selecting all the parameters and doing composition, where the other is a linguistic composition. The aesthetics or artistry put into the language input is lost because it’s not represented in the output: a low effort throw away prompt can look similar to a very deliberately crafted one. The crafting just provides specificity of output. A skillful and artistic use of words has better and more pleasing modes of expression. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, just means that it usually doesn’t.
Given that we’re literally in a post about a piece of art that was used to say “fuck your gatekeeping of what constitutes art”, the relish with which people are willing to say “nope, that can’t be art because it’s not traditional” is… Astounding. Right up there with saying “that can’t be art, it doesn’t look like anything”.
It doesn’t have to be measurable. Art is a form of communication, and communication must have meaning behind it. You can’t communicate no idea. Even if you tried, you would be communicating an idea. So no, a human cannot create art without meaning.
Of course a photograph counts as art. A camera is a tool that does exactly what the photographer makes it do. There is direct correlation between the actions of the photographer and the image the camera produces. Positioning, focus, field of view, timing, I’m sure there’s a million other things a photographer could list that act as inputs.
Contrast that with an AI, where you simply describe the picture that you want to see, and it generates a picture based on what you said. You can spend hours, days, weeks perfecting The Prompt so that it creates exactly the image you want to see, and you will never be the one who made the picture, because the machine is the one that made the picture. See paragraph one for why that picture can’t be art.
I never said AI generated pictures aren’t art because they’re not traditional, I said they’re not art because machines can’t think or feel.
How do you mean it doesn’t have to be measurable? You’re actively talking about it’s absence or presence, so how do you know it’s there if you can’t measure it?
I’m also a bit baffled by the assertion that you can’t communicate “no idea”, along with the assertion that an AI generated image doesn’t have meaning.
If it has no meaning, doesn’t that mean it’s communicating “no idea”?
How do you know something has meaning or not if it can’t be measured?
Personally, I think you can only know if a person tells you that they think it has meaning, and that that’s independent of how they made the thing, but I’m curious what you think.
I really don’t see the difference in your camera argument.
Contrast that with a camera, where you simply point it at what you want to see, and it takes a picture. You can spend hours, days, weeks perfecting The Parameters so that it takes exactly the picture you want to see, and you will never be the one who made the picture, because the machine is the one that made the picture. See paragraph one for why that picture can’t be art.
You don’t explain why a machine you control making an image is art in one case and not in the other. I’ve seen where you argue direct correlation, but the prompt is directly correlated to the output, allowing the individual to tweak and change the output. They don’t have total control over the output, but neither does an oil painter, someone blowing glass, or Pollock swinging a brush to create paint splatter. A medium, tool or technique can have limitations.
And what if I’m not telling it what I want? What if I give it a long string of numbers that I’m tweaking until the output matches my wish? That feels a lot less like “describing a commission”, even though it’s the same process.
Personally, I think it’s obvious that AI art is art in the same way that a photograph or using Photoshop can be art. It’s a tool just like any other. It’s just currently more likely to be boring because it invites shallow art, and for what it needs as the artists input it’s more direct to just use that as the art. If you can jam your vision into a prompt, you can almost certainly convey it better with the words themselves, so you’d skip the tool and just write.
What is “meaning”, and how would I measure it to determine if an image was created with or without it? Can a human create art without meaning, or is the addition of meaning intrinsic to human actions?
Can a photograph count as art? What’s the difference between a photograph, created by a simple machine which bends light onto a chemical strip, and AI images, which feed letters into a complex equation and tweak colors in a grid to minimize an error equation?
They’re both deterministic processes whereby a human selected input is transformed via a human configured machine into an output.
The difference to me is the degree of effort the human involved puts in. One involves selecting all the parameters and doing composition, where the other is a linguistic composition. The aesthetics or artistry put into the language input is lost because it’s not represented in the output: a low effort throw away prompt can look similar to a very deliberately crafted one. The crafting just provides specificity of output. A skillful and artistic use of words has better and more pleasing modes of expression. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, just means that it usually doesn’t.
Given that we’re literally in a post about a piece of art that was used to say “fuck your gatekeeping of what constitutes art”, the relish with which people are willing to say “nope, that can’t be art because it’s not traditional” is… Astounding. Right up there with saying “that can’t be art, it doesn’t look like anything”.
It doesn’t have to be measurable. Art is a form of communication, and communication must have meaning behind it. You can’t communicate no idea. Even if you tried, you would be communicating an idea. So no, a human cannot create art without meaning.
Of course a photograph counts as art. A camera is a tool that does exactly what the photographer makes it do. There is direct correlation between the actions of the photographer and the image the camera produces. Positioning, focus, field of view, timing, I’m sure there’s a million other things a photographer could list that act as inputs.
Contrast that with an AI, where you simply describe the picture that you want to see, and it generates a picture based on what you said. You can spend hours, days, weeks perfecting The Prompt so that it creates exactly the image you want to see, and you will never be the one who made the picture, because the machine is the one that made the picture. See paragraph one for why that picture can’t be art.
I never said AI generated pictures aren’t art because they’re not traditional, I said they’re not art because machines can’t think or feel.
How do you mean it doesn’t have to be measurable? You’re actively talking about it’s absence or presence, so how do you know it’s there if you can’t measure it?
I’m also a bit baffled by the assertion that you can’t communicate “no idea”, along with the assertion that an AI generated image doesn’t have meaning.
If it has no meaning, doesn’t that mean it’s communicating “no idea”?
How do you know something has meaning or not if it can’t be measured?
Personally, I think you can only know if a person tells you that they think it has meaning, and that that’s independent of how they made the thing, but I’m curious what you think.
I really don’t see the difference in your camera argument.
You don’t explain why a machine you control making an image is art in one case and not in the other. I’ve seen where you argue direct correlation, but the prompt is directly correlated to the output, allowing the individual to tweak and change the output. They don’t have total control over the output, but neither does an oil painter, someone blowing glass, or Pollock swinging a brush to create paint splatter. A medium, tool or technique can have limitations.
And what if I’m not telling it what I want? What if I give it a long string of numbers that I’m tweaking until the output matches my wish? That feels a lot less like “describing a commission”, even though it’s the same process.
Personally, I think it’s obvious that AI art is art in the same way that a photograph or using Photoshop can be art. It’s a tool just like any other. It’s just currently more likely to be boring because it invites shallow art, and for what it needs as the artists input it’s more direct to just use that as the art. If you can jam your vision into a prompt, you can almost certainly convey it better with the words themselves, so you’d skip the tool and just write.