If “you didn’t draw that” means something’s not art, what about all the other art people didn’t draw?
Yeah, that’s what’s disingenuous here. You took the individual words in my comment absolutely literally when it obviously isn’t meant to be absolutely literal. I’ve already said that literature and music are art, so obviously I meant something else.
So here’s a fun argument. What’s different about AI?
Yeah yeah yeah, you didn’t draw that
Is it possible that what I meant was that the difference is that the person claiming to be an artist after sculpting a fountain is an artist because they sculpted a fountain, but a person claiming to be an artist because they made a machine draw a picture isn’t an artist because the machine drew the picture? I mean, that’s a valid interpretation of my statement, and it’s consistent with literally everything else I’ve said in this thread. Maybe try rereading it with that interpretation.
And then study and memorize the Wikipedia article on the cooperative principle before you ever write a comment on the internet again
What a high-minded defense of two pull quotes and ‘get a load of this guy.’ You’re winding yourself up over “my statement,” when your statement was a dismissive scoff.
And speaking to everything else you’ve said - CGI is not the part an artist did.
You’ve drawn razor-sharp distinction between a prompt and an image, between score and music, between art and… pictures. Modeling and rigging and posing and framing are not what an audience looks at. They only see the render. A computer did that part. An artist did all that underlying work… but the picture is something else.
Yet obviously we’d both say CGI is art. That specific image only exists because of the effort put in by people. They used tools that make some things easy and other things trivial. We would not say real art requires creating perspective manually, and letting the machine do it is cheating. The technical details barely matter when someone puts feelings in your brain.
Except here, this new thing is different, so they faked it and it doesn’t count.
Yeah, that’s what’s disingenuous here. You took the individual words in my comment absolutely literally when it obviously isn’t meant to be absolutely literal. I’ve already said that literature and music are art, so obviously I meant something else.
Is it possible that what I meant was that the difference is that the person claiming to be an artist after sculpting a fountain is an artist because they sculpted a fountain, but a person claiming to be an artist because they made a machine draw a picture isn’t an artist because the machine drew the picture? I mean, that’s a valid interpretation of my statement, and it’s consistent with literally everything else I’ve said in this thread. Maybe try rereading it with that interpretation.
And then study and memorize the Wikipedia article on the cooperative principle before you ever write a comment on the internet again
What a high-minded defense of two pull quotes and ‘get a load of this guy.’ You’re winding yourself up over “my statement,” when your statement was a dismissive scoff.
And speaking to everything else you’ve said - CGI is not the part an artist did.
You’ve drawn razor-sharp distinction between a prompt and an image, between score and music, between art and… pictures. Modeling and rigging and posing and framing are not what an audience looks at. They only see the render. A computer did that part. An artist did all that underlying work… but the picture is something else.
Yet obviously we’d both say CGI is art. That specific image only exists because of the effort put in by people. They used tools that make some things easy and other things trivial. We would not say real art requires creating perspective manually, and letting the machine do it is cheating. The technical details barely matter when someone puts feelings in your brain.
Except here, this new thing is different, so they faked it and it doesn’t count.