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.
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.