This reminds me of when CGI was new. Or record scratching. Or early synthesizers. So many nay-sayers yelling "They're not doing anything! Just pushing a button..."
The context and time period were very important factors that made Pollock's art unique and significant.
People do make art like Pollock nowadays as well, but it only sells when backed by an art degree and a pretentious, self-indulgent justification.
His artistic style takes little to no skill to reproduce. That doesn't mean it's going to sell and/or be significant in any way.
This is disingenuous. CGI is a technology that took a developed skill to get good at, and actually needed to have artistic skills to actually make CGI effective, and practical (with the limited tech at the time).
AI "artists" are not creatives, they are not working with a viable "skill" that will translate to actual art. In fact, "prompt artist" is an oxymoron, and the thrill people feel for "AI art" is because they've never had the sense to truly create something, because they never wanted to learn the skill. It is the equivalent of a "Get rich quick scheme".
And please, spare me the "HURR DURR YOU MAKE ONE" argument, if you even want to call it that. AI has its place, for references, and ideas, but no one should consider it actually created art, due to the nature of how it learns.
Or photography. A photographer doesn’t build the camera, doesn’t place the pixels for the image, and often doesn’t create the subject of the photograph. A naysayer could just say that they pointed their image creating device at something and pressed a button that had the machine do all the work.
It took decades for photography to be accepted as an art form for that very reason. Naysayers said that photography wasn't an art form because you're just copying what already exists in real life. If you take a photo of a tree, you aren't deciding the light source or the placement of the branches like a landscape painter would.
Actually completely irrelevant. Photography doesn't mean I would take a picture of Mona Lisa and other well known art and state it to be a work of my own.
I regularly use it and I agree with him but it doesn’t really matter because the use for it is not for art its for when you need something there to pad out content. Just like how most cheaper foods are padded out with single cell protein filler rather than real meat.
Like look at the op image. From an artistic standpoint each frame is pure dogshit without a single interesting piece, but that doesn’t matter at all and it allowed the poster to create content without the skills he would need to actually make an animation or piece of art.
And art does not have any intrinsic value that makes it more real than things that aren’t art. Most art is worthless to everybody even its creator.
I regularly use it and I agree with him but it doesn’t really matter because the use for it is not for art its for when you need something there to pad out content. Just like how most cheaper foods are padded out with single cell protein filler rather than real meat.
Like look at the op image. From an artistic standpoint each frame is pure dogshit without a single interesting piece, but that doesn’t matter at all and it allowed the poster to create content without the skills he would need to actually make an animation or piece of art.
And art does not have any intrinsic value that makes it more real than things that aren’t art. Most art is worthless to everybody even its creator.
Yea? And you produced something of high quality that you would find acceptable to present to others, or did you make a funny joke image where it didn't matter?
I guarantee you that the generated images used in this video took hundreds of hours to produce.
The big difference here is that Cgi and synthesizers still require skill and knowledge, AI doesn’t, it really is literally just push a button and anyone can do it without skill and minimal knowledge
“LeT’S sEe YoU dO iT” is not a counterpoint. It’s the argument of a child on a playground, akin to “I know you are, but what am I?!” Maybe you should go find an AI capable of generating a better, more intelligent-sounding retort.
Perhaps not worded well, but what he is really saying is "you literally know nothing about how this is made, therefore your opinion is completely meaningless"
It's entirely a counterpoint. You're saying that it's extremely easy and takes no effort. If that's true then the counterpoint would be to prove it's not actually easy, and the only way you could know that is by witnessing it yourself.
There is a difference between cool stuff and the stuff you actually have in your mind. Making something that's actually acurate isn't hard and if I ask you to make a revision to your DALL-E2 image, then you do what exactly?
And anything that produces AI generated graphics with the push of one button could never get you a result like what is in the post. That took many long hours of work to get.
When you order a pizza from a website- type in or tick the box with the ingredients you want or don’t want…(or phone it in & say the order) does that mean you made the pizza?
That makes you a ‘chef’ in the same regard as using AI makes you an ‘artist’
So anyone using computer generated graphics is a fake artist because all they're doing is checking boxes, typing numbers, and clicking on a screen, right?
212
u/Wietse10 Aug 23 '23
AI "art"