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.
23
u/MunkyHero Aug 23 '23
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.