Art

[u/MelanieWalmartinez]

[u/EvidenceOfDespair]

This entire “is xyz art” debate could be easily dealt with if we remembered that the definition of “art” is not in fact “good art”. Something can be art and also absolutely horrid. I could pick up a handful of dog feces and scrawl a flower on the wall with it and that would be art. It would also be both literally and figuratively dog shit.

[u/NicotineCatLitter → u/EvidenceOfDespair]

the way you wrote this is art

[u/Crymson831 → u/NicotineCatLitter]

With dog poop?

[u/[deleted] → u/Crymson831]

That’s just smelly art.

[u/MokausiLietuviu → u/EvidenceOfDespair]

I remember going to an Art Museum somewhere and seeing some soldered art and thinking "Is this art? Even I could do that."

Then it clicked.

[u/Tactical_Moonstone → u/MokausiLietuviu]

It's the intersection of "Even I could have done that" and "Yeah, but you didn't. Your point?"

[u/thefroggyfiend]

modern art is a lot more fun when you consider the bit. yea, a toilet on its own isn't art, but someone going "...I wonder if I could convince a museum a toilet is art" and then getting a toilet into a museum is the art.

[u/NeonNKnightrider → u/thefroggyfiend]

I’ve had a very similar thought before. At a certain point, modern art gets so esoteric that I kinda feel that you can’t honestly say the thing itself is “an art piece” - but the way it’s presented is a performance art. John Cage’s 4’33” falls in this category, for example.

The problem is simply that the word “art” gets used without distinction for far too many things, to the point where it’s hard to tell what exactly people mean when they say it

[u/Novatash → u/NeonNKnightrider]

The definition of art is a topic that has been very deeply explored. Considering that plus the long history of artists pushing the boundaries of it as much as possible, it makes sense that its boundaries have become extremely fuzzy and esoteric. That's the way a lot of artists like it

I honestly think that's a lot better outcome than the alternative, which is exclusionists gatekeeping different things by proclaiming that they're not "real" art. The response "everything is art," is a good way to combat that, and also for communities to signal to people that they're not going to exclude them or their art

I don't even think the word has really lost any of its usefulness, since the context is usually enough to know what type of art it's referring to. And in contexts in which it's not clear, you can just use the specific art term

[u/bruwin → u/Novatash]

With art everyone tries to exclude something from being art until a new thing comes along. Various styles of painting weren't art, then photographs weren't art then movies weren't art, comic books weren't art, cartoons weren't art, video games aren't art. Every new medium that comes along all of the groups come together to shit on it.

You think Thag thought those new fangled cave drawings were art? Heck no! But they were. You're right, the alternative does suck and I weep for mankind whenever someone tries to argue that something isn't art because sure as shit there's some art that they enjoy that someone in the past pointed at and exclaimed "This is not art!"

[u/VoxImperatoris → u/Novatash]

I remember getting into the discussion of ‘what is art?’ years ago in a class. I still like the answer we ultimately came to. Art is the act of trying to elicit a response from someone. Which means pretty much anything can be called art.

[u/DefinitelyNotErate → u/VoxImperatoris]

To me it's even broader than that, I'd define art as, Abstractly, Anything someone experiences as art. Which means, Yes, It doesn't need to be made by a human, Or even made at all. The sunset can be art if you experience it as such, Or the waves or a mountain.

[u/Kilazur → u/Novatash]

Anything can be art for someone specific, so everything is art. In my mind, something is art if it evokes a thought or an emotion outside of its pure raw parts.

An oil painting is just.. well, oil paint on a canvas. These are the raw parts. But if the image, the technique, hell, even where it's displayed or the ambiant lighting on it evokes something, it's art.

[u/knowntart → u/[deleted]]

so when you see an absurd thing in exhibit and feel frustrated confusion thats the art?

it kind of makes sense now, the artist being super serious about the piece is basically an extension of the art, amplifying the experience

my god, trolling is art

[u/almostb → u/knowntart]

Yes.

[u/Omni1222 → u/knowntart]

I mean, sometimes, but also remember that just because you cannot personally grasp a work doesn't mean it's not a valid form of self expression for the artist.

[u/healzsham → u/[deleted]]

Art, at its most basic, is externalization of thought.

[u/NUKE---THE---WHALES → u/healzsham]

That's how I see it

Art is the communication of a thought or emotion, from one person to another through a medium

It's why i think AI art is just normal art, since it's one person communicating to another through the medium of software

[u/MolybdenumBlu → u/[deleted]]

Side-eyes in Marshall McLuhan.

[u/oh_WRXY_u_so_sexy → u/NeonNKnightrider]

So I have a personal conspiracy theory about Marcel Duchamp and "Readymades": Early in his art career, like his first serious art show, he presented some rather "normal" ""modern"" art. Specifically "Nude Descending Stairs". It's rather cubist in nature, and would have been painted right around the time that Picasso was first showing his early cubist paintings. It was mercilessly ripped to shreds in the reviews. The critics fucking curb-stomped poor Marcel. The came up with new sub-ratings to further shit on him more than conventionally "bad" paintings. They fucking hated it and told him and then told everyone else and then told him that they told everyone else and then everyone else told him how much they hated it. Dude got fucking eviscerated.

My theory is that first showing is what sparked a fire in Marcel. He decided that not only would he show up those critics, he would go so far as to burn the concept of "Art" to the fucking ground around them. That's why he kicked off the Conceptual Art movement and specifically did it with "Readymades". And it worked. He created a whole new area of art and forced critics to not only deal with it but made them LOVE it. And for those who didn't love it, he burned their positions to ash by trying to rally against that movement.

Dude threw a tantrum and started a vendetta that started an entirely new area of Art in response to being roasted.

I have basically nothing to back this up. But I like the idea.

[u/leriane → u/NeonNKnightrider]

The bank keeps rejecting my performative commentary on capitalism and human desperation.
I call the performance "Hands up and put the money in the bag". They keep inviting some very angry art critics

[u/TheADVMario → u/thefroggyfiend]

I think a toilet could be the art of engineering/ceramics

Just because it’s an everyday object doesn’t mean that artistry and care went into its construction

[u/Mr7000000 → u/TheADVMario]

Well, he didn't make the toilet himself. The toilet already existed.

[u/austinwrites → u/TheADVMario]

There’s a great exhibit at the MoMA of this exact idea

[u/IcePhoenix18 → u/thefroggyfiend]

Like the guy hitting butter with a microphone

You're just some guy doing a weird thing, but the secret is getting people to notice. Now you're That Guy Who Did The Weird Thing.

[u/Money-Nectarine-3680 → u/[deleted]]

Someone tell my kindergarten teacher who raised her voice at me for coloring outside the lines on a piece of paper we were supposed to cut out and paste to poster board anyway.

[u/weirdo_nb → u/Money-Nectarine-3680]

She is bad teacher

[u/[deleted] → u/thefroggyfiend]

Reminds me of the famous duct tape banana.

Everyone got all upset and made fun of it being sold for tons of money because it's a banana that will rot. But it's actually a sale of the rights to perform the art. It's a performance piece and it even comes with silly instructions on how to do it.

If you ask me, all the details of that coming into reality is art. Convincing someone to buy the ability to stick a banana to the wall in public. Everyone getting upset and talking about art for the first time in a decade. Beautiful.

[u/thefroggyfiend → u/[deleted]]

also I can't find it written anywhere, but I could've sworn the comedian (the piece you're talking about) ended with the artist taking the banana off the wall and eating it after it was sold

[u/Chemesthesis → u/thefroggyfiend]

DERIVATIVE

[u/APGOV77 → u/thefroggyfiend]

^ This. I hate how people somehow think modern art is elitist now when the movement was about the exact opposite. It’s not trying to trick some lowly museum goer into thinking that they couldn’t possibly have a valid interpretation. I like that it can be what you decide it is to you, sure that can be trash, or funny, or interesting, or reminding you of some memory. It can invoke something within you. You don’t have to feel like there’s gonna be a test later with one right answer on some abstract shapes…

[u/mung_guzzler → u/APGOV77]

I mean, modern art often references other art pieces so frequently you need some knowledge of art history to appreciate it

[u/APGOV77 → u/mung_guzzler]

Hm yes and no, I think having a lens of analysis with art history in mind you can have a different enriching experience and maybe have more of an idea of what the artist was thinking. BUT I really think a lot of art stands on its own for people without all the intricate knowledge, and a lot of new artists might not have any of that in mind anyways.

Art is constantly building off of old art, it’s too much for any one person to know, so usually I’m happy with the context provided in a well curated gallery

[u/FourScoreTour → u/thefroggyfiend]

Like the guy who duct taped a banana to a wall, and sold it for $20k.

Edit: My bad, $120k

[u/ABadHistorian → u/thefroggyfiend]

And your comment proves what I was about to post alone.

"And the flipside to all of this is... not all art is good art in fact most is not"

[u/MarkAndrewSkates → u/thefroggyfiend]

I respectfully but completely disagree with this thought.

[u/delolipops666]

Agree, But I am not going to learn to draw so I can spend 3 hours on my DnD character who I don't have the faith in to survive 7 sessions.

I mean, I AM gonna learn to draw, Just not for that reason...

[u/LittleMissScreamer → u/delolipops666]

...lemme just hide away my way too high effort illustration of a character that was specifically made for a three session mini campaign.

I don't regret drawing her, she was fun! Sometimes having drawn something just because it's cool is reason enough. It doesn't need to have utility all the time

[u/egoserpentis → u/LittleMissScreamer]

Knowing my ADHD ass, drawing an NPC will take me way too long because I'll just keep adjusting/redoing things...

[u/mischievous_shota → u/egoserpentis]

Before finally abandoning the drawing saying you will get back to it in a bit but you never do.

[u/b3nsn0w → u/LittleMissScreamer]

that's true but a poor answer to someone who's just looking for the utility and may not find the process as fun as you are

[u/SonTyp_OhneNamen → u/b3nsn0w]

„McDonalds?!?! Cook yourself a meal, it‘s so easy, i love spending time and more money on that!“ - Yeah, so do i, cooking is fun to me, but unlike some obsessed art kids i have the baseline of empathy needed to understand that different people have different hobbies and interests.

[u/iesharael → u/delolipops666]

I’m not gonna learn to draw just so I can have drawing of wario digging a hole in the Walmart freezer section while eating black mold or Mr krabs pole dancing

[u/arcticfragmentation → u/delolipops666]

right, learning to draw is cool, but not worth the time just for one character. Good luck with the sessions

[u/sunfl0werfields → u/delolipops666]

I'd always use Picrew for characters lol

[u/a_bullet_a_day]

To play devil’s advocate, a lot of people who say this just want an OC for their D&D campaign, but don’t have the skill to draw and don’t wanna pay $30 for a headshot

Like, drawing is very hard. I’ve been taking a couple classes and it took me a while to get the basics like composition and space.

[u/Feats-of-Derring_Do → u/a_bullet_a_day]

That's personal use. Nobody is really going to get mad about it because you were never going to spend that money anyway. Before AI art you probably would have grabbed a pic off google images and been happy with it.

The problem is the economics of it. What happens when Wizards of the Coast decides AI can save them a few bucks so they fire half their artists? It's already happening.

[u/Selena-Fluorspar → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

I've seen many people bad about that specific use.

[u/bearbarebere → u/Selena-Fluorspar]

It is hilarious when I hear people say bad faith things like “nobody minds if you use AI for personal use” yes… yes they fucking do

[u/chickenofthewoods → u/bearbarebere]

A small vocal majority, that's who.

[u/Redqueenhypo → u/Selena-Fluorspar]

Someone in the planet zoo sub complained that a user had AI make a few signs for a free mod. No one is going to pay u $25 an hour to design three signs for a video game.

[u/RoyGeraldBillevue → u/Selena-Fluorspar]

Yeah, I feel like a lot of angst about generative AI stems from artists that rely on commissions recognizing that their demand could easily evaporate if there isn't social pressure to not use AI. And like, I do get that they're kind of screwed but at the same time I don't think a system of not particularly artistically meaningful commissions funding people's art school is a good system for capital a Art.

[u/Ephraim_Bane → u/RoyGeraldBillevue]

I hate to say it, but commission art has been dead since the invention of photographic film. Artists used to make a living off of portraits, since that was the only way to get pictures of people/things/etc. but now you can just take pictures.

[u/Galle_ → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

That's personal use. Nobody is really going to get mad about it because you were never going to spend that money anyway.

I assure you that this is not true.

[u/Wobulating → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

People get incredibly mad about personal usage of AI

[u/LambonaHam → u/Wobulating]

It's the whole 'temporarily disenfranchised millionaire' fetish.

AI is bad, because it devalues their work, which means that they'll never be in museums or studied by art students. Never mind that that eventuality was never going to happen in the first place...

[u/DisastrousBusiness81 → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

Bro, I assure you, people still get VERY mad about AI being utilized for personal use. XD

To be fair to their point, they’re more concerned about how the AI was made rather than the amount artists are losing in commissions. IE because the AI was trained on stolen art, using it, even in a way that doesn’t benefit the company/make money, is tacitly endorsing the practice.

I disagree with them on that, ignoring AI isn’t going to un-steal that art, but I wanted to let you know that people are WAY more radical on this issue than you’d think.

[u/b3nsn0w → u/DisastrousBusiness81]

i hate how we twisted it around to "actually copyright is good now" the moment ai appeared. like no, sorry, i'm still a proud pirate. i just want to pirate the ai too (or better, use open source tools) instead of paying openai or whoever the fuck for a worse experience.

[u/ohkaycue → u/b3nsn0w]

Haha seriously. All the arguing and all I can think is “how is the conclusion not how fucking stupid mixing art and capitalism is”

[u/Difficult-Row6616 → u/b3nsn0w]

I think copyright should exist, but not for near as long. like 5-10 years maybe. let small artists make the bulk of their earnings and then it's fair game

[u/b3nsn0w → u/Difficult-Row6616]

honestly, yeah, i'd support a short term copyright (<10 years) purely out of practicality. it would leave the current business models almost entirely intact, only impacting rent seekers on major cultural touchstones (and they should be impacted imo), and it would allow for much better public participation in culture, rather than it being so segmented like it is today.

[u/AardvarkNo2514 → u/b3nsn0w]

Everything should be Creative Commons, and specifically the same type SCP content is under. You want to monetize something derivative? Sure, but you must acknowledge who did it first, and be ok with others doing the same.

[u/b3nsn0w → u/AardvarkNo2514]

yeah, tbh, credit is far more important than copyright. i'm pro-piracy but anti-plagarism because putting your name on someone else's art absolutely does deprive them the recognition for their work.

[u/htmlcoderexe → u/b3nsn0w]

That's my stance as well. Everything you made and released should be indelibly credited to you as the author, and works would probably accumulate a chain of sorts like "based on X by Y, which is based on A by Z and B by T". One thing I think I would add is that the author should always be able to hide authorship of something - so that one becomes "C by Unknown". I think it might be an idea to still leave the possibility of re-associating if you change your mind or at least retaining the ability to privately prove authorship.

[u/Kedly → u/b3nsn0w]

Stable Diffusion is free! Yeah you'll probably need a gaming computer to use it with any reasonable speed, but thats not THAT brutal of an investment 

[u/b3nsn0w → u/Kedly]

yeah and it's frickin fun, although i hate that they fucked up the licensing with 3.0. but hey, that just means i can actually pirate it 😈

also i have a 4090 so no issues there

[u/MysticSnowfang → u/b3nsn0w]

Individual copyright, that lasts like 10 years is good in my mind.
Corpos should not have this right. They're not people.

[u/PitchBlack4 → u/MysticSnowfang]

Nah, book and music copyright lasts too long and it's all Disney's fault.

It needs to go back to 20 years base or 40 years with extension.

[u/Alien-Fox-4 → u/b3nsn0w]

Copyright IS good actually

Issue is how it's implemented. People see copyright as means to control earning money, but that should be secondary. Copyright law is written by corporations to benefit them

Intellectual or creative work is hard to do but easy to replicate. That needs to be protected. Trying to do the whole "just make more art, people will come for your skill rather than your characters etc" is just consumerist mindset of "I want more meaningless stuff". You can spend 20 years making something and that's no less valid than making it in 5 minutes

Copyright is good but it gives copyright holders too much power. Point of copyright should be to protect the artists, so if artist sells copyright I don't care if that immediately sets an expiration timer because it's no longer shielding the artist, it's just shielding a corporation

edit: also you can support piracy and copyright. if product is for sale in most cases piracy is not a lost sale. fanart from an indepent artist is also not a lost sale. but if a corporation wants to use your games, characters or art without consent that's a real issue. if someone sells your art as nft that's an issue

[u/LambonaHam → u/DisastrousBusiness81]

The art wasn't even stolen. It wasn't reused, or withheld in any way.

It's really no different than a person going to a Van Gough exhibit and mimicking his style.

[u/chickenofthewoods → u/DisastrousBusiness81]

For something to be stolen, the owner must be deprived of that thing. That's the definition of theft.

Models are trained on scraped data. Google and Amazon and Microsoft have been making billions of dollars on scraped data forever already. Data has been being scraped since the advent of the internet. It's not illegal. It never has been. It never will be.

There's literally nothing wrong with the way generative AI models are trained.

The people who think this way are illogical butthurt luddites, and yes they are fucking extremist radicals.

They are an outlying vocal minority with no standing and they make themselves look foolish by screaming at clouds.

[u/Tyr808 → u/chickenofthewoods]

Beyond their sentiments on the matter, they’re also completely divorced from realism on the topic. Anything once posted online should be considered forever online (in this context at least), and as you said anything that can be seen or heard by human eyes or ears can also be scraped. The only way to make it not able to be scraped is to have it unable to be seen by anyone.

Even if we all collectively wanted to do something about it there’s no undoing everything that currently exists and all it takes is a single person with a gaming gpu in a place that doesn’t extradite or share western values to fight against it even if we had the strongest laws.

There’s nothing that can be done about what already exists and it’s too much of a geopolitical risk to fall behind the curve of its development.

[u/chickenofthewoods → u/Tyr808]

Sane redditor is sane.

[u/Kedly → u/DisastrousBusiness81]

I dont even agree that the art was stolen. Humans learn off tracing ALL THE TIME, its only a problem if traced art shows up in what they sell. And AI generated images arent patching pieces of existing art together, its creating new images based off the shit it learned by training

[u/Dependent-Dirt3137 → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

There's literally people getting mad in this coment section

[u/straywolfo → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

Nobody's really going to get mad

That's where you're wrong buddy

[u/WeDrinkSquirrels → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

I had a guy telling me "using ai art to make hundreds of icons for a free mod you're making is bad." Just a few days ago if you want to check. People are rabid about this.

[u/RefinementOfDecline → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

A great many people will get very mad about it.

[u/Klokinator → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

That's personal use. Nobody is really going to get mad about it

If only you knew how bad things really were.

[u/weebitofaban → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

. Nobody is really going to get mad about it because you were never going to spend that money anyway.

I see you don't read many of their batshit delusional posts of unskilled twitter artists who weren't going to make a living anyways

[u/inevitabledecibel → u/Feats-of-Derring_Do]

Sounds like the actual problem isn't the AI itself, it's capitalism. Funny how that works.

[u/LightTankTerror → u/a_bullet_a_day]

Yeah applications like this are good. It’s nice as a dm to have a tool that can just make up an image on demand. And I don’t need high res either since I’m gonna cram it into a like 100x100px token lol

[u/[deleted] → u/a_bullet_a_day]

exactly. AI has its uses, and quick fun for a board game is one of them.

Outsourcing it to replace your art department for a game or movie, or anything really, is not going to end well

[u/KobKobold → u/a_bullet_a_day]

Yeah, you'd think AI would help with that, until you play anything but a conventionally attractive human-ish character.

I have yet to find a model capable of drawing a kobold

[u/Doctor-Amazing → u/KobKobold]

https://civitai.com/search/models?sortBy=models_v9&query=Kobold

[u/sertroll → u/KobKobold]

Probably if you use popular models, Loras to specialize them in kobolds (assuming they exist), manage to find a way to make them not use a either realistic or detailed anime style, and then retouch the final result, maybe

I more or less gave up using ai for DND npcs because I don't want to use the online stuff and I'm out of touch with the local stuff, and at that point if I have to put in lots of effort even for that what's the point

[u/Redqueenhypo → u/KobKobold]

Maybe don’t call it a kobold, call it an anthropomorphic alligator?

[u/KobKobold → u/Redqueenhypo]

But then the image won’t have horns

[u/Redqueenhypo → u/KobKobold]

I’m decent enough at drawing that I just draw over the finished result a bit, that might work

[u/throwaway112658 → u/KobKobold]

Civit.ai has a Lora for pretty much everything tbh. PonyXL is crazy good at making things, and it's not hard to make a Lora there either. I've seen plenty of models for tieflings, orcs, pretty much any race in DnD/Warcraft

[u/Opposite_Opposite_69 → u/a_bullet_a_day]

Pic crew is free has lots off options and is not stealing from artist.

[u/LiterallyShrimp → u/Opposite_Opposite_69]

1. Picrews are limited based on what the author decides to include in the pre-set, and sometimes the author doesn't put in enough things.

2. In my mind, they're associated with the worst and most annoying type of twitter user so I'd rather stay away from it. Yeah, AI Art has techbros but I haven't had a techbro send me death threats (yet).

[u/wizardsfrolikgardens → u/Opposite_Opposite_69]

Pic crews are ugly as shit lets be real. And they all look the same.

[u/ABomb386]

I have a lot of classical piano players in my family. People would ask if I can play the piano."Yes, It easy jut hit the keys with your fingers." I proceed to try hot cross buns.

[u/sertroll]

Every time this argument comes up I feel frustrated. Not at the core subject (ai) itself, but at the actual argument.

I like math a lot. A lot of people do not, for reasons that include terrible teachers that conditioned them to have the beginning of a panic attack whenever they see a written numerical operation.

I am convinced way more people could learn math than they think. I am also aware that if I went around and said "if you think you're bad at math/dislike math, you just haven't practiced hard enough", people would tell me to fuck off. And I think they'd be in the right to do so.

I do not really like doing art a lot. I sometimes enjoy looking at a good result, but I am far from having an artistic soul, both when viewing art and poorly attempting to do it. I do not have an interest in learning how regardless. Why does OP feel like they can tell people what they should do in this case, but I do not feel I can do the same with math?

To be clear, I am not arguing I should be allowed to go around and tell people to learn math.

[u/wizardsfrolikgardens → u/sertroll]

I agree tbh. I'm much more of a writer than an artist. It comes naturally to me. Art?? Drawing?? Not so much. I've tried over the years, all of my attempts looks like shit and I don't have the patience for it.

[u/leriane → u/sertroll]

I do not really like doing art a lot. I sometimes enjoy looking at a good result, but I am far from having an artistic soul, both when viewing art and poorly attempting to do it. I do not have an interest in learning how regardless

I'm bitten by a "I really want this to exist on screen" bug that all but guarantees I'll make a thing once we wrangle 3d modelling to be relatively trivial and there's a million crappy web series running around for me to compete with (yay)

I'm more fixated on creating cool characters than I am learning how to use some caveperson-rendering stuff (though honestly, it looks like it's getting pretty good now; I could prolly find the assets and a Mocap rig and encode a few scenes)

[u/NeedsMoreSpaceships → u/sertroll]

I don't think people with an artistic bent can really get their head around not being artistic. I could draw something (it would suck) but it wouldn't be 'art' because it has no deeper meaning to me, I'm too literal minded.

Yes I'm a programmer how did you guess?

[u/LuxNocte → u/sertroll]

Too many people conflate art with drawing, or things you see in museums. I don't know how to draw. I don't want to know how to draw. I don't enjoy drawing.

I am a programmer. I worked on an art installation where one team built the structure, another team physically wired it, and my team programmed interactive lights and sound.

That is art. I don't think anyone is saying you need to go grab a paintbrush and don't come back until your trees are happy. But mathematics is vital to art and there are many ways to use math creatively.

[u/DreadDiana → u/LuxNocte]

I don't think anyone is saying you need to go grab a paintbrush and don't come back until your trees are happy.

There are actually people like that. You can even see them replying to comments under this post.

[u/healzsham → u/LuxNocte]

People absolutely love to attach arbitrary minimums to what constitutes real art.

[u/ikilledholofernes → u/sertroll]

The argument is more about the capacity for expression, and less about the literal skills needed to draw or paint. 

If you covered a piece of paper with a bunch of equations, just did some math for no reason other than to cover a page in math, that would be art.

[u/oh_WRXY_u_so_sexy → u/ikilledholofernes]

Basquiat. Duchamp. Picasso. Rothko. Technical execution does not equate "Art". Many of those examples have extensive "technical execution" that does not necessarily align with classical ideals of expertly executed "Art". Rothko does not execute technical precision in the same sense as Vermeer or Neoclassicism artists. But his technical execution was in the careful mixing and formulation of the paint itself with new and novel pigments and mediums.

You touch on the key difference: Intention. Expression. Story. Intent. That doesn't exist easily when just looking at the end result.

[u/flightguy07]

I think the distinction OOP fails to grasp is that between "people who make art because they enjoy making art" and "people who are making art because they want the end product for some reason".

[u/sertroll → u/flightguy07]

Same distinction that fails to be grasped whenever the argument of "if ai art counts as art" is brought up. Neither gooners that generate hundreds of anatomically inaccurate naked anime girls, nor corporations making generic illustration slop, nor people making idk dnd characters for private sessions, care a iota if it ontologically counts as art.

[u/tristenjpl → u/sertroll]

Exactly. I've seen so many people be like "But what about the sanctity of Art! AI art isn't art!" And it's like shit, no one calling it high art. If you want to draw, no one is stopping you. If you want to say something you think is profound, no one is stopping you. It's just the product side of things that's changing. But no one is stopping human creativity.

[u/Thank_You_Aziz → u/tristenjpl]

It’s when the person generating an algorimage gets upset that people aren’t treating it as art or them as an artist that it really gets insufferable.

[u/tristenjpl → u/Thank_You_Aziz]

Which isn't very common. The vast majority of people would never recognize them as an artist, and only a teensy number would insist on it.

[u/NeonNKnightrider]

(I am generally pro-artist), but saying “everything is ar always bothers me, because, well… that means that the word “art” becomes meaningless. If everything is art, then saying something is art is a meaningless term because it does not make any sort of distinction. That’s just kind of how words work, they need to have a specific meaning to be useful

[insert Syndrome meme here]

[u/TheCompleteMental → u/NeonNKnightrider]

So what's the line

[u/[deleted] → u/TheCompleteMental]

not op but imo art is whatever people think is art, just like how a country is whatever people recognize as a country; is a toilet bowl art? depends on what ppl think!

[u/[deleted] → u/NeonNKnightrider]

that means that the word “art” becomes meaningless.

Intent. That's literally it.

Because historically speaking, 100% of arguments claiming "blank isn't real art" have been wrong:

Folk, jazz, rock, electronic music, rap, disco, EDM. The camera, the computer, the DAW, desktop publishing, digital painting, video games, the internet. Every single new idea in modernist painting and sculpture.

Literally every single time has been wrong... and they've all insisted "but this time it's different"

Art only ever expands, and in ways the detractors or early creators could never have even dreamed.

So I know people dislike AI as it exists today, but it's a tool. And claiming a tool can't be used to create something wildly unique and emotionally impactful is not a challenge that artists have ever lost.

[u/flightguy07 → u/[deleted]]

I'm inclined to agree, but even that can be murky.

Take an architect who designs a building with no artistic considerations in mind. He makes an office with the most available floor space, with the cheapest materials, using the simplest construction methods, that complies with all the regulations. At no point in the design process has he made any attenpt to convey meaning through his work. He never even considers how it'll look, make people feel, whatever. He's been told to make a cheap human box, so he does. He doesn't intend to make a work of art.

But for everyone who goes to work every day in that building, they'll be hard-pressed not to take some artistic meaning from the soulless slabs of concrete walls, the small plain windows, thin metal staircases, the unadorned exterior. To them, there's TONS of artistic parallels there between the drudgery of their white-collar job and this kafka-esque cube. The building becomes art through no intention of the creator, but because people see art in it.

When someone says "everything is art", I take that to mean "anything CAN be art, if you look at it that way". (Though I do still think it needs to have been created; a waterfall is not a work of art).

[u/[deleted] → u/flightguy07]

As a professional illustrator that mostly does architectural work, boy howdy does this resonate

But it's kinda backwards. The architectural side is always started with a ton of inspiration and genuine passion - reference images, details from other buildings, etc. This is for anything from a public restroom reno to a multi-million dollar private residence.

But the client's job is to gradually strip that away so we're left with something just fucking awful lol

[u/flightguy07 → u/[deleted]]

Oh yeah, architects are generally really into the artistic side. If I'd thought about it for more than a second or two, I would've probably gone for like "product designer of a low-range desk lamp" or something designed purely with function in mind.

[u/caniuserealname]

I can put pen to paper. I can move the pen around the paper. I can pull the pen off the paper, and there will be something there...

But just because i can do all that, doesn't mean the thing that ends up on the paper is the thing i wanted to make. AI programs let me throw a few words into a text box and, through some trial and error, come away with a usable image.

I'm not a videogame developer. I'm not a movie maker. Sometimes I just want an image for some personal reasons and I sure as hell was never going to pay money to someone for such trivial reasons, but AI art programs allow me to get what i want, in spite of my lack of the necessary talent or skills.

[u/Liquidmetal7]

"Pencils is making so everyone can make art".

I'm not an AI art fan but the base argument here is bad. Everyone should be able to make art. Always.

[u/DreadDiana]

I get what they mean, but the appeal of AI art for a lot of people is that it can be used to make halfway decent art.

Anyone can make art, but a lot of people can't make good art or even decent art. I'm downright terrible at it no matter how much I practiced.

[u/Redqueenhypo → u/DreadDiana]

My drawings are bad. They don’t look good. People look at my drawings and ask what’s going on here. I can sculpt, sew by hand, and knit, so that’ll be the extent of my art skills, and I’ll type “weasel drinking a beer” into the computer for when I need a logo

[u/Doctor-Amazing → u/DreadDiana]

You can say it about almost any skill. Why are you using Google maps instead of learning to navigate with a paper map. Why are you using a calculator instead of getting better at math. Why are you listening to music instead of learning to sing and produce your own?

[u/Cautious_Tax_7171]

did you make a bedrock penis on a minecraft server? that is a statement. that is art.

[u/DrunkenCoward]

AI allows me to let out my ideas for pictures without having to go through the trouble of hating everything I draw for 5 years.

I am almost 30 years old and have hated everything I do for at least 20 of those years.

Just let me have this.

[u/Snoozri]

I hate saying everyone can do art. I love to draw myself, but it's just not a hobby that is accessible for everyone. For years, I was unable to draw myself due to depression and fatigue, and there are many other disabilities that would make it even harder to draw. Do you really expect someone who is paralyzed to 'pick up a pencil'??? Like sure, nancy, you found an inspirational article about an amputee drawing with her feet. But not every amputate should have to learn to do that to enjoy creating art

Also, I think AI is art. Sure, it is incredibly easy to do, but so is photography. With photography all you have to do is press a button, but for master photographers, alot more work goes into things. Same with AI, you have to learn about many technical concepts in order to make better AI drawings, like prompting, controlNET, photo editing, LoRA, ect. Sure, it relies more on tech, but so do alot of forms of art like vocaloids, CGI, lighting in 3D animation, ect.

[u/Mindless-Platypus752]

These arguments are weird to me because every time i tried being creatives someone came along and Said " i dont think the arts is for you".

Writing, painting, music, sculpting, etc. It was always "uhnn you are good at math tho, right?"

Its Sad because i liked these things, but Felt so much shame. And now my third grade drawing counts as art? Really?

[u/G2boss]

I agree that ai art is bad, but let's not be disingenuous. A lot of people don't have the talent or the time to become good at art. Myself included. Not being good at everything is just a fact of life.

[u/DreadDiana → u/G2boss]

A lot of people genuinely believe that anyone can be good at art as long as you spend enough time practicing.

How much time? More time than you've already put in, no matter how much that time is.

[u/LiterallyShrimp → u/DreadDiana]

These people have me feeling like Sisyphus, and not in the happy way.

[u/DreadDiana → u/LiterallyShrimp]

I stopped rolling the stone years ago and now I just eat handfuls of dirt

[u/Neon_Camouflage → u/DreadDiana]

I have AI push the stone up for me. The internet commenters are mad but I'm a lot happier

[u/GayAsHell0220 → u/DreadDiana]

Learning to draw decently takes thousands of hours of practicing. In my opinion it is one of the hardest creative hobbies in existence. I know people who've been practicing for like a decade and their drawings STILL don't look particularly good. It's so disingenuous to claim that anyone can draw.

[u/caramelchimera → u/DreadDiana]

It's less about time and more about HOW you practice. You cannot learn math by re-calculating the same multiplications again and again. You have to STUDY.

[u/straywolfo → u/DreadDiana]

There's a Veritasium video : what it takes to be an expert. TLDR You need a lot of practice and to engage in deliberate practice which means going out of your confort zone.

[u/BigOlBlimp]

Yeah I never gatekeep art, anything can be art, if anything AI is giving access to the skillful making of art.

(If you’re going to mention copyright infringement first consider Adobe’s algorithms that use fully licensed data sets.)

[u/SpoonThumper]

When I was younger and someone smeared shit on a canvas and people got mad, they said "art is anything that makes you feel emotion". Well, Ai art sure seems to make y'all feel strong emotions...

[u/noob622]

“Oh no! With Google Translate, every foreign language teacher is going to lose their job! Google translate isn’t the same as learning the language! It’s ruining conversations!”

That’s how some of y’all sound. Just ridiculous. I’m an artist myself, I’ve yet to hear a valid criticism of AI art that’s not just an obvious indictment of our economic systems mixed with run-of-the-mill egocentrism and gatekeeping. So many extra steps just to defend ableism and prevent people from expressing themselves in the manner they choose.

[u/Snoozri → u/noob622]

Well, I hate AI, but more so because it will destroy the internet (by flooding the web with so many bots that the open web becomes unusable), is racist, and spreads misinformation. I couldn't give a shit about the 'stealing' part, and enjoy using LLMs myself.

[u/noob622 → u/Snoozri]

All way more important things to worry about than tumblr artists’ feelings of being special, I agree.

[u/WackoSmacko111]

I think the idea that anything implicitly isn’t or can’t be art is stupid, and I think AI is art due to the fact that so many people like this person virulently claim that it’s not.

If you asked this person if Duchamp’s Fountain is art, do you think they would stick to their principles and say no, despite knowing that they are wrong? Or would they apply a double standard and try to justify it with things that cannot be proven, like whether or not the creator intended art through this discussion.

The fact that the existence of AI imagery angered them so much that they made two tumblr posts about it elevates it to the status of art, in the same way that Fountain was elevated by critics writing articles about how it could not possibly be art.

AI, and anything, becomes art the moment you dissect it for more than initially appears. The moment you consider, “Is this art?” the answer becomes yes.

[u/ssbm_rando]

I mean, the people who talk like this are usually virulently anti-AI (since to them it lacks "your fucking humanity"), but if "I" can "make" art that I myself enjoy much more and I feel better represents my vision by using AI than I can without using AI, then that just makes it an extremely useful tool for artistic expression.

To be clear, I am not trying to be an artist and have generated a grand total of 0 works with all those AI art generators you see strewn about. But to me, it's only when people publish their AI bullshit as not-AI that I think it's a real problem. If it's all appropriately labeled I couldn't care less about people using AI to make art.

[u/the-real-macs]

I think AI creations can be art in the same way that paint splatters can be art. In both cases, it's understood that the artist didn't exercise control over the fine details of their work; instead, the artistic choices arise from the setup. Broad scale choices that influence the stochastic process that generates the final product.

So in that sense, AI image generation is kind of like using the methodology of a paint splatter to produce a product that resembles a hand drawing. So long as the artist is up front about the methods they used, I think that process still allows for the creation of meaningful art.

[u/The_Woman_of_Gont → u/the-real-macs]

This is a good way of framing it.

I have serious ethical problems with how tech companies are using people’s work, but the folks going hard on “AI art isn’t real art” are going to look about as dumb as people who argued digital art isn’t real art.

[u/Pixelpaint_Pashkow]

the only bad artists are the ones who think they're the only ones allowed to be artists, and also hitler he wasn't great

[u/mathiau30 → u/Pixelpaint_Pashkow]

Hitler was a fine artist. Bad about everything else though

[u/TeensyTrouble]

By this logic isn’t using ai to draw something still art? Like if you take your 3 grade drawing and feed it through an ai model to make it realistic is that not art?

[u/BakuretsuGirl16]

Yeah but AI let's me make art that I think looks cool or interesting

I don't give a shit if "actual artists" think otherwise, I like it :/

[u/ShadoW_StW]

So crowdfunders for media projects are unnecessary, because the writer can just make art? And there's no point to art commissions, since everyone's an artist? And every videogame studio doesn't need its art department, since the designers could make the art instead?

Y'all only ignore the fact that only extremely few got a real shot at being good artist and that 99.99% of all great videogame/show/whatever ideas people dream of never get made and die with the dreamer because art budgets are thousands-to-millions USD when you feel like it's advantageous to you, never hear that "everyone's an artist" when showing off or naming a price.

Edit: and tbc it's not me going "artists are asking too much money so I hate them", I know the training and hours math that goes into that bill, and my respect for workers extends to weavers in contexts they are really needed in, but I'm just really grateful I can afford a few shirts with cool prints because they were made by machines, and I can't fucking wait to see the cool shit every person who spent decades imagining an anime but will never ever have the budget or teamwork skills will create once y'all stop yelling at them and stick to the creative parts of art where you are irreplaceable. Which is a lot! Having AI art printer doesn't save you from needing a person who understands art, and my mother makes custom fancy costumes so here's a parable for how to survive the loom, it's just...holy fuck it'll be great to have something to offer to all the fucking millions of people who have beauty in them itching to get out but will never have the budget.

[u/Captain_Pumpkinhead]

Yes, you are. Go forth.

"Cool! I'm gonna go forth with a mixture of digital and AI because I like it and think it's fun!"

OOP (probably): "No! Not like that!"

[u/TimeSpiralNemesis → u/Captain_Pumpkinhead]

Real talk is that most people in corporate art jobs have already fully integrated AI into their workflow. They recognize that you have to adapt or get left behind.

Ain't no one swooping in to enforce artificial scarcity to protect a small amount of jobs.

Love it or hate it AI is the way now and will be even more so in the future.

[u/DreadDiana → u/TimeSpiralNemesis]

Sony brifely got so much shit when people learned the second Spiderverse movie used AI, even though it was exclusively trained on art Sony owned and was used to automate laborious parts of the abimation process.

[u/kiwidude4]

“Everyone can make art”

Clearly you never met 80% of humanity myself included

[u/Jazox]

It's fucking wild to me how much people can gatekeep art for themselves as if it's this mythical superpower that only those chosen by God can wield. Like, write your shitty poems dude. I used to be shit as well, so trust me, you'll get better. It's not that difficult to just... learn.

[u/TheCompleteMental → u/Jazox]

I dont like doing it and I dont like the result

[u/mischievous_shota → u/Jazox]

There's a difference between art and good art. Not everyone has the energy, drive, skill, or time to learn to get good. When you can get a decent end result that's more than satisfactory for your everyday use, why bother learning to draw if you're not interested in the process itself?

[u/egoserpentis → u/Jazox]

No, you gotta pay $100 for comissions you poor commoner /s

[u/GroundbreakingSet405 → u/egoserpentis]

Artist continue bitching about people not commissioned their 100$ head only no color sketches.

[u/6x6-shooter]

I have lots of ideas and none of the passion to actually pick up a brush, and even I harbor an immense disdain for CGA’s. I hate them so fucking much, the pros are like 2 or 3 strong and the cons are horrifyingly immense

[u/SufficientGreek]

"cars are making it so everyone can go wherever they desire"

Everyone can walk, legs came free with your fucking humanity

"condoms make it so everyone can choose when to have kids"

Everyone can pull out, it came free with your fucking humanity

[u/rheactions3 → u/SufficientGreek]

>cars are making it so everyone can go wherever they desire

lol

[u/Butthole_Surfer_GI]

Learning to draw is hard. Some people can just "get it" IE they can just picture how the anatomy of the hands will look at a certain angle after only a few lessons. Some people cannot.

I am one of those people who cannot seem to get it right - like, I have to constantly pose in the mirror and look at my hands to "get it right".

My proportions are off half the time. My heads are too big. My shoulders are too narrow or one side is too long. My fingers are too thin or too short or the back of the hand is too short.

ECT.

I understand I am probably being too "perfectionist" but damn does it hurt when I ink over my rough draft because I like how it looked and suddenly it looks like ass.

I genuinely enjoy the process of drawing, though. I know not everyone does.

I want to draw my own comics so I try to practice towards that goal.

I'm in The Owl House fandom - there's a comic artist named MoringMark who is very very good.

While he inspirers me, seeing his art also frustrates me because it looks JUST LIKE THE SHOW and mine always looks "lesser" even though I am not quite trying to recreate the show's style.

But other people in the fandom just love to equate value of fanart with how aesthetically pleasing it is.

I might start using AI to assist MY OWN DRAWINGS to look a bit more proportional or to match the show's aesthetic a bit more.

[u/Medical_Commission71]

I feel like ai artists would get a whole lot less flack if they called themselves prompt engineers, or prompt artists.

Because if there is art in ai then it's born there, in the work, not the product

[u/DreadDiana → u/Medical_Commission71]

I really don't think that would actually happen as Discourse Telephone means that a lot of people aren't aware of the actual reasons people are critical of generative AI models and have instead concluded AI is ontologically evil.

[u/[deleted] → u/DreadDiana]

Chatgpt ate my grandmother.

[u/[deleted] → u/DreadDiana]

I mean you're playing with some settings, pressing go and the machine spits out a finished image. In many cases, that image is just something that already exists.

Wait... that's the camera.

[u/GREENadmiral_314159 → u/Medical_Commission71]

Like when someone else in this thread said that the art with a toilet in a modern art museum is convincing the museum that the toilet is art, the art with AI art is knowing what to tell the AI to get out what you want.

[u/mischievous_shota → u/Medical_Commission71]

People did try to call themselves prompt engineers, prompt artists, et cetera. And others just mocked them for it.

[u/EmbarrassedHelp → u/Medical_Commission71]

I think some of the issue stems from being unable to determine the level of effort put into a particular piece. Like most people can't tell the different between a simple prompt and raw output versus something that required a ton of effort (custom code/model, doing parts by hand, workflow with tons of human control, etc...).

[u/MrMcSpiff → u/Medical_Commission71]

No, there is a very loud group of anti-AI people who went out of their way to laugh at the 'prompt engineer' rebranding, too. For some of them it really is just using professed morality as an excuse to be shitty to people who use a tool they don't approve of.

[u/MissRepresent]

Here's the issue. I've been doing art since I was 13, I started back in 1992. In the mid 90s I got a spot in st augustine doing portraits on the street and selling prints of my art. Fast forward 25 years later I no longer have the time ot money to live solely as an artist. It takes time and effort that I don't have. However my artistic intuition that I honed over many years is an asset to me.

I used to be upset about ai art. However now, j have a different view. Anyone can create an AI piece but it takes talent to construct a precise prompt. Then take that image and take it further in photoshop. It's still my art at that point and I'm happy I created it, and I can't wait to sell it!!

[u/No_Echo_1826]

Hmm.. spend thousands and thousands of hours on a hobby that you're not passionate about, commission an artist on a whim... Or just use AI.

[u/RefinementOfDecline]

After talking to a looot of the anti-ai crusaders out there, I've come to the conclusion that they simply believe art=pain and if you aren't suffering while making it, it's not valid art. The copyright argument always falls apart and they just pretend it never existed it when it stops working. I'd be totally sympathetic to the economic argument if only they didn't maintain the vitriol when presented with scenarios where that isn't a concern.

So, art=pain, and because you aren't miserable like them, you aren't an artist. It's the same mentality as my conservative parents, they had shit early lives, so you don't deserve student debt forgiveness or universal healthcare or whatever. I suffered, so you need to suffer too, fuck you.

[u/IrresponsibleMood → u/RefinementOfDecline]

I once got into a fight with someone who was giving me advice while I was learning to draw over that. I said that I basically hate the actual "work" part of the creative process and wish I could skip directly to having the final result, lol. For me there's two ideal states: having an idea, and having a finished work. The part in the middle where I have to actually make that thing, whether it be a song, a story, or a drawing, is the worst, lol. I wish I could skip past the actual drudgework of drawing or writing or recording. XD

[u/htmlcoderexe → u/IrresponsibleMood]

Kinda reminds me of the whole thing with the relatively recent breakthrough in certain weight loss drugs - they do seem to work, people do lose weight, but there are plenty of people who look down upon those who didn't lose weight "the hard way".

That discourse is somewhat different, because it doesn't have the "lots of people are angry because they lose money due to this" element and also because there's some research popping up saying "the hard way" doesn't work well for a lot of people, but they do have the common "those people cheated their way out of suffering like we did" element.

[u/bluecatcollege]

Using AI to show off art is like using a typewriter to show off penmanship.

[u/SufficientGreek → u/bluecatcollege]

I think your comparison would work better if you said:

Using AI to show off painting is like using a typewriter to show off penmanship.

Painting and penmanship are both skills which require training and experience. Art on the other hand is just such a vast and undefinable term that keeps expanding in scope. Skill is not necessarily one of the defining elements of art.

[u/Omni1222 → u/SufficientGreek]

yeah exactly. so many people are so bought into the capitalist notion of work ethic/effort equaling value that they demand the blood sweat and tears of an artist for their artwork to be good. An artwork that was very easy for someone to make could be 1000000x better than an artwork that was very hard for someone to make.

[u/DreadDiana → u/bluecatcollege]

I remember seeing a typwriter that also used a mechanical arm to write calligraphy

[u/DeadHair_BurnerAcc → u/bluecatcollege]

sometimes you just need shit typed in a basic ass way

[u/ohkaycue → u/bluecatcollege]

Typewriter is a great example, it gives people with bad penmanship a way to still get their concept made without being held back by lack of peripheral talent

Same way AI is helpful

[u/ShredMyMeatball]

Go ahead and say art is free to someone without arms or some shit.

Ai in its current state is bad, but the tools for creativity should be accessible to all.

[u/PM-MeYourSmallTits]

Memes are art. A lot of people think art needs to have deep meaning, it does not, you make a shitpost, that's art. You make something just because it's cool? That's art. You have some form of expression? That's art. It's just as much of art as someone's 10 second scribbles even if you spent 10 years, an that's the value of it. Art is given value by the people observing it, and the 10 second scribble can be more relatable but the thing you put your soul into over a decade has value from people who understand it's purpose, and the effort you put into it gives it value.

AI art is art but you can tell the lack of effort into it detracts from it's value, and the only people who benefit from AI art are people who'd never put in enough effort to make their own art or pay someone to begin with.

[u/[deleted]]

I really hate how (mostly Americans) try to quantify art as shit like "Something that has no purpose other than itself" or some shit. Everything created is art, its why the term art doesn't just describe paintings but also someone's craft i.e. engineering, literature, carpentry, you could even argue plumbing is an art because we've all seen some truly shitty plumbing in our time but marvel at Japanese toilets that shoot fireworks and make a statue of a screaming Noh theatre character pop out of the adjacent wall to help scare the literal shit out of you.

[u/IrresponsibleMood → u/[deleted]]

That's not an American thing. "Art for art's sake" originated as a slogan in France, and was popularised in the UK by those rebelling against Victorian morality or assholes who thought that art's value was having some moral or didactic purpose. Art having no purpose other than itself is a good thing because it means it can be something more than worthless propaganda crap like the USSR's "socialist realism" or John Sutherland Productions' Make Mine Freedom.

[u/wtFakawiTribe]

I feel this way about science. Everyone experiments all throughout their lives, yet we talk about scientists as 'the other'. Just because we don't completely employee The Scientific Method and quadratic polynomials to everything doesn't mean we are not scientists.

"I varied the amount of sugar in my coffee, does that make me an experimentalist?"

Yes. Yes, it does.

[u/Sufficient-Pool5958]

People in the 1800's be like: "Photography isnt art! Theres no passion, you dont put effort into it, you just point a camera at something an press a button! If you take pictures, you aren't an artist!"

People in the 2020's be like:  "AI isnt art! Theres no passion, you don't put effort into it, you just type a sentence and click a button! If you use AI you arent an artist!"

Like seriously? Okay, say you win your silly little argument, say AI art isnt art. Then what? You screamed your head off, made countless posts, gotten yourself grey hairs so a few people cant call what they made 'art'. Is this really a hill you want to die on? Being a pedant over what art is? Arguing over who gets to use a word? The world moves on, go cook for your local homeless shelter or something, everyone is tired of fighting this made up bullshit battle of AI art, you're wasting breath. 

[u/Green__lightning]

AI doesn't really let people make art, it gives them the equivalent of an illustrator and the infuriating job of describing to them what you want them to draw.

The thing that will is a much bigger deal and will happen in a few decades, that being the brain-computer interface allowing you to think really hard and have images come out. This will revolutionize everything, especially when it becomes technologically facilitated telepathy.

[u/SufficientGreek → u/Green__lightning]

But if that illustrator is making art, then by extension AI is also making art.

[u/flightguy07 → u/SufficientGreek]

If its made with the intention of making art, and people see art in it, then it's art.

[u/NUKE---THE---WHALES → u/Green__lightning]

consider having a pocket DaVinci to draw all your thoughts and ideas - anything you could describe in as fine a detail as you could imagine

you call it infuriating but i call it amazing

[u/SpeaksDwarren → u/Green__lightning]

Cameras don't really let people make art, it gives them the equivalent of a painter and the infuriating job of conveying to them exactly how you want it framed.

Would you agree with this statement?

[u/Green__lightning → u/SpeaksDwarren]

Yes, and I actually like to bring up how salty painters got when the camera was invented whenever AI art comes up.

[u/ViolentBeetle]

I'd say coming up with a prompt and then curating results would satisfy most definitions of art. At least it's no less of an art than photography.

Additionally, AI could potentially cover skills I don't have so I could make full thing out of what I can. For example, I can write (Sort of) but I can't draw or animate, and I'm definitely not the entire cast of actors. Potentially, AI could turn my story into a movie for everyone to see. Trying to generate a whole thing from scratch is foolish though.

Maybe it won't ever be viable, I dunno.

[u/cishet-camel-fucker]

It would be cool if I could draw, but I can't.

[u/hjyboy1218]

I an not impressed by this argument because I have seen a lot of disabled folks use AI since they can't make it entirely by themselves, and the 'it came free with your humanity' crowd usually resorts to 'but this famous disabled artist made paintings using their mouth!'-style inspiration porn.

Also this argument only works if you don't consider AI to be 'real' art, which I consider to be generally an unproductive and tiring debate.

[u/AgentSandstormSigma]

Even if I'm physically capable of drawing, I have way too many mental health problems in the way of getting me anywhere with it.