IMO using AI is more like directing in a film. You're not the one creating the art, and the level of control you have is restricted to providing guidance and retrying.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So would you say film direction is not an art form?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd say it's a grey area, like AI prompting
You're not the one implementing the final result, you're just providing guidance to other(s) who produce the final piece of art.

If there is artistry in that, it seems like it'd apply equally to directing as it does to prompt engineering.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can recognize the style of good film directors. I think it is certainly an art.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't necessarily disagree.
The style of a director is the common set of guidance that they provide to the artists who do the work of making the film (eg the actors, the grips, the editors, the lighting, the markup, etc).
Likewise someone who uses AI to make art can have common things they seek in all the AI images they generate. Common things they include in their prompts to push the images to appear in a particular way.

They're not the same but there is enough commonality that criticism of one mostly applies to the other.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Therefore, AI art is art. Whether it is ethical is another story.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AI art can be art, anything can be art. But I would say I don't consider most AI images to be art.

But the ethics of AI is a far more important discussion.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago

I agree. "Can be" might be a better way to put it.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, the process is very non-artistic. There are too many layers that remove the creator from the process of creating. It's more of a science than an art, and unsurprisingly an artistic spirit is usually lacking from it.

The results are better when in the hands of artists, but many artists don't enjoy using the tools because they are so removed from an artistic work flow and are such a black box most of the time. It's not artistically fulfilling to press a button and see what comes out.

Just my 2 cents as an artist who has experimented with the tools quite a bit and still doesn't love them.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like this take.

How far can the artist be removed from the art, and still be considered the artist?
And is it even important to ask "is this art" if art is inherently subjective? It's probably more important to ask "who is this helping?"

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a pretty wide definition of art, so I hesitate to say it can't be art flippantly. I do think that for something to be art it must contain the voice of the artist, though, and for many AI generations I don't think you can see that voice, even if a lot of work went into creating it. Maybe that will change as the tools become more sophisticated and easier to get what you want out of them.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

I agree but I don't think that has to do with AI necessarily. There are people who create images without soul, no matter the medium and tools used.
I think that people who make soulless art are just drawn to AI generators because it allows them to make something aesthetically passable without hours and years of tedious practice (which they otherwise wouldn't be willing to do since they obviously have no care for the art).