I think AI art is comparable to photography. Photographers do a lot of work behind the scenes to get everything set up, the equipment, lighting, angles, lenses, etc, But at the end of the day, the only action they're taking to capture the art is they press a button, it's not nearly the same amount of work that a painter or a musician puts into their art. So I think the idea of "capturing" art is still a valid thing. Sometimes a photographer can capture an award-winning masterpiece with a spur-of-the-moment photo on some shitty disposable camera. Maybe it took them 1000 bad photos to get that one photo, but they still just captured it from somewhere else, they didn't create the work.

Similarly with AI, a person may have to work with the AI software to setup and craft the prompt that will eventually generate the art, then there may be dozens of iterations of that and fine-tuning to get the result they're imagining, and even after that there may be some photoshopping involved to get it to where they want it. They're capturing artwork from a source that may not be their own creation, just the same as photographers. I think AI art is just as legitimate as other forms of art, it's just open to a wider range of people that can participate because many of the physical hurdles (equipment, space, time, lighting, etc) are not as much of an issue.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

But at the end of the day, the only action they're taking to capture the art is they press a button.

Wut? Are you serious? You're just going to boil down an entire artform to that? That's an unbelievably reductive opinion.

Anyone can take a photo, sure but making art via photography is incredibly complex. I'm not a photographer at all and even I can understand that. It's the photographer's tastes and years of learning and practice that ultimately creates an impactful photo. You must think playing drums is just hitting tubes with plastic lids with sticks then, right?

I struggle to believe that you have put any thought into this opinion of yours.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Anyone can take a photo, sure but making art via photography is incredibly complex.

I think that's exactly the point. Anyone can use AI, but that doesn't make then all artists. But there is a place for AI in art, like many other tools. Same as for other tools, jusy knowing how to use them doesn't make you an artist. Just look at all the bad Photoshop stuff everywhere. Does that mean that using Photoshop makes you a talentless hack? Or just that a lot of hacks use it to pretend they're artists? Same for AI.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Wut? Are you serious? You’re just going to boil down an entire artform to that? That’s an unbelievably reductive opinion.

This statement can also accurately describe those who say ai art isn't art.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wut? Are you serious? You're just going to boil down an entire artform to that? That's an unbelievably reductive opinion.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? People might spend a lot of time learning the different AI tools, how to supplement them with post processing and manual edits, how to combine them and how to nudge them in the direction they want, and then spend countless evenings trying to get the result they want. And people are going to say "they just AI generated it, they are not artists", just like people might say photographers are not artists, they just take a photo.

But we know it's far from "just" taking a photo or "just" generating it with AI. Sure, you can "just" do both, but the result will be far from real art without all the preparation and extra work.

But it's easy to take a random shitty AI image to laught at, just like it's easy to take a random shitty photo.

load more comments (18 replies)