While I think it's extremely overhyped, looking at some "AI" art communities it's clear that at least some put a lot of effort on it, going over many many iterations and tweaking the program and the results.

And anyway art is "made" by the observer, not the artist, even the results of natural processes can be art.

(AI in quotes because these tools don't deserve the name, at best High Coherence Media Transformers)

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

We sure do not have the same definition of art!

Art does not, in my opinion, need an observer to be art.

If you think the sky is beautiful then that does not make it art, or everything would be art so nothing would be art.

[–] blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like to think that anything that CAN be art, if it can be meaningful for someone.

A pebble might be ignored by most people, but a geologist might be fascinated by it, I think that becomes art.

Even in something worked-on at the very least the artist is the observer, and they will put into it the meaning they perceive in it, and if they never share with anyone it's still art.

My opinion.

[–] Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 points 3 months ago

Every opinion is valid when it comes to art!

Personally I just think the creative process is a part of it so I don't see randomness being art.

That doesn't mean it's not beautiful! Beauty can be found everywhere and definitely is in the eye of the observer... IMO!

load more comments (3 replies)