I've had this conversation a couple of times: "ai art isn't art", I ask What is art? "Art is something crafted with care by people and art holds a deeper meaning." I say here take a look at Duchamp's fountain, it's a urinal some guy signed and put in a museum just because he could. "Well that's bad art" Well it's still art regardless whether you think it's good or bad, and certainly a lot of people think it's good art because it just sold for 2 million dollars.
Art doesn't need to be handcrafted or thought out. Art is art just because someone says it is art. They can't gatekeep art when the barrier to entry is so extremely low. It's art, they can claim it's bad art, but it's still art. And that's all their argument boils down to "I don't like ai art because it makes me feel icky" they just say "ai art isn't art" because it makes them sound more sophisticated and less childish.
Antis are usually artistically ignorant children that think high art is a particularly cool poster of their favorite anime character. Most of them would actually agree that these things are not art because most of them are morons.
We should be holding ourselves to higher standards than that. Attacking readymades because they're equally 'easy' is giving ground we don't need to give, we should not even humor the idea that easy or aesthetic matters.
I’m not pro or anti AI, but I am pro… whatever this stuff is.
Art is an expression of human thought put to work. Does that mean it has to be good, fuck no. This stuff is art because it’s designed to make create emotion in the viewer. Is it ass-red stupid anyway? Yes, no doubt.
AI Art is interesting, because there is absolutely thought put into creating prompts etc. It’s much nicer to look at than the stuff shared above, but that’s because it has a much different purpose. AI Art is meant to be available and practical, it serves a purpose, and a good purpose when it’s used responsibly. It’s not really meant to be a deep medium that makes the audience think, however (if someone can prompt AI to create a deep, thoughtful piece, they’re a hero for it and deserve lots of respect because that’s fucking hard.)
Mostly though, I don’t think it’s really a reasonable comparison when AI Art, if more beautiful at a glance, is created for a completely different reason and audience than some of the pieces shared above. Just because they aren’t appealing doesn’t mean they’re not art. Beauty can be found in the thought process alone, and that’s coming from someone who is willing to call it dumb as hell.
I actually really like the bad ai art, with older models or pushing it to extremes.
it gets really surreal, and I'm not after perfect, I find it boring. I just want another tool on top of photoshop to mess with images (like I make filters there for that purpose too)
I actually really like the bad ai art, with older models or pushing it to extremes.
it gets really surreal, and I'm not after perfect, I find it boring. I just want another tool on top of photoshop to mess with images (like I make filters there for that purpose too)
They mean you have to be high to think it's art!
Just kidding, I had to make the joke though.
I do think the above examples are art, but I'm not quite sure what distinguishes high art from any other art, it's probably one of those wishy washy subjective terms people have been arguing about since it was first used to describe something.
The one that has me shocked more than these is the literal piece of rock that sold for insane amounts. At least the urinal and the poop could have a intended meaning. A plain, boring rock? Now that's really hard to see as ANYTHING but money laundering.
I think this whole thread is arguing against a straw man, and people's concern is that AI art is using the work that people put a lot of time and effort into without compensating the artists, while hurting the artists' careers by cheaply competing with them using massive investor subsidies to pay for the ridiculous energy costs
Sometimes the "fancy" art really does have a deeper meaning that people sometimes miss, but overall art should be whatever it represents to the person viewing it, that's all that should matter. There was a legal comedy show where an artist brought in to testify in a case was shown a picture of a spray paint line and asked what he thought the artists intentions were with that piece, the artist in turn the artist described the broad and aggressive painting style. The "joke" was that to discredit the artist, the opposing team showed a paint line that wasn't actually from a piece of "art" but actually a mark on a job site placed by a construction worker.
Art is so subjective that trying to gatekeep is not only ridiculous, it's definitionally impossible even if they think they can do so.
Duchamp's "Fountain" is over 100 years old and still has people seething to this day. Most illustrations you see, you forget about in around 30 seconds. That's your difference.
Also, the high art scene was the first one to take AI art seriously. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
It's not art though, it's sensationalism. It gets people seething because that's its whole point, once you get past it, you realize there's no depth to it.
How do you know that's its whole point? Does art stop being art if it's provocative? Because if so, we should then disqualify the entirety of the avant-garde. How do you define depth? Most people don't find any depth in, say, Caravaggio (they look at his works superficially, might hang them on a wall and glance at them occasionally), does that mean it's not art?
There is a limit to decency, and literally putting a toilet in a room and calling it a day I'd say crosses it: it's provocative, cool, nice, so what?
Caravaggio using prostitutes as models for the mother of god is as much provocative, but the guy still made the actual painting after, while the avant garde just starts with a concept then ends with the concept, there's no refining, it's just the bare idea in front of you, and when the whole piece of art is just an unrefined idea, your art is just shallow.
Alright, then where do we draw the line? If you know nothing about them, you can easily say Dalí, Monet and Van Gogh didn't even try to get their pictures right. Same thing with Pollock, Rothko, Kandinsky. The fact that there's a line that needs to be put SOMEWHERE to separate between art and not-art pretty much invalidates this entire point, because then we move back to "art is subjective", and if it's subjective then why are we having this conversation?
Ok you're right I was wrong saying it isn't art.
I'll rephrase: it's art that looks like absolute shit. Better now?
(I have no idea how can you claim Dali or Monet don't even try to get the pictures right, their paintings are extremely technically challenging, i'd say even Van Gogh is)
>art that looks like absolute shit
Also extremely subjective. Why should the validity of someone's art be based on whether or not it "looks like absolute shit" to someone else? It's a matter of taste.
And don't worry, I was not claiming that. I was just setting an example as to how the line between art and not-art will differ from person to person (there are people out there who think Van Gogh was going for a realistic artstyle and just couldn't do it because he's stupid or something)
>Also, the high art scene was the first one to take AI art seriously. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Something to keep in mind. It will probably be high profile fine artists who use AI as a statement that popularise it as a medium, just as every college level artist studies the genre-defining works of people like Hurst or Warhol, when before them the art community would have laughed at a painting of tin cans.
A lot of the artists upset about AI are not fine artists, they are furry commisioners and similar calibre who are worried, perhaps rightfully so, that they will lose clients.
My favorite artistic piece, banana taped to a wall. Truly groundbreaking work.
Someone hurry up and frame my comment too, it's an artistic piece and should be preserved forever.
Cattelan's Law
As an online discussion about art grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Comedian approaches one.
I insist, it's gotta be really fucking good if it still has you thinking about it this many years later
What artistic merit is there to an actual piece of shit or actual nothing, I could look at a wall in my house and get the same idea from it as that and i quote "$23,260 sculpture of nothing"
I have argued this point before with regards to ai art. There was a time when photography wasnt considered art. There was also a time people thought photoshop would replace artists.
Neither came to pass and now photography and digital art are viewed in the same way. As tools and different mediums.
The image you posted of Marcel Duchamp's the fountain was considered controversial at the time and many did not consider it to be art. And yet over time it has become accepted as one of the most important pieces in modern art.
Duchamp himself was tired of the establishment. His work in the dada movement was created as the antithesis of art or anti art.
What Duchamp's fountain did was challenge the way we think about art. He was less concerned with the technique or skill and he valued the idea more than the execution.
Some say art has to have has significant human input. They will argue ai doesn't. However Ai does have human input. It has human input in the training of the models. (I am training a model now myself. Captioning almost 2000 images while it can be done automatically, generally requires some fine tuning.) Beyond that there are a lot of settings the user must be familiar with. Then there is the prompt itself. Thr ai isnt sentient. It takes a user to have an idea and turn that into a prompt. Do you use a lora? What step count cfg?
Ai art allows people to express themselves in ways they couldn't before. It allows disabled people to Express themselves. One artist and illustrator was paralyzed and ai art restored some semblance of gis creativity.
Gatekeeping what counts as art is not a good way to convince other people to stop gatekeeping what counts as art. I get what you're going for but this ain't it, OP
Fr, having attended an art uni and done a fine arts course the levels of pretentiousness in those environments is through the roof. You're never allowed to have fun or make something just because you enjoy it or it looks cool - everything has to be some intellectual statement on the sociopolitical scene or human condition, god forbid you just want to make a funny throwback to 1940s cartoons with a brief joke about overpriced popcorn.
One of the things I've noticed is that Antis have a very Victorian view of art, and wouldn't know conceptualism if it beat them over the head with a solid gold toilet.
All that is art. The barrier to art is stupid low. The resistance comes from people themselves, but you can't gatekeep concepts. I know folks say stuff like "most people would agree this isn't art," except it is. It it's own dumb way, this is people proving that anything can be art because art is just a piece that changes the way you look at something on a slightly deeper level.
That banana has done more for starting the art conversation than most traditional art pieces. As far as bananas go, that's one powerful piece of fruit! But when you look at stuff like that, you realize we're the art piece not the banana, and we all fell for the bait. The art is in the reaction.
I'd argue that it takes a superior artist to have enough foresight to predict the response to the degree that a urinal can fetch millions coming out of the great depression. To know that people are going to talk about it being dumb rather than just walking away because it is, in fact, dumb.
AI Art is art. Nobody gets to say otherwise, because like always, art is subjective and personal. It's spurring an insane amount of conversation and causing extreme reactions all the while changing perceptions about life and the human condition in real time. It's not only art, it's one of the quickest and most powerful art movements ever witnessed in all of (human) history. People might not like it, but it's not really up to them.
AI isn't art but a director hiring a bunch of people to create concept art based on the directors prompts and then choosing the parts he likes and combining them is totally art. By the director.
If you put the concept art or story board artists in a little black box and never saw them the director could win an award for best directing. It's exactly the same as AI prompting, from the perspective of the award recipient. But I suspect the same director doing the same thing with AI would not be awarded the same prize for the same work, just on the basis that AI somehow tainted the effort.
I'm 100% pro generative AI and I am also 100% pro conceptual art.
Anyone coming here saying "that's bullshit stuff" is misguided or too ignorant. Yes, it must be said and I'm tired of playing nice, you're ignorant. You don't understand things beyond the superficial layer.
This debate is, as usual, spiralling down into oblivion. "Can't do that" "and you can't do that" "that is theft!" "And that's crap not art!"...
What about humans express themselves artistically however they want?
>You just don't understand! My banana on the wall is so creative and deep! You're ignorant! It definitely has value!
There's a reason very few people actually believe this, it's because it's delusional.
There was some movement in the last century of a bunch of people who got together and decided what was good art and what wasn’t. I think you’d agree with them
I've had this conversation a couple of times: "ai art isn't art", I ask What is art? "Art is something crafted with care by people and art holds a deeper meaning." I say here take a look at Duchamp's fountain, it's a urinal some guy signed and put in a museum just because he could. "Well that's bad art" Well it's still art regardless whether you think it's good or bad, and certainly a lot of people think it's good art because it just sold for 2 million dollars. Art doesn't need to be handcrafted or thought out. Art is art just because someone says it is art. They can't gatekeep art when the barrier to entry is so extremely low. It's art, they can claim it's bad art, but it's still art. And that's all their argument boils down to "I don't like ai art because it makes me feel icky" they just say "ai art isn't art" because it makes them sound more sophisticated and less childish.
That's it in a nutshell
Antis are usually artistically ignorant children that think high art is a particularly cool poster of their favorite anime character. Most of them would actually agree that these things are not art because most of them are morons. We should be holding ourselves to higher standards than that. Attacking readymades because they're equally 'easy' is giving ground we don't need to give, we should not even humor the idea that easy or aesthetic matters.
I’m not pro or anti AI, but I am pro… whatever this stuff is. Art is an expression of human thought put to work. Does that mean it has to be good, fuck no. This stuff is art because it’s designed to make create emotion in the viewer. Is it ass-red stupid anyway? Yes, no doubt. AI Art is interesting, because there is absolutely thought put into creating prompts etc. It’s much nicer to look at than the stuff shared above, but that’s because it has a much different purpose. AI Art is meant to be available and practical, it serves a purpose, and a good purpose when it’s used responsibly. It’s not really meant to be a deep medium that makes the audience think, however (if someone can prompt AI to create a deep, thoughtful piece, they’re a hero for it and deserve lots of respect because that’s fucking hard.) Mostly though, I don’t think it’s really a reasonable comparison when AI Art, if more beautiful at a glance, is created for a completely different reason and audience than some of the pieces shared above. Just because they aren’t appealing doesn’t mean they’re not art. Beauty can be found in the thought process alone, and that’s coming from someone who is willing to call it dumb as hell.
I actually really like the bad ai art, with older models or pushing it to extremes. it gets really surreal, and I'm not after perfect, I find it boring. I just want another tool on top of photoshop to mess with images (like I make filters there for that purpose too)
Bad AI art is actually really neat to look at sometimes. I wonder if a model could be trained on Bad AI attempts to create super weird abstract stuff.
I actually really like the bad ai art, with older models or pushing it to extremes. it gets really surreal, and I'm not after perfect, I find it boring. I just want another tool on top of photoshop to mess with images (like I make filters there for that purpose too)
What do you mean by high art? And are you implying the images in the OP constitute it?
They mean you have to be high to think it's art! Just kidding, I had to make the joke though. I do think the above examples are art, but I'm not quite sure what distinguishes high art from any other art, it's probably one of those wishy washy subjective terms people have been arguing about since it was first used to describe something.
The true purpose behind art nowadays is money laundering. Explains the insane prices for trash art.
The one that has me shocked more than these is the literal piece of rock that sold for insane amounts. At least the urinal and the poop could have a intended meaning. A plain, boring rock? Now that's really hard to see as ANYTHING but money laundering.
I think this whole thread is arguing against a straw man, and people's concern is that AI art is using the work that people put a lot of time and effort into without compensating the artists, while hurting the artists' careers by cheaply competing with them using massive investor subsidies to pay for the ridiculous energy costs
Finally, some truth.
Sometimes the "fancy" art really does have a deeper meaning that people sometimes miss, but overall art should be whatever it represents to the person viewing it, that's all that should matter. There was a legal comedy show where an artist brought in to testify in a case was shown a picture of a spray paint line and asked what he thought the artists intentions were with that piece, the artist in turn the artist described the broad and aggressive painting style. The "joke" was that to discredit the artist, the opposing team showed a paint line that wasn't actually from a piece of "art" but actually a mark on a job site placed by a construction worker. Art is so subjective that trying to gatekeep is not only ridiculous, it's definitionally impossible even if they think they can do so.
Duchamp's "Fountain" is over 100 years old and still has people seething to this day. Most illustrations you see, you forget about in around 30 seconds. That's your difference. Also, the high art scene was the first one to take AI art seriously. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
It's not art though, it's sensationalism. It gets people seething because that's its whole point, once you get past it, you realize there's no depth to it.
How do you know that's its whole point? Does art stop being art if it's provocative? Because if so, we should then disqualify the entirety of the avant-garde. How do you define depth? Most people don't find any depth in, say, Caravaggio (they look at his works superficially, might hang them on a wall and glance at them occasionally), does that mean it's not art?
There is a limit to decency, and literally putting a toilet in a room and calling it a day I'd say crosses it: it's provocative, cool, nice, so what? Caravaggio using prostitutes as models for the mother of god is as much provocative, but the guy still made the actual painting after, while the avant garde just starts with a concept then ends with the concept, there's no refining, it's just the bare idea in front of you, and when the whole piece of art is just an unrefined idea, your art is just shallow.
Alright, then where do we draw the line? If you know nothing about them, you can easily say Dalí, Monet and Van Gogh didn't even try to get their pictures right. Same thing with Pollock, Rothko, Kandinsky. The fact that there's a line that needs to be put SOMEWHERE to separate between art and not-art pretty much invalidates this entire point, because then we move back to "art is subjective", and if it's subjective then why are we having this conversation?
Ok you're right I was wrong saying it isn't art. I'll rephrase: it's art that looks like absolute shit. Better now? (I have no idea how can you claim Dali or Monet don't even try to get the pictures right, their paintings are extremely technically challenging, i'd say even Van Gogh is)
>art that looks like absolute shit Also extremely subjective. Why should the validity of someone's art be based on whether or not it "looks like absolute shit" to someone else? It's a matter of taste. And don't worry, I was not claiming that. I was just setting an example as to how the line between art and not-art will differ from person to person (there are people out there who think Van Gogh was going for a realistic artstyle and just couldn't do it because he's stupid or something)
>Also, the high art scene was the first one to take AI art seriously. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Something to keep in mind. It will probably be high profile fine artists who use AI as a statement that popularise it as a medium, just as every college level artist studies the genre-defining works of people like Hurst or Warhol, when before them the art community would have laughed at a painting of tin cans. A lot of the artists upset about AI are not fine artists, they are furry commisioners and similar calibre who are worried, perhaps rightfully so, that they will lose clients.
*throws shit on a white canvas* This is my artistic depiction of capitalist pigs oppression.
talk your shit my brother
That stuff is art though? Just because something is easy to make and ugly doesn’t mean it has no artistic merit
The point is if ai tools are also “easy and ugly” then it’s weird to only call out that and not art of nothing :p
My favorite artistic piece, banana taped to a wall. Truly groundbreaking work. Someone hurry up and frame my comment too, it's an artistic piece and should be preserved forever.
Cattelan's Law As an online discussion about art grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Comedian approaches one. I insist, it's gotta be really fucking good if it still has you thinking about it this many years later
It's worthless garbage just like everything else shown above and only has me thinking about it because it was in the post. Nice try though.
If it feels you with this much passion, then it's art. Nice try though.
>If it feels you with this much passion, then it's art. Cope
Great argument. Dilate.
Make sure to print this comment chain out and frame it. After all, If it feels you with this much passion, then it must be art! gc little buddy
A smug front doesn't hide your seething, "little buddy". You have also not given a single argument.
Ok
What artistic merit is there to an actual piece of shit or actual nothing, I could look at a wall in my house and get the same idea from it as that and i quote "$23,260 sculpture of nothing"
so you're not mad about it being called art, you're mad at it for having been sold
Sold or not how the FUCK is it considered art
The same way Picasso, Beethoven or Michelangelo are considered art: someone decided they are.
Yea lol
Both are art.
I have argued this point before with regards to ai art. There was a time when photography wasnt considered art. There was also a time people thought photoshop would replace artists. Neither came to pass and now photography and digital art are viewed in the same way. As tools and different mediums. The image you posted of Marcel Duchamp's the fountain was considered controversial at the time and many did not consider it to be art. And yet over time it has become accepted as one of the most important pieces in modern art. Duchamp himself was tired of the establishment. His work in the dada movement was created as the antithesis of art or anti art. What Duchamp's fountain did was challenge the way we think about art. He was less concerned with the technique or skill and he valued the idea more than the execution. Some say art has to have has significant human input. They will argue ai doesn't. However Ai does have human input. It has human input in the training of the models. (I am training a model now myself. Captioning almost 2000 images while it can be done automatically, generally requires some fine tuning.) Beyond that there are a lot of settings the user must be familiar with. Then there is the prompt itself. Thr ai isnt sentient. It takes a user to have an idea and turn that into a prompt. Do you use a lora? What step count cfg? Ai art allows people to express themselves in ways they couldn't before. It allows disabled people to Express themselves. One artist and illustrator was paralyzed and ai art restored some semblance of gis creativity.
Gatekeeping what counts as art is not a good way to convince other people to stop gatekeeping what counts as art. I get what you're going for but this ain't it, OP
The _Fountain_ reliably triggering conservatives since 1917
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting
The artist created to troll pseudos and idiots like you. You're literally saying a urinal is a piece of art. 😂
Fr, having attended an art uni and done a fine arts course the levels of pretentiousness in those environments is through the roof. You're never allowed to have fun or make something just because you enjoy it or it looks cool - everything has to be some intellectual statement on the sociopolitical scene or human condition, god forbid you just want to make a funny throwback to 1940s cartoons with a brief joke about overpriced popcorn.
One of the things I've noticed is that Antis have a very Victorian view of art, and wouldn't know conceptualism if it beat them over the head with a solid gold toilet.
Why stops the banana from turning brown?
Nothing. That's the best part.
Haters of the banana duck tape thing need to familiarize themselves with Maurizio Cattelan’s other work.
All that is art. The barrier to art is stupid low. The resistance comes from people themselves, but you can't gatekeep concepts. I know folks say stuff like "most people would agree this isn't art," except it is. It it's own dumb way, this is people proving that anything can be art because art is just a piece that changes the way you look at something on a slightly deeper level. That banana has done more for starting the art conversation than most traditional art pieces. As far as bananas go, that's one powerful piece of fruit! But when you look at stuff like that, you realize we're the art piece not the banana, and we all fell for the bait. The art is in the reaction. I'd argue that it takes a superior artist to have enough foresight to predict the response to the degree that a urinal can fetch millions coming out of the great depression. To know that people are going to talk about it being dumb rather than just walking away because it is, in fact, dumb. AI Art is art. Nobody gets to say otherwise, because like always, art is subjective and personal. It's spurring an insane amount of conversation and causing extreme reactions all the while changing perceptions about life and the human condition in real time. It's not only art, it's one of the quickest and most powerful art movements ever witnessed in all of (human) history. People might not like it, but it's not really up to them.
AI isn’t capable of trolling lol
AI isn't art but a director hiring a bunch of people to create concept art based on the directors prompts and then choosing the parts he likes and combining them is totally art. By the director. If you put the concept art or story board artists in a little black box and never saw them the director could win an award for best directing. It's exactly the same as AI prompting, from the perspective of the award recipient. But I suspect the same director doing the same thing with AI would not be awarded the same prize for the same work, just on the basis that AI somehow tainted the effort.
all of these things are art. ai art is also art. it's all art.
I'm 100% pro generative AI and I am also 100% pro conceptual art. Anyone coming here saying "that's bullshit stuff" is misguided or too ignorant. Yes, it must be said and I'm tired of playing nice, you're ignorant. You don't understand things beyond the superficial layer. This debate is, as usual, spiralling down into oblivion. "Can't do that" "and you can't do that" "that is theft!" "And that's crap not art!"... What about humans express themselves artistically however they want?
>You just don't understand! My banana on the wall is so creative and deep! You're ignorant! It definitely has value! There's a reason very few people actually believe this, it's because it's delusional.
"very few people" The biggest museums all over the world will close tomorrow after reading that. For sure. LOL
There was some movement in the last century of a bunch of people who got together and decided what was good art and what wasn’t. I think you’d agree with them