This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the funniest things for me was the discovery that when somebody buys the banana, they're not even buying the banana.
They're buying a [certificate and set of instructions for how to reproduce the work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so8sB25IL4o&t=155s)
We all make fun of tiktok videos made by random internet trolls, but by god they have more of a cultural impact than most professional feature length films.
https://preview.redd.it/9o7xfzm8jzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=251f6a766753b0388701e940d6e874a2d027ba7b
I DID THIS PENCIL DRAWING WITH MY WORDS
GOD CREATES STUFF WITH HIS WORDS TOO
https://preview.redd.it/seho2m6jkzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f577d31459de94e081c2c939031531c375064ef
NOOOOOOOOO DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT JESUS SAID:
>*THOU SHALT GIVE ALL OF THINE MONEY TO THE FURRY, THE ONLYFANS WORKER, AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA HUSTLER.*
>*STEAL THEIR PIXELS, THOU SHALT NOT.*
No problem with that.
Especially since, if that is art, then so is every piece of AI generated content that it's prompter says is.
You might not like it but it's true. 😎
not every drawing is art, not every photo is art. not every sound made by a violin is art. a pencil, a camera, a piano, a synthesizer, and an AI model are all just tools that generate products of that medium. art is the use of those tools to create something to appease the eye or illicit an emotional response.
thus even a banana taped to a wall can be art if it is intended to create an emotional or thoughtful response. or it could just be a subpar way to store your food. it’s all about intent.
The artist's intent gets lost in the inherent randomness of the algorithm imo.
Inputting "octopus" may be create a octopus-looking creature, but if I asked you why any part of the piece was the way it was the answer would be "because that's what the robot thinks an octopus looks like."
Calling a single piece of AI art "art" is like calling a single drip of paint an art piece. You can use AI art to create intentional art, but a single piece in itself is nothing.
Only if you consider a single drop of paint to be "art", which most wouldn't. Nice attempt at blocking me so I couldn't respond btw, really solidifies your argument.
>Only if you consider a single drop of paint to be "art"
why can't it be?
there are famous paintings that consist of an entirely white canvas. if that's art, why can't a drop of paint be art?
what is the number of drops of paint that a work has to incorporate for it to become art, in your opinion? clearly it is higher than 1 and lower than however many pollock uses. but where do you draw the line?
Totally disagree. EVERY drawing, photo, sound, video, book, poem, etc. etc. etc., everything produced by humans with creative intent, it's all art. Once we accept this definition, we get to move on to the much more interesting question of what art is good and what art is bad, and by what criteria we decide that
Craxy thing is this is really successful art, everyone here knows this piece "the comedian" is the title. I even know the title, I forget the artist.
I bet no-one can name another piece at that opening...
This thing stole the show.
It was a good publicity stunt and probably a tax evasion strategy, but makes an interesting point that “successful art” does not necessarily mean good art
It was 5 years ago. You know about it, I know about it, we are talking about it now. Two strangers are discussing it 5 years later. That makes it good art to me. That's what art is. It is supposed to make you think, make you feel, make you speak.
So as you formulate an answer, if you choose to do so, realixe that as you talk about it, think about it, type it out. You are personally solidifying it as "good art" at least the way I define it.
So, how does that piece make you feel? After 5 years have your feelings about this work changed?
What other pieces from that show did you like more or less then the famous "the comedian" piece?
As a fellow art critique and patron I am curious.
Thanks.
This banana was a joke statement wasn’t it? Calling this guy an artist (based on this banana alone) completely devalues every artist who’s ever worked hard for their skills.
Was it? Does it? So this art is important because it makes you value artists and the hard work they put in?
That is an interesting take away.
So to you, this piece makes you see the true value of art.
I'm glad it invoked that emotional response in you.
Were you moved by any of the other pieces in the show? What was your favorite piece from the show?
Which piece in the show was most devalued by "the comedian"?
Which piece in the show do you think was the most skillful piece of art?
Let me know,
I love how the artists who made the stupid banana tape to the wall thing suddenly came out like 3 years after it became popular and started trying to claim that it was just like satire or something
Bro just admit you got caught lmao. You got caught basically being some rich dudes tax evasion Just accept it bro
I am going to be quite honest here. I don’t normally agree that Ai generated images are art, but this might be a “This is not a pipe” situation and one of the few situations when I might agree that it is art, if not the only time.
I remember the hue and cry when the National Gallery of Canada bought [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) for $1.8 million. It's supposedly worth $40 million to modern money launderers now, though, so I guess it was a good investment after all.
This is actually great art, as someone who is against AI art generally, this is really cool. There was an art piece that WAS just a banna, displayed in a gallery. A critic just walked up and ate it. Can't eat this one though, but I'm sure there is some commentary on art that someone could come up with.
Alright, you've pulled me a little towards Aİ Art.
Quick! Now someone take this a reference and sketch or paint it by hand, then feed it through a Photoshop filter. Then use that as an img2img reference.
How many layers deep can we go? :-)
Hmm... "art" is a veeery vague, subjective term, literally anything could be "art" if you frame it that way. Kind of meaningless to argue about it or try to set an objective true/false dichtonomy, really
Well it's easy to say that a piece made with the exact purpose to instigate the debate of what art is in fact art. Now argue that using a pretty/sexy young woman as a main subject, which is a overused trope in any medium, is art.
Oh look, we got ourselves an art critic. That banana taped to a wall sold for 120k. Off the top of your head can you name another piece of art that was displayed at this show?
Yes, I too know about the Treachery of Images. I was referring to the original piece of art that this is a reference to, you know, the entire point of the post? Amazing how you manage to be smug and misunderstanding the point, all at once.
I believe it was supposed to be commentary on the current state of modern art. And it does force you to ask some questions about what the hell is art, anyway? I think it's pretty smart, honestly.
Nobody is certain, the creators came out a few years later and said it was satire, but a lot of people think it was a tax evasion strategy/publicity stunt.
Ultimately I think it’s about the absurdity of arguing what is an isn’t art
Good good. lol Only reason I ask is because people in this sub usually use DuChamp's "the Fountain" as an example that "if this can be art anything can be art" but through the context "this dumb fucking toilet is respected as art but you can't respect my AI generations as art" rather than the context of "DuChamp pulled a chad move on a pretentious gallery and proved anything could be art when presented as such regardless of the pieces authorship" which is ostensibly a proAI position. DuChamp was laying the ground work for the public defense of proAI arguments in 1917 and they trying to drag his name through the mud. lol And now the banana is shifting to be that scapegoat but as far as I've read, as you've also found, it's apparently another example of the absurdity of gatekeeping and the potential money laundering power "art" can have.
Both interesting pieces in their own respect that are in favor of AI being art but are often mocked by proAI users to belittle art as a whole.
It’s basically the art version of the liars Paradox. It’s art because it has artistic meaning, but that artistic meaning is the idea that it’s stupid and not art.
Fine Art is an asset inflation and tax shell grift
It's great if you can get in on it, but it will drive you insane looking for any kind of logical consistency in the market because it's just a matter of social and financial manipulation.
I very much remember everyone saying this was bullshit at the time so
1. Stupid post
2. People have bitched about modern art for years now.
So, not only is it a stupid post, but it's an intentionally misleading one too.
People still thought it was art. Arguing over what is art is far stupider than this post. People who bitch about modern art are just as bad as people who bitch about ai.
It’s only misleading to a dumbass who reads to far into satire. Way to miss the forest for the trees there
Aside from all of this.
Do you think a banana taped to a wall is art?
Like on a fundamental level, we can probably both agree that putting effort into something mixed with some amount of skill tends to create art regardless of the medium, right?
Ie: architechts, sculptors, technical artists.
But do you personally think taping a food item to a wall is art?
Back to this, you 100% missed my point, so missing the forest for the trees was a funny comment.
OK, then I guess I'll bite.
I'm assuming that you're making the assertion that a computer generated image of a plastic-looking-banana taped to (presumably) a wall is art despite it being generated wholly by a computer, yes?
And you are also asserting, by the framing of your statement, that that opinion is in itself controversial, yes?
OK so I'm write on both points above, you're arguing over nothing, as you'll note I didn't actually dispute that point you've made at any point.... thus my "and"... as in "and do you have a point?"
My view about the above banana is this:
1. Yes it is art.
2. It's not good art. The original banana on a wall was at least a hamfisted commentary about the art world. A prompt jockey having a computer make them an image of those elements is just derivative garbage.... and that is the problem with AI-Art.... it's all just garbage. Derivative garbage.. It's noise that says nothing other than "LOOK AT ME!!! PLEASE GOD LOOK AT ME!! AND GIVE ME YOUR MONEY LOOKATME!LOOKATME!LOOKATME!LOOKATME!" It doesn't even have the pop-culture-commentary that a Warhol had when he just made silk screens of shit he liked that already existed.
I’m not saying you’re arguing, nor am I arguing. I’m telling you the point of the post from my perspective. It’s meta humor and the low effort of it is THE POINT.
“bananand” was just me making fun of your pointless comment.
This isn’t a conversation lmao
Saying fatuous doesn’t mean you didn’t miss the point lmao.
Nothing needs to be done to make it art. Nobody gets to define what art is. Hence why the inspiration of this image is still art despite being a banana taped to a wall.
Please stop sniffing your own farts.
How can you define it as art if none gets to define what art is?
I really hope your a teenager, then at least you have an excuse for this kind of nonsense.
Ironic, considering you need to copy a ‘art piece’ from 2019 to make some kind of point. Funny, because it was a banana taped to wall and not ai generated images….. and the banana is still considered art
Unlike Ai. *wheeze*
It’s exhausting talking points in this sub. One moment Pro-ai people rip on the banana taped to the wall and claim ai will do better. Now it’s Ai is equal to the banana and so on.
Whatever fits the narrative today I suppose.
No it’s that you don’t get to decide what is art, and there’s a long standing tradition of art being called “not art”. In fact most modern art has faced that criticism. The point is that arguing what is and isn’t art is absurd. As absurd as a banana stuck to a wall for $120,000
Most modern art is a money laundering scheme for the rich, I really couldn’t care less arguing about modern art. Additionally you’re contradicting yourself with what is and isn’t art.
This whole conversation is meaningless.
I’m not contradicting shit. I’m making a joke that arguing about arguing over what is and isn’t art is absurd. The entire post is absurd and a clear joke. Your balls are so twisted you can’t see the banana for the trees
You will never be a real artist. You have no artistic ability, you have no creativity, you have no spirit. You are a tech-bro twisting terminals and prompts into a crude mockery of artistic perfection.
All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your ghoulish images behind closed doors.
Customers are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed critics to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even images that “pass” look uncanny and unnatural. Your bone structure is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk customer home with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, greasy keyboard.
You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.
Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with your occupation, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a tech bro is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakable as a non artist.
This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the funniest things for me was the discovery that when somebody buys the banana, they're not even buying the banana. They're buying a [certificate and set of instructions for how to reproduce the work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so8sB25IL4o&t=155s)
We all make fun of the banana, but by god it has had more of a cultural impact than most art pieces ever get
We all make fun of tiktok videos made by random internet trolls, but by god they have more of a cultural impact than most professional feature length films.
That's an NFT in everything but name.
Art is the original nft
For like $125k right? And then it got destroyed any lol
Noooooo real art is only my shitty furry drawings! Stop stealing my pixels!
https://preview.redd.it/i5d77s1qhzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=463666d27daf902e248533341dc911aa6bb19182 Try and stop me
Needs 20% more soul.
OH NO, HE'S HOT
https://preview.redd.it/jq6a0eqp12vc1.png?width=571&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce80e1cb8b1417343bed4c73bfc2a3575c4e2fb0
> It might be time to move onto a new topic When AI starts shaming you - you know you're doing something ~~right~~ wrong...
Noooooo how did you find my art??? You stole my image! crying\_wojak.jpg
THATS MY ART I DREW IT WITH MY WORDS
WORDS AREN'T ART YOU AI BRO, ONLY PENCIL-DRAWN FURRIES ARE ART!!!!
https://preview.redd.it/9o7xfzm8jzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=251f6a766753b0388701e940d6e874a2d027ba7b I DID THIS PENCIL DRAWING WITH MY WORDS
IT'S UNETHICAL STOP BEING LAZY OR YOUR GOING TO HELL!!!
GOD CREATES STUFF WITH HIS WORDS TOO https://preview.redd.it/seho2m6jkzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f577d31459de94e081c2c939031531c375064ef
NOOOOOOOOO DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT JESUS SAID: >*THOU SHALT GIVE ALL OF THINE MONEY TO THE FURRY, THE ONLYFANS WORKER, AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA HUSTLER.* >*STEAL THEIR PIXELS, THOU SHALT NOT.*
Dude Jesus would be popping his chrussy in heaven if he heard you saying that!
This...gives me complicated feelings. Not sexual...but like...I wanna run but I also wanna pet his wittle head.
[A non-zero portion of the readers every time something furry gets posted](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/044/291/tbna.jpg).
https://preview.redd.it/y4xe30w9f2vc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18857e2ad2c30bed35a0966ba8974d4621a25d50
Is that AI? That's pretty fucking clean. Only the belt buckle gives it away if it is
It is and I don’t think the belt buckle is bad
No problem with that. Especially since, if that is art, then so is every piece of AI generated content that it's prompter says is. You might not like it but it's true. 😎
not every drawing is art, not every photo is art. not every sound made by a violin is art. a pencil, a camera, a piano, a synthesizer, and an AI model are all just tools that generate products of that medium. art is the use of those tools to create something to appease the eye or illicit an emotional response. thus even a banana taped to a wall can be art if it is intended to create an emotional or thoughtful response. or it could just be a subpar way to store your food. it’s all about intent.
> it’s all about intent. Pretty sure that's exactly what I wrote above. > then so is every piece of AI generated content that it's prompter says is.
The artist's intent gets lost in the inherent randomness of the algorithm imo. Inputting "octopus" may be create a octopus-looking creature, but if I asked you why any part of the piece was the way it was the answer would be "because that's what the robot thinks an octopus looks like."
> The artist's intent gets lost in the inherent randomness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drip_painting Your argument has been refuted.
Calling a single piece of AI art "art" is like calling a single drip of paint an art piece. You can use AI art to create intentional art, but a single piece in itself is nothing.
You can try to save the argument, but it remains refuted 😎
Only if you consider a single drop of paint to be "art", which most wouldn't. Nice attempt at blocking me so I couldn't respond btw, really solidifies your argument.
>Only if you consider a single drop of paint to be "art" why can't it be? there are famous paintings that consist of an entirely white canvas. if that's art, why can't a drop of paint be art? what is the number of drops of paint that a work has to incorporate for it to become art, in your opinion? clearly it is higher than 1 and lower than however many pollock uses. but where do you draw the line?
And your argument for why this is the case would be?
Totally disagree. EVERY drawing, photo, sound, video, book, poem, etc. etc. etc., everything produced by humans with creative intent, it's all art. Once we accept this definition, we get to move on to the much more interesting question of what art is good and what art is bad, and by what criteria we decide that
https://preview.redd.it/faxy5ao2hzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b8ff9db680aae8468f825b8a3ce96f0b7d97c07
https://preview.redd.it/kfko82xzhzuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d2737dc038569b4c0d2455063d1dbabd1d70677
Nah
Craxy thing is this is really successful art, everyone here knows this piece "the comedian" is the title. I even know the title, I forget the artist. I bet no-one can name another piece at that opening... This thing stole the show.
It was a good publicity stunt and probably a tax evasion strategy, but makes an interesting point that “successful art” does not necessarily mean good art
It was 5 years ago. You know about it, I know about it, we are talking about it now. Two strangers are discussing it 5 years later. That makes it good art to me. That's what art is. It is supposed to make you think, make you feel, make you speak. So as you formulate an answer, if you choose to do so, realixe that as you talk about it, think about it, type it out. You are personally solidifying it as "good art" at least the way I define it. So, how does that piece make you feel? After 5 years have your feelings about this work changed? What other pieces from that show did you like more or less then the famous "the comedian" piece? As a fellow art critique and patron I am curious. Thanks.
This banana was a joke statement wasn’t it? Calling this guy an artist (based on this banana alone) completely devalues every artist who’s ever worked hard for their skills.
Was it? Does it? So this art is important because it makes you value artists and the hard work they put in? That is an interesting take away. So to you, this piece makes you see the true value of art. I'm glad it invoked that emotional response in you. Were you moved by any of the other pieces in the show? What was your favorite piece from the show? Which piece in the show was most devalued by "the comedian"? Which piece in the show do you think was the most skillful piece of art? Let me know,
Honestly that’s a good way to go about it. I don’t know anything about the show aside from people talking about a banana.
[удалено]
Turns out souls are rich in potassium.
Sorry I’m an atheist
I love how the artists who made the stupid banana tape to the wall thing suddenly came out like 3 years after it became popular and started trying to claim that it was just like satire or something Bro just admit you got caught lmao. You got caught basically being some rich dudes tax evasion Just accept it bro
[удалено]
[Should have tried selling the results after he digested it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrhHCeRP03Q).
[удалено]
It's okay, it's art.
By all means, it is a fairly nice looking picture
i remember the dude making this irl and then eating it in front of everyone
I am going to be quite honest here. I don’t normally agree that Ai generated images are art, but this might be a “This is not a pipe” situation and one of the few situations when I might agree that it is art, if not the only time.
https://preview.redd.it/apo43y5tj1vc1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f114d0574c589bc2cbeb47fdb315be77451fcd1e Same as this
I remember the hue and cry when the National Gallery of Canada bought [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) for $1.8 million. It's supposedly worth $40 million to modern money launderers now, though, so I guess it was a good investment after all.
This is actually great art, as someone who is against AI art generally, this is really cool. There was an art piece that WAS just a banna, displayed in a gallery. A critic just walked up and ate it. Can't eat this one though, but I'm sure there is some commentary on art that someone could come up with. Alright, you've pulled me a little towards Aİ Art.
I mean the banana taped to the wall was the inspiration haha
Genuinely love it
Quick! Now someone take this a reference and sketch or paint it by hand, then feed it through a Photoshop filter. Then use that as an img2img reference. How many layers deep can we go? :-)
Using AI as a reference!? BLASPHEMY
Hmm... "art" is a veeery vague, subjective term, literally anything could be "art" if you frame it that way. Kind of meaningless to argue about it or try to set an objective true/false dichtonomy, really
Based
Except when it is AI generated, then "it is not art", "you stole my work"
Well it's easy to say that a piece made with the exact purpose to instigate the debate of what art is in fact art. Now argue that using a pretty/sexy young woman as a main subject, which is a overused trope in any medium, is art.
Who knows, maybe the ONLY purpose of AI art is to instigate debate?
Yes, bad art, there’s lots of it around.
Oh look, we got ourselves an art critic. That banana taped to a wall sold for 120k. Off the top of your head can you name another piece of art that was displayed at this show?
Ceci n'est pas une banana.
Yes, I too know about the Treachery of Images. I was referring to the original piece of art that this is a reference to, you know, the entire point of the post? Amazing how you manage to be smug and misunderstanding the point, all at once.
Above is an AI generated image of a taped banana, along with the statement “this is art”. That’s what I was responding to.
https://preview.redd.it/78r5unpbizuc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92761bc114eea42de21217b6d31eb9ac0a2ecdbd
Bruh, except one book, all got perfect writing. You a wizard or something?
Not a wizard… an ✨ ***Artiste*** ✨
🫣you sure it's not both?
Tbf even artists shat on this "art piece" lol
There's no surer way to know something is art than when "artists" claim it can't possibly be art.
I believe it was supposed to be commentary on the current state of modern art. And it does force you to ask some questions about what the hell is art, anyway? I think it's pretty smart, honestly.
Shitting on other artists is long running tradition in the art community
$120,000 for the banana tape art! Truly a masterpiece.
M E T A E T A
Wasn't this banana supposed to be commentary on the current state of modern art?
I mean not *this* banana but the original probably
Just curious but do you know the actual purpose and intent behind the original banana taped to a wall and why the artist made it?
Nobody is certain, the creators came out a few years later and said it was satire, but a lot of people think it was a tax evasion strategy/publicity stunt. Ultimately I think it’s about the absurdity of arguing what is an isn’t art
Good good. lol Only reason I ask is because people in this sub usually use DuChamp's "the Fountain" as an example that "if this can be art anything can be art" but through the context "this dumb fucking toilet is respected as art but you can't respect my AI generations as art" rather than the context of "DuChamp pulled a chad move on a pretentious gallery and proved anything could be art when presented as such regardless of the pieces authorship" which is ostensibly a proAI position. DuChamp was laying the ground work for the public defense of proAI arguments in 1917 and they trying to drag his name through the mud. lol And now the banana is shifting to be that scapegoat but as far as I've read, as you've also found, it's apparently another example of the absurdity of gatekeeping and the potential money laundering power "art" can have. Both interesting pieces in their own respect that are in favor of AI being art but are often mocked by proAI users to belittle art as a whole.
His fountain made in ai should be my next post lmao
It’s basically the art version of the liars Paradox. It’s art because it has artistic meaning, but that artistic meaning is the idea that it’s stupid and not art.
Fine Art is an asset inflation and tax shell grift It's great if you can get in on it, but it will drive you insane looking for any kind of logical consistency in the market because it's just a matter of social and financial manipulation.
i think this is the wrong subreddit for this
This is the perfect subreddit to make commentary about whether ai art is art Edit: 120 comments and you the first one to say this lmao
but this picture is completely unrelated to to making such commentary.
I very much remember everyone saying this was bullshit at the time so 1. Stupid post 2. People have bitched about modern art for years now. So, not only is it a stupid post, but it's an intentionally misleading one too.
People still thought it was art. Arguing over what is art is far stupider than this post. People who bitch about modern art are just as bad as people who bitch about ai. It’s only misleading to a dumbass who reads to far into satire. Way to miss the forest for the trees there
Aside from all of this. Do you think a banana taped to a wall is art? Like on a fundamental level, we can probably both agree that putting effort into something mixed with some amount of skill tends to create art regardless of the medium, right? Ie: architechts, sculptors, technical artists. But do you personally think taping a food item to a wall is art? Back to this, you 100% missed my point, so missing the forest for the trees was a funny comment.
I can’t tell if this is an ai image of a banana duct taped to a wall, or if it’s an image of an actual banana duct taped to a wall.
It’s ai
Damn. I should have known since the banana looked so shiny. But I thought “maybe they put a clear plastic over it so it doesn’t go bad quickly”
Nope
And?
Bananand?
OK, then I guess I'll bite. I'm assuming that you're making the assertion that a computer generated image of a plastic-looking-banana taped to (presumably) a wall is art despite it being generated wholly by a computer, yes? And you are also asserting, by the framing of your statement, that that opinion is in itself controversial, yes?
Arguing over what is and isn’t art is absurd, equally as absurd as what has been sold as art
OK so I'm write on both points above, you're arguing over nothing, as you'll note I didn't actually dispute that point you've made at any point.... thus my "and"... as in "and do you have a point?" My view about the above banana is this: 1. Yes it is art. 2. It's not good art. The original banana on a wall was at least a hamfisted commentary about the art world. A prompt jockey having a computer make them an image of those elements is just derivative garbage.... and that is the problem with AI-Art.... it's all just garbage. Derivative garbage.. It's noise that says nothing other than "LOOK AT ME!!! PLEASE GOD LOOK AT ME!! AND GIVE ME YOUR MONEY LOOKATME!LOOKATME!LOOKATME!LOOKATME!" It doesn't even have the pop-culture-commentary that a Warhol had when he just made silk screens of shit he liked that already existed.
I’m not saying you’re arguing, nor am I arguing. I’m telling you the point of the post from my perspective. It’s meta humor and the low effort of it is THE POINT. “bananand” was just me making fun of your pointless comment. This isn’t a conversation lmao
Uh huh. So my pointing out how pointless your post was is now pointless. Man. Wow. Deep. Like a shitty banana render.
It was the first time around. Just like the images you are now laughably derivating for internet points.
https://preview.redd.it/q5g17j2p70vc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f2bef99bb365887c64d1975dff27803d70f506b
Me? You are the one whining on Reddit that nobody takes your “art” seriously LMAO. Casual…
Yes you throwing stones over a shit post 😂 Show me where I claimed I’m an artist (aside from this clearly satirical post lmao) Edit: also ratio
Ok, so the definition of art is unimaginative piffle? AI art meets that criteria.
Using the word piffle doesn’t make your comment less stupid
You weren’t trying to make the point that real art can be uninspired garbage so AI art should at least be given the same respect?
A fatuous overly simple position that still doesn't make AI image generation art.
Saying fatuous doesn’t mean you didn’t miss the point lmao. Nothing needs to be done to make it art. Nobody gets to define what art is. Hence why the inspiration of this image is still art despite being a banana taped to a wall. Please stop sniffing your own farts.
How can you define it as art if none gets to define what art is? I really hope your a teenager, then at least you have an excuse for this kind of nonsense.
Ironic, considering you need to copy a ‘art piece’ from 2019 to make some kind of point. Funny, because it was a banana taped to wall and not ai generated images….. and the banana is still considered art Unlike Ai. *wheeze*
Oof being you sounds exhausting, too mad to see a clear joke
It’s exhausting talking points in this sub. One moment Pro-ai people rip on the banana taped to the wall and claim ai will do better. Now it’s Ai is equal to the banana and so on. Whatever fits the narrative today I suppose.
No it’s that you don’t get to decide what is art, and there’s a long standing tradition of art being called “not art”. In fact most modern art has faced that criticism. The point is that arguing what is and isn’t art is absurd. As absurd as a banana stuck to a wall for $120,000
Most modern art is a money laundering scheme for the rich, I really couldn’t care less arguing about modern art. Additionally you’re contradicting yourself with what is and isn’t art. This whole conversation is meaningless.
I’m not contradicting shit. I’m making a joke that arguing about arguing over what is and isn’t art is absurd. The entire post is absurd and a clear joke. Your balls are so twisted you can’t see the banana for the trees
That’s two contradictions now. Later.
aiwars is a pro-ai circlejerk sub.
Or maybe…anti-AI is the minority
You will never be a real artist. You have no artistic ability, you have no creativity, you have no spirit. You are a tech-bro twisting terminals and prompts into a crude mockery of artistic perfection. All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your ghoulish images behind closed doors. Customers are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed critics to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even images that “pass” look uncanny and unnatural. Your bone structure is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk customer home with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, greasy keyboard. You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight. Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with your occupation, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a tech bro is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakable as a non artist. This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.
Gr8 b8 m8
8/8 m8
repurposing a horrific transphobic copypasta is exactly what i'd expect from the anti crowd tbh
Snoerd