• @Crampon
    link
    English
    551 month ago

    AI artist Jason Allen

    Absolute degenerate.

    I have also spent some time screwing around with AI art generators. No way I’m addressing my self as an artist for it. AI art can be useful in certain situations such as whipping together a stupid meme to share between some friends. It’s not any talent involved, and it’s not something you should consider as copyright worthy.

    Creating nice art is available to anyone. It just require some creativity and talent if you want to love of it. Being an artist is not some basic human right. As plenty of “artists” believe.

    • Jonathan Hendry
      link
      fedilink
      241 month ago

      @Crampon

      AI artists are just the new version of “fractal artists” who for the most part just pick a color palette and run a Mandelbrot generator until they find an appealing image.

      It’s not nothing but it’s not going to get you very far.

      • @NotMyOldRedditName
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Some AI artists actually take the time to touch up the image in something like phtoshop once they get the idea they want but there are still problems with the image.

        As the images get better though that might stop

      • @Dkarma
        link
        English
        -11 month ago

        Now do pour painting

          • Jonathan Hendry
            link
            fedilink
            51 month ago

            @dgerard

            I had a bit making an exception for the value of “fine art” because that can get weird, like “unmade bed with a bunch of trash around it” or a signed urinal.

            But I seem to have left that part on the cutting room floor.

            If a piece of purely prompt-generated AI art hits a price like a shark in formaldehyde I strongly suspect it’ll be some kind of inorganic AI industry insider self-dealing to hype up the AI art market, similar to the big Beeple NFT sale.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              51 month ago

              Okay but the shark in formaldehyde is fucking awesome to see in person.

              It’s a shark! In formaldehyde!!

              • Jonathan Hendry
                link
                fedilink
                31 month ago

                @V0ldek

                Yeah I’m not dismissing that. It’s a big ass shark in a tank.

                Or the guy who made a cast of his own head using his own frozen blood, that’s kept in a special refrigerated display case.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 month ago

                yeah, Hirst can be a bit of a hack and the names of the pieces are super cheugy but he’s definitely made some really evocative stuff

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 month ago

              I think it might be worth reflecting on exactly why Fountain seems to “get weird;” it had a context and complaints about it are part of that context. I liked this recent video which explores the politics of Fountain.

              • Jonathan Hendry
                link
                fedilink
                31 month ago

                @corbin

                I just mean “weird” in terms of “valued far higher than the average person might expect” but I’m not implying that that value isn’t merited. I’m not one to dismiss a Rothko.

    • @Grimy
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Even when people just ask if “I” made it, I specify the machine did. The arrogance needed to call yourself an artist when it was a prompt and nothing else, ouf.

    • Meursault
      link
      English
      31 month ago

      Right? I used to think Kinkade was the pompous narcissist. That anyone would consider themselves an AI “artist” is absolutely wild.

    • @tee9000
      link
      English
      11 month ago

      Idk about copyright but im sure there’s a lot of depth yet to develop for model capability and our methodology of interacting with them. Might be more of an art and science than the experimentation happening now.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -10
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      i mean, it IS art. you are just using a tool that makes it much much easier to put your mind into the screen.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 month ago

        art is a process not a thing on a screen. get rid of the tension between idea and realisation and you get rid of most of what is interesting about art. (besides i’m sorry for your mind if your imagination is adequately represented by the output of stock image generators.)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -231 month ago

      Thank heavens we have people like you to police who gets to be called an artist or not…

      • @militaryintelligence
        link
        English
        281 month ago

        I instructed the Ford dealer to sell me a new Focus with leather interior and aluminum wheels. I am a car designer and manufacturer. I made this.

      • @Crampon
        link
        English
        221 month ago

        It’s not a protected title. Go to town with it.

        But it’s diluting the value of it if you carry no talent but want all the recognition.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -111 month ago

              What’re you defining ‘value’? Monetary, sure but what of emotional value? What’re you defining as ‘quality’? What’s high quality art to you? What’s valuable in your view? I garuntee that’s not the same for everyone.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                81 month ago

                Very true, since it’s all relative no one should ever make an aesthetic judgement. No one should have thoughts about the value of art. No one should have any reaction to art other than an acknowledgement of its existence.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 month ago

                True J. Benzo Peterson vibes

                What do you mean by VALUE? What do you mean by QUALITY? What do you mean by PRODUCTS?? What do you mean by WHAT???

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -7
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              No, the value of art is specific to each individual. A picture made by someone with no talent can be of enormous value to someone because of what it means, the relationship they have with the creator, the emotions it makes them feel etc.

              Tieing value to talent suggests that a picture by someone who has trained for 5 years is somehow more ‘valuable’ than a picture by someone who has only trained for 4. Why? What metric is being used to determine ‘value’? What metric determines ‘talent’? Art is entirely subjective. To try and define it’s value is missing the point, because it means something different to everyone.

          • @glimse
            link
            English
            51 month ago

            So you want them to defend a stance they never took?

          • Jonathan Hendry
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            @YungOnions

            What do you mean value?

            Emotional value? No. Many parents value their small child’s drawings.

            Market value? Mostly yes. Especially in commercial art like art commissioned for book covers. Untalented artists aren’t going to be very successful.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 month ago

        Your position seems to be that art is whatever the US Copyright Office deems worthy of copyright.