Why I think AI-generated art is not art

[Mon0Zer0]

You really have to have your head stuck up a certain type of person's bottom to view the world of art as only they do. Art is everywhere, appreciated for all different reasons - including its sometimes stunning realism. So you really have to be an incredible snob to take the view that the only "art" is the stuff that you buy in Soho after rubbing elbows with the New York Times critic - and then decry that stuff as nothing but commodity.

I've bought art. I've sold my art. I studied briefly under a noted hyperrealist. None of that had anything to do with anything you've noted.

The main takeaway of your post is that people who write art criticism as social commentary ought to be rounded up and left on an island.

Perry is drawing the distinction between Art and Craft. Lots of people draw, paint and create, but not many of them are viewed as artists. Perry is stating that the difference between the person who creates, say, design for packaging or paints for a hobby and the person who exhibits in the gallery, is that there is an elite network of gallery owners and curators who define what Art is - and that the purpose of it is to be owned for status.

We don't talk about all crafts as being in the "Art world".

Btw, Perry is criticizing this. His medium is pottery, a form usually thought of as craft. He doesn't like this state of affairs, he's saying "this is how it is". I think he would prefer it if Art was some activity undertaken for "spiritual enrichment" (he doesn't phrase it like this, but I think this is what he's getting at).

This is turning into a different discussion, maybe start another thread for that?

You can't really say something isn't art without defining what Art is. I'm challenging the idea that Art is labour.

 

[JunkMonkey]

True; but until a computer takes it upon itself (without any influence from a human) to create a piece of art (which one day is quite conceivable) the only reason the picture is being generated is because a programmer has created a programme to do so.

To some it's a piece of code, to others it's a piece of art. Same as a piece of scaffolding can be art or just a piece of scaffolding, depending on your point of view.

From a personal point of view, I would class a piece of computer art as soulless, same as a piece of literature written by AI. And I would value a painting or story created by a child in far higher esteem than any computer-generated item.

Yep. Until an AI is driven to make something without being told to make it it's just another tool. As I said in another thread here, no one talks about pencil generated art, or paintbrush generated art. No AI has been disappointed and frustrated that what it has made isn't 'right'. No AI can justify the decisions it made and stand by its convictions - no matter how odd and intellectually masturbatory they may be. I'm sure the student who put that scaffold tower up had a total tutor-satisfying schpiel ready to trot out.

If you really want to see how far AI has to come, try and get one to write a joke.

What I would like is an AI that could tell me where my copy of John Sladek's The Müller Focker Effect is. I've been meaning to reread it since the whole AI art thing mushroomed. It's somewhere within 5 meters of where I'm sitting.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

 

[JunkMonkey]

View attachment 102701

That's an old joke pulled out of the vaults. Try giving it it a situation, characters, and a loose outline and ask it to resolve it with a humourous punchline. What you end up with, in my experience, is the sort of 'kids tell jokes' thing which looks like a joke but isn't. it follows a joke structure formula but without actually being funny. Unless you factor in the incongruity that happens when something that looks like something but turns out not to be that thing can be funny. IE it looks like a joke, it sounds like a joke, but it's really (insert humourous incongruity here - and pause for laughter).

 

[Dave]

The question is "Would anyone pay to see an AI do stand-up comedy at the O2?" I've seen more jokes by AIs (some were original) but they weren't funny, and many were of this "Christmas Cracker"variety.

Yes, we are probably drifting well away from the the OP now. I do agree that the definition of what is Art is important first, if we are going to discuss whether AI Art is Art or not, expecially if it is going to be argued that AIs will produce Art that will require that definition to be altered. I mean, how can we decide what is Art by an AI, is we cannot decide what human Art is to begin with?

My personal problem is that many of these kind of discussions do become a argument over semantics (what is science fiction, what is a joke even) which I don't find very interesting or very enlightening. I've learnt something from this thread so far, and found it very interesting, but I won't learn anything new from a discussion of the definition of Art. Someone said earlier, that is going to be different for different people in any case. I do see the clear distiction between "Art" and "Craft" though.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yep. Until an AI is driven to make something without being told to make it it's just another tool. As I said in another thread here, no one talks about pencil generated art, or paintbrush generated art. No AI has been disappointed and frustrated that what it has made isn't 'right'. No AI can justify the decisions it made and stand by its convictions - no matter how odd and intellectually masturbatory they may be. I'm sure the student who put that scaffold tower up had a total tutor-satisfying schpiel ready to trot out.

If you really want to see how far AI has to come, try and get one to write a joke.

What I would like is an AI that could tell me where my copy of John Sladek's The Müller Focker Effect is. I've been meaning to reread it since the whole AI art thing mushroomed. It's somewhere within 5 meters of where I'm sitting.

Yes, AI is effectively a tool created by a programmer with parameters and instructions. It differs from an artist creating something using computer technology, but at the end of the day it is still a tool. Like me you may prefer other forms of creating literature/pictures/music etc, but (in my opinion) that doesn't stop it from being art.

And part of humour is an appreciation for the comedian and their ability to make the mundane funny, or to say/do something funny on the spur of the moment without time to think about it; Bob Monkhouse was very good at this. The jokes may not always have been very funny, but there is still an admiration for the creator. The same cannot be said of AI, and I would suggest that it is almost impossible for it to come up with anything original that word be worthy of the description 'joke'.

But back on topic, my opinion is that the person who designs a programme that allows AI to create drawings is an artist, and the creation is art; but the AI itself is not an artist and whatever it creates is worthless - but still art.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Yes, we are probably drifting well away from the the OP now. I do agree that the definition of what is Art is important first, if we are going to discuss whether AI Art is Art or not, expecially if it is going to be argued that AIs will produce Art that will require that definition to be altered. I mean, how can we decide what is Art by an AI, is we cannot decide what human Art is to begin with?

That is a problem - but we need to have definitions for the conversation to take place - even if we can't agree on them individually. And these definitions need to be tested.

My personal problem is that many of these kind of discussions do become a argument over semantics (what is science fiction, what is a joke even) which I don't find very interesting or very enlightening. I've learnt something from this thread so far, and found it very interesting, but I won't learn anything new from a discussion of the definition of Art. Someone said earlier, that is going to be different for different people in any case. I do see the clear distiction between "Art" and "Craft" though.

The issue is OP needs to make a case for why Labour (specifically individual, human Labour) is essential to Art (considering the old masters' works were more often than not a team effort, often use technology and are not the work of an individual). What is it about human labour that makes something art? Is there something biosupremacist / anthropocentric about the exclusion of non-human labour?

Is Art an end product, or is it the process of creation? Who is it art to? the viewer or the artist? Who owns it - the patron / the artist / the viewer?
To me, the only definition that excludes non human labour is one that doesn't value the importance of the conceptual, but sees Art solely as craft. But I don't think Society sees it that way, due to the importance society places on conceptual art and the way that influences every other facet of culture from advertising to fashion to philosophy to technology to aesthetics and so on.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

but the AI itself is not an artist and whatever it creates is worthless - but still art.

Why is it worthless? Do you mean valueless (in an economic supply and demand sense)?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Why is it worthless? Do you mean valueless (in an economic supply and demand sense)?

The monetary value of any kind of art is almost impossible to assess, as the value often has no relevance to how 'good' something is.

I was really referring to the fact that I place no aesthetic value on pictures/literature/music knowing it has been generated by an AI.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

The monetary value of any kind of art is almost impossible to assess, as the value often has no relevance to how 'good' something is.

You can assess this using the market, no?

I was really referring to the fact that I place no aesthetic value on pictures/literature/music knowing it has been generated by an AI.

Why?

 

[Harpo]

Wow, I hadn’t thought of that - AI art prices....

And here it is, the most expensive piece of AI art (so far) sold for over $400k

Most Expensive Piece of AI Art

The most expensive piece of AI art is the portrait called "Edmond de Belamy" sold for staggering USD 432,000 at Christie's auction house.

www.aiplusinfo.com

Most expensive AI-generated artwork sold at auction

www.guinnessworldrecords.com

 

[JunkMonkey]

l

Wow, I hadn’t thought of that - AI art prices....

And here it is, the most expensive piece of AI art (so far) sold for over $400k

Most Expensive Piece of AI Art

The most expensive piece of AI art is the portrait called "Edmond de Belamy" sold for staggering USD 432,000 at Christie's auction house.

www.aiplusinfo.com

Most expensive AI-generated artwork sold at auction

www.guinnessworldrecords.com

You couldn't even buy half a pair of used shoes for that.

Michael Jordan’s Last Dance trainers fetch auction record $2.2m

A pair of trainers worn by NBA star Michael Jordan have sold for $2.2m, setting a record price at auction for game-worn sports footwear, Sotheby’s announced

www.theguardian.com

At some point things (art included) stop being the thing itself (with whatever intrinsic value they hold) and become magic monetary value investment items.

 

[Swank]

Perry is drawing the distinction between Art and Craft. Lots of people draw, paint and create, but not many of them are viewed as artists. Perry is stating that the difference between the person who creates, say, design for packaging or paints for a hobby and the person who exhibits in the gallery, is that there is an elite network of gallery owners and curators who define what Art is - and that the purpose of it is to be owned for status.

We don't talk about all crafts as being in the "Art world".

Btw, Perry is criticizing this. His medium is pottery, a form usually thought of as craft. He doesn't like this state of affairs, he's saying "this is how it is". I think he would prefer it if Art was some activity undertaken for "spiritual enrichment" (he doesn't phrase it like this, but I think this is what he's getting at).

I understood, and say "balderdash".

This opinion that anything not displayed in a gallery is "craft" suggests that Van Gogh didn't create any art in his lifetime. Believe it or not, there are painters (for instance) out there creating meaningful pictures of stuff that have no utilitarian value, yet aren't in galleries. It isn't up to gallery owners to deny the title of "art" to those pictures - why would anyone suggest they have that ability?

The only people who would live in such a skewed reality are artists who aren't insiders and desperately want to be. Which is understandable, given the paychecks, but otherwise its a morally bankrupt perspective that grants an industry sway over culture.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

So if an AI digested a much wider swath of art and then created something that doesn't quite resemble the style of any other particular artist, you would say that is art?

it would still contain definable elements from the artists selected and the art pieces created have a sort of artificial feel to them, it’s too realistic and blurry

 

[Mon0Zer0]

why would anyone suggest they have that ability?

First, here I'm talking about Capital A "Art" not little a art. The two things are often conflated. The history of Art is capital A art. Margaret Keane, for example, is generally not regarded as Art, but art, neither is Bob Ross.

"art" is a pretty picture, skilfully rendered. "Art" is a cultural objects d'art.

Because that's how the art world works. It's the only explanation for why every cultural commentator would regard Van Goch as Art and little jimmy's hand prints as craft. It's why cultural significance is attached to works of Art because of the sociocultural consensus / mystique that Art attracts.

Van Goch wasn't considered Art in his lifetime (in the same way Little Jimmy isn't), but was only regarded as Art when cultural gatekeepers decide so.

There is some comparison as to why Little Jimmy is not regarded as Art with how people are saying AI art is not "art".

The only people who would live in such a skewed reality are artists who aren't insiders and desperately want to be. Which is understandable, given the paychecks, but otherwise its a morally bankrupt perspective that grants an industry sway over culture.

Grayson Perry is a seminal (capital A) Artist. They are an insider and telling you how the sausage is made.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

In his Reith lectures on Art, Grayson Perry defines Art and seperates it from craft is that Art is "tat for rich people". He states that what is defined as Art within society, at least since the 19th Century is about a small elite network, previously the Academy, now Art dealers. Mostly Art is about defining status. Art is a useless object that a rich person owns to flaunt the fact they are so rich they can buy something that has no utility at all other than to signify wealth and status. Hence Hirst's Shark, Emin's unmade bed, Mutt's urinal, NFT's.


The Art world took a turn towards the conceptual. What you represented was more important than the technique used to represent it. Recently the art world has turned to experiential art - happenings - as a reaction against Art as a commodity.

AI art is entirely analogous to photography in that respect. It's a fusion of labour free image production and the conceptual. The skill of AI art is in prompt crafting and curation -

Those previous art movements(aside from NFTs, thank god they’re dead) were supposed to satire the rich gate kept art community, but after the popularity of the internet, anyone can be an artist now, so these movements loses their entire meaning after the early 2000s. Now they’re hijacked by the rich to evade to taxes and now it’s seen as lazy artists making billions off of terrible garbage.

No, photography and AI art is not similar in any way shape or form, photography takes actual skill while AI art is just writing some words and choosing the best image, do you really think writing; ”Abraham Lincoln arm wrestling Adolf Hitler“ and then choosing an image is hard and takes skill? Hell no man. Is taking a photograph with the perfect lighting, angle, prospective, timing, environment, and making sure your hand isn’t shaking is hard and takes skill? Hell yeah.

 

[Harpo]

But perfection is in the eye of the beholder

 

[Bren G]

All art is derivative is isn't it? I recall seeing a video comparing popular bands like Led Zeppelin, recycling old songs from southern black blues artists. Elvis too is an obvious example. I read Rod Stuart's biography and he effectively says they were all doing it since that music was so ground breaking. I'm not well versed in these things, but I suspect the blues came from hymnals, field music, African story and musical influences. And those from elsewhere.

AI is doing the same thing. It's sampling a wide array of art that is widely appreciated and mimicking it. Is it much different than what we do? I suppose you can argue no, since there is no emotion behind the hand of the computer artist. But is there always in the case of the human who copies others for the purposes of fame?

caveat: Now, I only see two excepts to the rule. The Lascaux Cave paintings and of course, the most original painting of all - Dogs Playing Poker!

 

[Robert Zwilling]

but after the popularity of the internet, anyone can be an artist now, so these movements loses their entire meaning after the early 2000s.

but after the popularity of the digital camera, anyone can now be a photographer, so these movements lose their entire meaning after the early 2000s.

The original photo artists did their special effects in the dark room. That took talent.

It's not the internet that turned everything upside down, it's the digitalization of everything.

 

[JunkMonkey]

All art is derivative is isn't it? I recall seeing a video comparing popular bands like Led Zeppelin, recycling old songs from southern black blues artists. Elvis too is an obvious example. I read Rod Stuart's biography and he effectively says they were all doing it since that music was so ground breaking. I'm not well versed in these things, but I suspect the blues came from hymnals, field music, African story and musical influences. And those from elsewhere.

AI is doing the same thing. It's sampling a wide array of art that is widely appreciated and mimicking it. Is it much different than what we do? I suppose you can argue no, since there is no emotion behind the hand of the computer artist. But is there always in the case of the human who copies others for the purposes of fame?

caveat: Now, I only see two excepts to the rule. The Lascaux Cave paintings and of course, the most original painting of all - Dogs Playing Poker!

But art does more than just 'mimicking' what has gone before. Art (in all it's forms - we're a long way off AI interpretive dance) is a responding to what has gone before in all sorts of ways that AIs are (as yet) unable to do. AI doesn't understand. It doesn't have an appreciation of the stuff it mimics ; it doesn't have likes and dislikes; can't know why one thing is 'better' than another; doesn't care whether what it turns out is a piece of crap or not because it has know way of knowing. It is still an unthinking machine.

Musicians reinterpreting other people's songs is not just mimicking*; 'Appropriating' maybe (and that's a cultural can of worms best left unopened here). Art comes out of a cross fertilisation of influences. Creates new ways of looking at the world.

And art isn't always representative but AI generated art has to be, even if the prompt is something that would generate an abstract result like "two blue rectangles".

via Dream by WOMBO - prompt: "two blue rectangles"​

That is still a representation of two blue rectangles.

It is not whatever it is made Mark Rothko paint this:

One is a representation of "two blue rectangles", the other is a painting by a human which I do not understand but I suspect if I stood in front of it I would just think is wonderful. (I never 'got' abstract expressionism till I saw the actual paintings rather than small scale reproductions in books.) What Rothko was looking for when he painted I have no idea. Maybe he knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe he was searching for something. Was he happy with this painting when he had finished with it? Did he think the next one he did was better? I don't know. But there is something there beyond just "paint blue rectangles".



*Unless you are talking about that cultural abomination know as "The Tribute Band".