Why I think AI-generated art is not art

[Mon0Zer0]

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.

Not really. There is a constant tension within culture at large between an established status quo (in John Sargeant's time this was the Academy) and a reaction against it. The problem is these revolts or revolutions are always owned and controlled by an elite for the simple reason that art as an activity requires time and patronage. Artists are always looking to escape consumerism but they're dependant on it. It's a snake eating its own tail.

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.

That just shows that you don't know very much about AI generation, or how to do it well. The prompt will get you a picture - a crap shoot as to if it will give you what you actually intended.

But to do something that actually matches your intention requires all the skills of a photographer, including finding the perfect angle, composition, balance of colour, knowledge of film stock and effects and post processing. And I mean that quite literally - in that using something like Automatic 1111 you can control all the same variables as a photographer It is not just typing a short phrase into an engine.

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.

Wait till you find out about the old masters and the camera obscura...

 

[JunkMonkey]

The problem is these revolts or revolutions are always owned and controlled by an elite for the simple reason that art as an activity requires time and patronage. Artists are always looking to escape consumerism but they're dependant on it. It's a snake eating its own tail.

I treasure hearing Philip Glass, in an interview on Radio Three, saying that when his music started to become popular he was accused of "Selling out".

"Of course I was! I'd been trying for years - but no one was buying."

 

[Swank]

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".



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

You're just denigrating Artists by saying they are comparable to Little Jimmy. I know several Artists that are well thought of for their originality, craft and aesthetics. They make Art for a living, but are not widely known.

I say they are Artists, and the fact that someone in NY might have the chutzpa to suggest they are not is as meaningful to the analysis of their Art as someone saying blue isn't a color.

 

[Swank]

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

But you would say that definable elements in the art of humans, borrowed from other humans, is acceptable? Are the pointillist products of Chuck Close or Van Goh not art because of what they took from Seurat and Signac?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Wait till you find out about the old masters and the camera obscura

Artists are still painting over images. Its a never ending story. The story tellers who carried life's history in their heads were probably not too thrilled with the advent of printing stories on slabs of clay.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

You're just denigrating Artists by saying they are comparable to Little Jimmy. I know several Artists that are well thought of for their originality, craft and aesthetics. They make Art for a living, but are not widely known.

I, personally haven't denigrated anyone. I'm trying to explain why the people who write the history books and form the socio-cultural-historical consensus remember the old masters and not a plethora of jobbing tradespeople*, and why painters like Gerhardt Richter or Yayoi Kusama or Arnolf Rainer or Mondrian or Yves Klein are so highly regarded even though they don't conform to traditional notions of aesthetic excellence whilst a technically brilliant, and even commercially successful, painter like Thomas Kinkade can be regarded as twee or crass.

People rarely think of Kinkade as being "worthy" of the national gallery, because of the redundancy of his form, the obsolesence of his subjects and because they represent a comforting, fantasy utopian past which is akin to junk food. That's why the latter is not regarded as (high) Art. Same as sad clowns, blue Spanish guitar ladies, big eyed girls or any other chintzy, populist work.

That isn't to say your friends are like Kinkade, btw, just that without the patronage of the gallery system they aren't yet regarded as members of the Art establishment.

In case it's not obvious, I'm not a fan of this set-up either, which is why I'm suspicious when people say something is or isn't Art.

I think the reaction against AI image creation is less to do with its worthiness as Art and more an anxiety about what it means and the effect it has on people's livelihoods. I bet most claiming to be able to differentiate between human and AI generated Art would fail a blind test, or if the don't now will do when these technologies eventually mature.

* there is nothing wrong with jobbing tradespeople. Going back to Perry, he holds these people in high esteem.

I say they are Artists, and the fact that someone in NY might have the chutzpa to suggest they are not is as meaningful to the analysis of their Art as someone saying blue isn't a color.

With respect, the cultural impact of Art is a barometer of its importance. That impact is culturally constructed by those most able to control the conversation. Like it or not (and I don't) but, like Elon Musk and the price of Dogecoin, some cultural gatekeepers have bigger voices to control the conversation and, ultimately, market price and demand.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I think the reaction against AI image creation is less to do with its worthiness as Art and more an anxiety about what it means and the effect it has on people's livelihoods.

That sounds right, it can be any type of art.
I would list it this way
1) stealing other people's work, making money off of it, not sharing the profits
2) the impact on peoples livelihoods
3) worthiness as art, on this one, if the general public likes it, there probably isn't much that can be done to stop it.

 

[Swank]

With respect, the cultural impact of Art is a barometer of its importance. That impact is culturally constructed by those most able to control the conversation. Like it or not (and I don't) but, like Elon Musk and the price of Dogecoin, some cultural gatekeepers have bigger voices to control the conversation and, ultimately, market price and demand.

Art doesn't really have "cultural impact" anymore. No artist is highlighting a problem no one is aware of or inventing a new way of understanding humanity. It's like the conversations we have about the impact of science fiction on science and engineering - pretty much zero. We don't need Banksy to inform us that the war in Syria sucks. The war in Syria makes Banksy's art topical.

"Cultural impact" seems to now be a term that dresses up popularity with gravitas.

Art is nice and good for self reflection. But individual works have little more importance than the newest condiment has to nutrition. So talking about the most commoditized types of art as "important" underlines the lie of some art representing culture - unless culture history is also nothing more than register of what happens to sell well.

 

[AltThinking]

A.I. is just a tool (a half-made tool). It's ok for making cartoon-ish art but will never be truly creative like Human (or Chimp) minds. I get a good laugh out of the attempts of A.I. to make art that initially causes a "WHAT the ****" reaction but fails in ways that can inspire Human art to do it right.

I am guilty of this as it is much fun to take a screwed-up idea & put my own twist on it, but doing the job properly.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Art doesn't really have "cultural impact" anymore. No artist is highlighting a problem no one is aware of or inventing a new way of understanding humanity. It's like the conversations we have about the impact of science fiction on science and engineering - pretty much zero. We don't need Banksy to inform us that the war in Syria sucks. The war in Syria makes Banksy's art topical.

"Cultural impact" seems to now be a term that dresses up popularity with gravitas.

Art is nice and good for self reflection. But individual works have little more importance than the newest condiment has to nutrition. So talking about the most commoditized types of art as "important" underlines the lie of some art representing culture - unless culture history is also nothing more than register of what happens to sell well.

When did art ever have cultural impact? Outwith the narrow confines of 'the art world' and related hangers-on?

 

[Swank]

When did art ever have cultural impact? Outwith the narrow confines of 'the art world' and related hangers-on?

When there wasn't much other media. Paintings were TV.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

Not really. There is a constant tension within culture at large between an established status quo (in John Sargeant's time this was the Academy) and a reaction against it. The problem is these revolts or revolutions are always owned and controlled by an elite for the simple reason that art as an activity requires time and patronage. Artists are always looking to escape consumerism but they're dependant on it. It's a snake eating its own tail.

I’m addressing the art that is appreciated by the general audience and not the gate kept rich snob, f*ck those guys

That just shows that you don't know very much about AI generation, or how to do it well. The prompt will get you a picture - a crap shoot as to if it will give you what you actually intended.

This just shows that your not an actual artist, unless you pick up a pencils yourself, and I do know how these programs work. I’ve tried these thing before and I gotta say; I don’t feel like I made these things and it feels like it completely defeats the purpose of why we make art. Have you ever drawn anything by yourself?

 

[SporgyTheReader]

But you would say that definable elements in the art of humans, borrowed from other humans, is acceptable? Are the pointillist products of Chuck Close or Van Goh not art because of what they took from Seurat and Signac?

These AI generated images look exactly identical, like I can barely tell the difference, it’s very uniform.

 

[Dave]

When did art ever have cultural impact? Outwith the narrow confines of 'the art world' and related hangers-on?

Hmm! If I post a few images of "Art", tell me how they don't have a "cultural impact" in those cities where they are located:

 

[Swank]

Hmm! If I post a few images of "Art", tell me how they don't have a "cultural impact" in those cities where they are located:

View attachment 102773View attachment 102774View attachment 102775

Is the amount of cultural impact directly proportional to size?

 

[Dave]

The reason I specifically picked those three wasn't because of size, but because they aren't tied to any earlier cultural identities (maybe the Kelpies are because of Clydesdale Horses,) I could have posted the Bull Ring sculpture in Birmingham, but the Bull Ring was already a market called that, long before the sculpture.

I think it is more important that they are on public display, not locked away, and seen by many people, rather than that they are large. The Angel of the North is passed by every motorist on the A1. The SuperLambanana has miniture copies all over Liverpool.

However, size is probably important. Do we consider architecture to be Art? I'm thinking of the Liver Building, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Blackpool Tower, San Francisco Bay Bridge, The Eiffel Tower...

There is a town in North Island, New Zealand called Napier, completely rebuilt after an earthquake so that most of the buildings are in an Art Deco style. People flock from all over the world to see them.

 

[paranoid marvin]

You can assess this using the market, no?



Why?

The value of art is in constant flux. As has been mentioned, often these days the purchase of art is an investment on the basis that it will increase in value. It's likely that a Van Gogh bought today will be worth more in 20 years, but in relation to contemporary art - in particular AI art - I'm not sure that this will be the case. The bubble may burst, as it seems to have done with NFT. A computer generated piece of art sells for over $400k. Does that mean that the next piece of art the AI creates will sell for a similar amount? This is why I think that it is difficult to assess its value.

Why do I place no aesthetic value on AI art? When I look at a picture, or read a book, or listen to a piece of music I know that a part of the artist, has been put into it. It tells me something of them as a person, of the time they lived in and often how they were feeling at the time it was created. AI art is created by something that has no concept of beauty or has any form of imagination or inspiration; it is soulless.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The reason I specifically picked those three wasn't because of size, but because they aren't tied to any earlier cultural identities (maybe the Kelpies are because of Clydesdale Horses,) I could have posted the Bull Ring sculpture in Birmingham, but the Bull Ring was already a market called that, long before the sculpture.

I think it is more important that they are on public display, not locked away, and seen by many people, rather than that they are large. The Angel of the North is passed by every motorist on the A1. The SuperLambanana has miniture copies all over Liverpool.

However, size is probably important. Do we consider architecture to be Art? I'm thinking of the Liver Building, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Blackpool Tower, San Francisco Bay Bridge, The Eiffel Tower...

There is a town in North Island, New Zealand called Napier, completely rebuilt after an earthquake so that most of the buildings are in an Art Deco style. People flock from all over the world to see them.

Architecture absolutely is art. The Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, The Statue of Liberty etc help the define the places where they stand.

 

[Harpo]

And in the future perhaps there will be AI art that helps define online places, just like a brand logo currently does

 

[Foxbat]

(I never 'got' abstract expressionism till I saw the actual paintings rather than small scale reproductions in books.)

Ditto. I never 'got' Van Gough until I stood in front of one of his and marvelled at it (and how the thickness of the paint made it almost three dimensional). That quasi three dimensional aspect that is specifically a result of the artist's particular style (I suspect) would be difficult to replicate for an AI.

A picture in a book just can't do a work of art justice.