Source (Bluesky)
Alt text from source
01: A girl labeled 'Artists' is holding a drawing tablet and pen under her arm. She is wearing round glasses and a blue sweatshirt. She has messy dark-brown hair and a brown skin-tone. She says "We don't really wanna MAKE A.I. art."
02: A guy labeled 'Art Enjoyers' holds his hand out while speaking. She is wearing a purple and yellow hawaiian shirt with a floral pattern over a white t-shirt, and has red hair and a light skin-tone. He says "We don't really wanna SEE A.I. art."
03: Behind them both, there is a cute girl in a business suit with a pink tie. She is blushing a bit and has pink eyeshadow, and looks upset. Her messy shoulder-length hair is parted in the middle, and held by two hairclips: one that looks like a red arrow pointing down, and one that looks like a green arrow pointing up. She says "Um ... I-Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" She is labeled 'Shareholders'.
04: She puffs up her cheeks and pouts, a tear is on the verge of falling from one of her eyes. 'Artist Enjoyers' Guy is now in front of her yelling "AH!! SHAREHOLDERS-CHAN!!" while 'Artists' Girl is in front of her yelling "WE'RE SORRY WE HURT YOU!!!!"
Like any skill, you have to do it badly for a while, then you do it kind of ok for a while, then you do it mediocre for a while, and you keep taking those steps, and after some time you will have the skill to craft what you see in your minds eye, that’s why art is appreciated, because it requires effort.
AI is not you creating anything, it’s not a skill, nothing was honed, earned, or done with earnest, you’re just commissioning a program to do statistical algorithms with colors, it’s soulless garbage. In order to create something you have to actually create something.
No. There is a huge amount of art that is unskilled and requires little effort. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
I think that depends how many prompts are tried, how much inpainting is done and how your loras are created.
Get the fuck out of here with that take. The reason that piece works is because it didn't take effort.
'When explaining the purpose of his readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice."'
It's a well known artist using his name to put these pieces into a place where you expect "high art" but they're not, which creates an discrepancy that makes you think about what it all means. It's more than just a urinal, because of the context in which it's set. If you can't understand that then I get why you can't understand what makes art interesting, and why you can't do it. It's not that you lack skill (which you do, because you need to practice it to have it) but rather you're an uninteresting person who can't ponder things that are different.
Luckily, this is also a muscle that can be exercised. Stop listening to the very stupid people who think they're clever by saying certain art isn't deserving attention. Art is anything that makes you think and has nothing to do with skill (though the ability to make you think, again, is a skill of its own). Just look at art and consider why it exists the way it exists. It's all purposeful, whether you like it or not. Flex your brain by thinking about the meaning or message, or what you can get out of it that maybe the artist didn't intend.
Edit: To give an example of how AI art could be used in art is to make it copy Picasso's (or whoever's) style, and put it in the context of real ones. Let people examine it and see how little intentionality there is in it compared to an authentic one. It'd allow it to bring more meaning out of the other pieces because the AI one is so meaningless.
The fountain is not the only Found object, but it is the most famous. All are considered art even though most of the effort is not produced by the artist. Similarly with Collage. That was why I chose this line of argument.
AI is capable of "creating an discrepancy that makes you think about what it all means" but the vision comes from the artist and is passed through multiple stages. It's not just prompt -> algorithm -> art.
Comparing AI to Master is something I've not considered before but it makes total sense as a teaching aid.
A teaching aid doesn't do the teachers job for them in the same way AI doesn’t make art.
These are tools, not artists, there are good uses for LLMs and dispersion models, but replacing art, artists, expression, thought process, and the human condition in general, are not good or properly utilized ways to try to use them.
Some things are difficult. Creating things is difficult, learning a new skill is difficult, self expression is difficult, it just is, it’s how we grow and how we learn. Handing over the difficult parts of something for a generic filler is literally giving up your effort and input for a tech bro insert, you’re surrendering your own personal identity, potential, growth, and expression every time you use any sort of generative AI and letting commercialism fill in the gaps. Don’t be a tool.
Im arguing that these are tools for artists, not to replace them.
If they’re doing the work for you then you are using them as a replacement. It’s hack shit for hacks. You’re a hack, not an artist, you’re being fed slop, not creating art.
Congratulations, you do not understand Duchamp in the slightest.
I'm disproving the statement that art requires effort.
You can't claim that Duchamp provided the effort behind creating the fountain.
Duchamp was calling out the idiocy in claiming the creation of a toilet did not require (someone's) skilled labor and therefore did not count as art. You have completely misunderstood the assignment.
But until he signed it, it wasn't art.
No. When he signed it people payed attention. There's a difference. It's still art if no one notices it.
The same argument. AI is still producing art, even if you don't appreciate it.
It’s not, though.
Effort doesn’t equate to skill, you still have to out in the physical effort of fucking trying to make something, again, especially in regards to unskilled art what is being appreciated is specifically the effort put into it. Someone tried to express something.
Prompts are not a fucking skill. AI is not a skill, it is not an artistic effort. You made nothing, you had a program procedurally generate colors. If you commission an artist you don’t get to take credit for their work, the same goes for AI color vomit. Art requires expression, intent, and effort, those aren't things you can procedurally generate nor code.
Writing is a skill. But also inpainting areas with prompts and building different layers of the image with different prompts is certainly a skill.
A marketing skill, sure, it don’t make you an artist and it don’t make you creative or a creator. It’s coloring by numbers, but instead of actually painting anything you are just having printed. You’re a fucking hack, you fucking hack.