I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people’s art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.
All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it’s hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.
There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.
Tim Minchin has always come across as a good egg to me. It’s nice to hear he’s of the same mind, and I particularly like the optimism he’s promoting in his predictions for artistry going forward.
It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art.
I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have been before them. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.
The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai
But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.
Not really. It’s the equivalent of ordering a “build it yourself” sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn’t actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.
I’m not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I’m arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial “art” work.
Oh my fucking god people…I didn’t say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)
Your example is shit. It would be more appropriate for when you commission a piece of work from someone, where they are using their skills and choices and you’re telling them what you want and don’t want on the sandwich.
AI doesn’t make choices when creating an image. It generates an image based off of other images and you hope that it gets something that follows some aesthetic principles that it’s lifting from other images. Just because you reroll the die doesn’t mean you’re choosing shit.
That “menial” process when you’re making art is literally the best part. When you’re painting a sky for the background of something you don’t want that just filled in, that’s where you can experiment and maybe even add an element that you weren’t thinking of before when you started the piece. AI can’t do that for you.
I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people’s art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.
All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it’s hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.
There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.
Is this the interview? https://files.catbox.moe/ddp6tp.mp4
Tim Minchin has always come across as a good egg to me. It’s nice to hear he’s of the same mind, and I particularly like the optimism he’s promoting in his predictions for artistry going forward.
I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have been before them. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.
The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai
But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.
That’s like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.
Not really. It’s the equivalent of ordering a “build it yourself” sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn’t actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.
I’m not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I’m arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial “art” work.
No, having a soulless machine make it.
Then claiming that you made it yourself even though all you did was select a few things on a menu.
Oh my fucking god people…I didn’t say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)
Way to shit on everyone who’s job it is to make those things.
Why do you think logos and so on have no artistic value? What defines value? Because if it’s influencing people and culture, then logos definitely do.
Corporate art sucks ass but it’s still made using choices, which ai doesn’t do.
Your example is shit. It would be more appropriate for when you commission a piece of work from someone, where they are using their skills and choices and you’re telling them what you want and don’t want on the sandwich.
AI doesn’t make choices when creating an image. It generates an image based off of other images and you hope that it gets something that follows some aesthetic principles that it’s lifting from other images. Just because you reroll the die doesn’t mean you’re choosing shit.
That “menial” process when you’re making art is literally the best part. When you’re painting a sky for the background of something you don’t want that just filled in, that’s where you can experiment and maybe even add an element that you weren’t thinking of before when you started the piece. AI can’t do that for you.