discussion Are AI Artists, Artists?

[shyboi]

Sorry if I'm starting too many threads. I have a hardcore flu at the moment. I feel like s*** 

 

That being said, what are your thoughts about this tweet 

 

 

[Cruel Summer]

I don’t feel like they are. Even as far as art is subjective, putting prompts into someone else’s software program doesn’t mean you’ve made art. Using AI in art is another conversation, but there are people out there calling themselves artists who literally could not produce any kind of interesting media without the AI model they rely on.

 

But it’s also important to recognize that some of these people might not have had access to art-related formal education, training, and practice, and they’re not doing this maliciously. Some of them, I’m sure, have an eye for the right output and could be “real” artists with some practice in using other tools to create or to incorporate AI output into a transformed final piece. The one good thing about using AI in art is that, for now, it’s relatively accessible, and that could open doors to people who otherwise might not have been able to create.

[Domination]

Are digital artists that use premade brush sets artists? Are musicians that rely on splicing 1000 takes together to assemble a song artists? Technology has made talent obsolete ages ago. If you can’t get down with AI “artists” then you should really evaluate if the art you’re currently consuming is much better. Spoken as someone who hates AI “art”

[Sheep]

It's complicated. The way you arrange various elements can be artful. I doubt we would ever call an "ai artist" somebody on the level of a picasso though unless they were involved with setting up the ai itself.

[Uncatena]

5 minutes ago, Domination said:

Are digital artists that use premade brush sets artists? Are musicians that rely on splicing 1000 takes together to assemble a song artists?

yes and AI content isn't even comparable to this. AI content has nothing to do with what art is. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by ChapelHooker

[mons†er]

creative? yes. artists? no.

[ontherocks]

Nah

[shyboi]

uh oh, the AI Art police is here y'all 

[poki]

Definitely not an artist imo. 

 

To create AI-generated art, artists use AI as a creative tool and work with algorithms to set up specific rules through which machines analyze thousands of images to comprehend a particular creation process, like a specific style or aesthetic.

 

It steals art because it has no natural born artistic capacity. "Algorithms and rules" these people DARE to call themselves artists???

 

This leaves no room for creative innovation and that's what jaded corporates want. They want sure-fire results because that's easiest to make money out of. 

 

The greedy corporate motherfuckers are pushing AI because it will be cheaper to pay AI users than actual artists. Don't listen to a word they say, these people studied business, not art.

[ScorpiosGroove]

[Domination]

8 minutes ago, ChapelHooker said:

yes and AI content isn't even comparable to this. AI content has nothing to do with what art is. 

This take will age well!

[AvadaKedavra]

Ai Art is Art too  and i think it should be awarded in their own categories but of course it will never have the same value as Handmade Art.

It will be like comparing McDonalds with Artisan Burguers-High End Burguers.  This conversation about AI art makes me support Natural Artists more.
We underplay how much work they put into their creations. Musicians-graphic designers.......

I dont see nothing wrong with it. AI art is the democratization of Art.
Now everyone can make amazing things and you dont have to be exceptional with things.
Artists sometimes can also be elitistic and they act like only them "blessed with amazing skills" "natural gifts" are allowed to make things  
But of course. They dont weight the same. 


 

Edited September 9, 2023 by AvadaKedavra

[Uncatena]

Just now, Domination said:

This take will age well!

an algorithm will never be able to make art, no matter how it evolves and no matter how we frame it. period. 

[Uncatena]

Just now, AvadaKedavra said:

It will be like comparing McDonalds with Artisan Burguers-High End Burguers. 

going by this example, its not comparable because both burgers were made by a person. yes, the context is completely different and so are the ingredients but you could argue a McDonalds burger can be put together with the same amount of love and passion than a "fancy" burger. AI art is not put together by passion, emotion or inspiration. it's an algorithm stealing actual art and imitating it. 

 

3 minutes ago, AvadaKedavra said:

Now everyone can make amazing things and you dont have to be exceptional with things.
Artists sometimes can also be elitistic and they act like only them "blessed with amazing skills" "natural gifts" are allowed to make things

this is a very valid point, most art fields are full of gatekeeping, elitism and ego. but not everybody can be good at everything. not to mention that thinking someone typing in a prompt into an AI program is comparable to someone honing their skills for years and years, pouring their soul, time and passion into it is quite frankly offensive. 

[Timber]

The definition of an artist is a person who makes art. The AI isn't a person so by definition, it is not.

[magazine]

Have you seen what some ATRLers like?? AI is 100% art 

[réveuse]

No, you have to be real to be an artist. AI "art" isn't art. It's straight up copying and stealing jobs from real artists.

[VOSS]

Is a singer who doesn’t write their own music an artist? 

[Trent W]

An AI artist is a parasite incapable of doing his own art that uses a machine that clones other people’s concepts and ideas

 

And everyone trying to be “cool” with this concept because it’s still new looks stupid af

 

Im really glad AI art can’t be copyrighted because its basically like downloading an image from pinterest and claiming it as your own art

Edited September 9, 2023 by Trent W

[Frappucino]

I would maybe call them… performers instead? Hatsune Miku is considered a Jpop icon but I don’t think anyone would call her an artist obviously. 

[Reginald]

Here's to many more years of extra/missing fingers in "art"   

[vale9001]

Why typing "make a me a realistic portrait of an indian woman in a Village in the 1830?" should make you an artist?

[VOSS]

20 minutes ago, Reginald said:

Here's to many more years of extra/missing fingers in "art"   

The good models don’t really mess up hands anymore. Definitely won’t at all in a few years time.

[Filpo]

Yes. Takes an artist to make meaningful and interesting art using AI. Skills have progressively been automated through history, but art is something more than a skill.

 

28 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

Why typing "make a me a realistic portrait of an indian woman in a Village in the 1830?" should make you an artist?

It shouldn't, but neither painting an ultrarealistic painting of it, that would just be longer.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Filpo

[Thin White Duke]

I guess they are, yes. Just not really good ones. Yet.

AI won't be the end of traditional human artists it's just going to become another tool for art. As it's still incredibly new, nothing interesting and meaningful has come up yet, but it will. Sometime, somewhere someone will come and make something actually interesting with it, with intent and an actual concept which goes beyond just a pretty picture.