this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
84 points (92.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43343 readers
1030 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm old enough to remember three similar statements that are equally untrue:
Eventually, we changed our opinions. The same will happen for generative images. They are art.
As an artist who grew up when those exact same arguments were happening, I've always found it odd people went with the "AI is bad because it's not art" argument. Instead of focusing on something like real people losing their jobs because of it. Which is such more legitimate reasons to hate how AI art is currently being used vs "b-but all you did was type prompts! You didn't spend years learning like a REAL artist!" as if early photography/digital art wasn't given the exact same criticism of "The tech does everything for you"
Ironically, it was the rise of one of those job-killing changes that made it possible for me to get in to a job in art in the first place. I think the same thing will be true for generative images. Some people who relied on the high bar for entry to protect their jobs will lose them, and some people who couldn't get access to those jobs will suddenly find themselves able to enter artistic fields.
But then you also fall into the trap of arguing against advancements in technology like the Industrial Revolution or globalisation, itβs affects on the environment aside, you could say it was bad because once machines were doing human work faster and more efficiently and cheaper, then so many people ended up losing their jobs. Yes itβs a real concern but itβs not a new concern and historically we know which side won, so either way we know which way things are gunna shake out, just gotta accept it and prepare.
Or do what a lot of mining and industry towns in the US did and just sit around unemployed or in poverty hoping for the day those jobs come back - exaggeration and hyperbole but you get the idea
Exactly this.
And the swatch beat changed how we tell time
Yeah, let's put some banana on a wall to make some real art.
Literally there's modern art that's just random splotches of paint thrown on a canvas. Both me and a toddler could create that with our skills. Regardless, those random splotches on a canvas are considered art because of the purpose they serve, not its quality
It's often a commentary on the art industry.
AI art has no commentary, it doesn't invoke any emotions. It's just "haha I made a visual pun" or "I have such terminal brain rot I think making 4k remasters of classic paintings improves them"
π¦ found the sealion
Rule #1 of contemporary (not modern) art: any time someone says it's just splashes of paint on a canvas, it's almost never just splashes of paint on a canvas. Even something that looks 'simple' like Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, And Blue III by Barnett Newman, often has an artistic process that goes into it that is so detailed that attempts at restoration that do not reflect how intricate the process is can ruin them.
Also if it's so easy to make paintings that toddlers could make and get them into museums and sell for big bucks, you should do it. Seriously, if it's so easy why aren't you doing it?
Art, like everything else, is worth what someone will pay for it.
A chimpanzee can sell his art for thousands and get it in a gallery. It is that easy -- if people want it for some reason.
So if it's easy, why haven't you done it?
Because I feel ashamed enough when I see "artists" put it out there. I'm not planning on being ashamed of myself.
So you could make millions but it's just beneath you?
Nah, most likely not millions (I don't have friends who need to launder money, so only people who actually think random shapes are art would buy). The rest of the comment I agree with, I have second-hand embarrassment every time I see someone praise random shapes.
Literally anyone who makes any piece of physical art has done more than AI "artists" figuring out the best way to add and remove noise from a noise generating machine trained on the work of actual artists, lmao.
Yeah, no. I would probably say more, but your "lmao" makes me think you're not actually interested.
My toddler doesn't have any dirty money that need cleaning, so it's very unlikely her random splashes will sell for millions.
"Expensive abstract paintings are just money laundering" is intellectually lazy and conspiratorial. The entire art world and the IRS aren't working together to let some people get away with money laundering, but only as long as they use art to do it.
A lot of contemporary art is not for mass consumption the way that high fashion is not for street wear. Everything does not have to have mass appeal, and that doesn't make it unimportant or simple to do. I guarantee if you go to an art museum's daily tour they will be able to tell you a lot about how these 'simple' paintings were made that shows how they weren't simple at all, and what movement they are in response to/part of that adds much more significance to them.
If you're going to nitpick about whether they're really worth $x million, what makes any painting worth more than the canvas it's on and the paint that makes it up? History? Mass appeal? Appeal to other artists? Appeal to rich people? Artistic self expression? Effort/length of time to make it? Originality?
Call it lazy or conspiratorial if you want, I don't particularly care. This is not one of those cases where you can convince me. Selling art for millions is for tax evasion or money laundering and that's what I'll probably always believe because it's the only thing that makes sense to me. And making a fable about how the random splashes actually mean anything else than that you can't really paint is IMO stupid. You wanted to tell something with your painting? How about you told it with the painting instead of some commentary that's needed for anyone to actually see anything there?
"I do not care what reality is, I simply assume that there is a vast conspiracy of people lying to me about contemporary art" is the kind of anti-intellectual bullshit that drove me off reddit. Thank god there's not much of it here, present company excluded. You have so much disdain for something your AI "art" literally can't exist without, and will cease to exist without real artists continuing to make new art for the talentless shit machine to chew up and spit out.
Yeah, I think we're done here, I thought I was here for a conversation. Seems I was mistaken. Maybe you're the problem you were running from?