4 ms·

I'm inclined to agree. I like the image, its pleasing to me. So that's all I personally care for. There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?' more-so

I'm inclined to agree. I like the image, its pleasing to me. So that's all I personally care for. There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?' more-so than anything else as alluded to in the article : > Still, as long as new artistic tools emerge, the "Is it art?" debate will likely continue as long as there are people to have the discussion. For me the question is moot.

tommiegannert 4y ago
> There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?' The question matters deeply to those trying to make art tradeable. Their business is about maintaining scarcity (a.k.a. non-fungibility), so they'll spend up to some portion of their profit margins on gatekeeping and defending terminology.
- fbn79 4y ago
  Making a parallelism with Fountain by "Duchamp". Duchamp is the Artist not the company that designed and produced the urinal. The same way the Artist is the person that summoned the AI to get that picture.
  - beardyw 4y ago
    Fountain very particularly didn't try to be something it wasn't and didn't win a prize. It was genuinely disruptive to the concept of what is art. This is almost the opposite - something folks here say they would hang on their wall. But that would apply if it was a copy of someone else's picture. To some extent that is what it is. Not sure in that case it should win a prize.
  - andybak 4y ago
    You mean by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven? :) https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-duchamp-steal-elsas-urinal https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-ducham...
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  The people defending art aren’t the artists. They don’t care about the sanctity of the annotation. They create stuff that people value and buy, it doesn’t matter to them if people call it art or anything else. The people up in arms are the critics, the gallery owners, the rich kids who collect items made by people good at making interesting stuff. Because if art isn’t special, if it doesn’t have some deep rooted special meaning that transcends reality. They are not better than the sports commentators and shopkeepers they so desperately try to elevate themselves above.
lancesells 4y ago
It looks like a nice image of concept art you would see on Deviantart or maybe the cover for a sci-fi book. I typically consider images used to sell other products "content" and not "art". In this case it was intended as "art" so it's therefore art. That said, I think it's uninspired and derivative and does nothing for me. It does seems "skilled" in the sense that there's a decent use of anatomy, lighting, and composition. So on first glance it's a pretty image which might be all someone wants and to each their own. I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details. AI tools seem to have a hard time with actually making sense in the details and has a really hard grasp on things like hands (which are difficult for humans).
- pgcj_poster 4y ago
  > there's a decent use of anatomy All of the arms in the scene are melted stubs. The subject in the middle has what looks like an insect's leg jutting out of her waist. > I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details. It clearly doesn't. The judges probably thought that there was something cool about the visual weirdness of the piece—which indeed there is. However, it's much less interesting when you know that the melting arms aren't the artist intentionally playing with form—it's just a machine not knowing what arms are.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    > All of the arms in the scene are melted stubs. The subject in the middle has what looks like an insect's leg jutting out of her waist. I think you're right but it's so hard to see in the Ars pic.

tommiegannert 4y ago

> There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?' The question matters deeply to those trying to make art tradeable. Their business is about maintaining scarcity (a.k.a. non-fungibility), so they'll spend up to some portion of their profit margins on gatekeeping and defending terminology.

fbn79 4y ago
Making a parallelism with Fountain by "Duchamp". Duchamp is the Artist not the company that designed and produced the urinal. The same way the Artist is the person that summoned the AI to get that picture.
- beardyw 4y ago
  Fountain very particularly didn't try to be something it wasn't and didn't win a prize. It was genuinely disruptive to the concept of what is art. This is almost the opposite - something folks here say they would hang on their wall. But that would apply if it was a copy of someone else's picture. To some extent that is what it is. Not sure in that case it should win a prize.
- andybak 4y ago
  You mean by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven? :) https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-duchamp-steal-elsas-urinal https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-ducham...
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
The people defending art aren’t the artists. They don’t care about the sanctity of the annotation. They create stuff that people value and buy, it doesn’t matter to them if people call it art or anything else. The people up in arms are the critics, the gallery owners, the rich kids who collect items made by people good at making interesting stuff. Because if art isn’t special, if it doesn’t have some deep rooted special meaning that transcends reality. They are not better than the sports commentators and shopkeepers they so desperately try to elevate themselves above.

lancesells 4y ago

It looks like a nice image of concept art you would see on Deviantart or maybe the cover for a sci-fi book. I typically consider images used to sell other products "content" and not "art". In this case it was intended as "art" so it's therefore art. That said, I think it's uninspired and derivative and does nothing for me. It does seems "skilled" in the sense that there's a decent use of anatomy, lighting, and composition. So on first glance it's a pretty image which might be all someone wants and to each their own. I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details. AI tools seem to have a hard time with actually making sense in the details and has a really hard grasp on things like hands (which are difficult for humans).

pgcj_poster 4y ago
> there's a decent use of anatomy All of the arms in the scene are melted stubs. The subject in the middle has what looks like an insect's leg jutting out of her waist. > I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details. It clearly doesn't. The judges probably thought that there was something cool about the visual weirdness of the piece—which indeed there is. However, it's much less interesting when you know that the melting arms aren't the artist intentionally playing with form—it's just a machine not knowing what arms are.
- lancesells 4y ago
  > All of the arms in the scene are melted stubs. The subject in the middle has what looks like an insect's leg jutting out of her waist. I think you're right but it's so hard to see in the Ars pic.