3 ms·

Yes - the key word there being "masters". They were already established, so decided to cut some corners - but they could have done it themselves. That's very di

Yes - the key word there being "masters". They were already established, so decided to cut some corners - but they could have done it themselves. That's very different to this guy, who is not a great artist, and has cut so many corners that his input is reduced to "draw a gnarly tree, that looks like Rembrandt". Such genius!

mandmandam 4y ago
I really don't understand the level of hate this guy is getting. At no point did he claim to be a genius, or a great artist. He was perfectly upfront about his tools. He even posted about his full process before results were announced. His only mission is to get a new 'AI Assisted' category in competitions. As has been pointed out, often, many artists came up with concepts and then directed assistants to create based on a brief. Courts have weighed in and found that the original artist owns the work. All that has changed here is that the 'assistants' have been replaced by AI. Your argument seems to be that only famous and established artists, "masters", ought to be allowed to do this - am I reading that right?
ethanbond 4y ago
Okay, then what say you about Sol Lewitt? (FWIW I have no dog in this fight, just think these are some interesting questions around the very fuzzy border of art/not-art. I don't expect to resolve the issue here! I'm genuinely just curious about your opinion.)
- taylorius 4y ago
  Some issues are not discussed in order to be resolved! :-) I wasn't familiar with Sol Lewitt, so looked him up - apologies if I miss the particular aspect of his work that caused you to pick him. He seems like an interesting artist - I like his wall paintings. If I'm right, he created diagrams / instructions for the production of the wall paintings, and didn't paint them himself, so that's a deviation from what I said about an artist needing to create their own work. However I think on balance, the overwhelming majority of the creative work involved was still his. One thought I had, was to consider what the difference would be if the artist was removed from the project, and it was completed without their input. Without Sol Lewitt's diagram, nothing comparable to his work would be made "by chance". Contrast that to a DALL-E user. DALL-E could happily spit out great looking images all day, with prompts generated from random noise. It ONLY makes (reasonably) good looking images. If 9999 out of 10000 images were random noise, and only certain arcane prompts would create a masterpiece, then I could accept there was skill in hunting for the prompts. But as it stands, it's more akin to being a buyer of art in a vast gallery, in my view. Hope this makes sense!
lynndotpy 4y ago
I don't think it's necessary for someone to be a master in order to make art. "Art" is a very low thresh-hold to meet. "Interesting" or "high-effort" is a higher threshhold to meet. Art doesn't need to be good to be art.

mandmandam 4y ago

I really don't understand the level of hate this guy is getting. At no point did he claim to be a genius, or a great artist. He was perfectly upfront about his tools. He even posted about his full process before results were announced. His only mission is to get a new 'AI Assisted' category in competitions. As has been pointed out, often, many artists came up with concepts and then directed assistants to create based on a brief. Courts have weighed in and found that the original artist owns the work. All that has changed here is that the 'assistants' have been replaced by AI. Your argument seems to be that only famous and established artists, "masters", ought to be allowed to do this - am I reading that right?

ethanbond 4y ago

Okay, then what say you about Sol Lewitt? (FWIW I have no dog in this fight, just think these are some interesting questions around the very fuzzy border of art/not-art. I don't expect to resolve the issue here! I'm genuinely just curious about your opinion.)

taylorius 4y ago
Some issues are not discussed in order to be resolved! :-) I wasn't familiar with Sol Lewitt, so looked him up - apologies if I miss the particular aspect of his work that caused you to pick him. He seems like an interesting artist - I like his wall paintings. If I'm right, he created diagrams / instructions for the production of the wall paintings, and didn't paint them himself, so that's a deviation from what I said about an artist needing to create their own work. However I think on balance, the overwhelming majority of the creative work involved was still his. One thought I had, was to consider what the difference would be if the artist was removed from the project, and it was completed without their input. Without Sol Lewitt's diagram, nothing comparable to his work would be made "by chance". Contrast that to a DALL-E user. DALL-E could happily spit out great looking images all day, with prompts generated from random noise. It ONLY makes (reasonably) good looking images. If 9999 out of 10000 images were random noise, and only certain arcane prompts would create a masterpiece, then I could accept there was skill in hunting for the prompts. But as it stands, it's more akin to being a buyer of art in a vast gallery, in my view. Hope this makes sense!

lynndotpy 4y ago

I don't think it's necessary for someone to be a master in order to make art. "Art" is a very low thresh-hold to meet. "Interesting" or "high-effort" is a higher threshhold to meet. Art doesn't need to be good to be art.