5 ms·

Is the author alive? If so, let's show him stable diffusion.

Borrible 4y ago
Show him. Shouldn't be to hard to contact him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Please note that this guy is considered one of the original "computer artists", and teaches at a art school, which is useful context when trying to understand the article.
DocTomoe 4y ago
But is the output of stable diffusion actually art, or is it just a mimicry of artsy information? Does it have compositional value, or an original idea? Couldn't you make an argument that stable-diffusion-imagery is in the most original of senses derivative (while not explicitly trying to be derivative, like e.g. Warhol)? Sure, there will be people pinning prizes on particularly pretty output of stable diffusion results, and some people may even hang it on their walls - but that is not really indicative of artistical achievement (just consider how many "live, laugh, love"-variations are plastered over walls everywhere).
- senectus1 4y ago
  Art is in the eye of the beholder... Don't go falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    No, it really is not. This line of thinking makes it too easy to put things individuals may not like into the "not art" category. No good things come from that.
- elcomet 4y ago
  It's just a tool. It doesn't make sense to call it art or non art. The human intent is what makes it art, and other human's opinion is what makes it valuable art. This is like saying "is the output of a camera art or not?" The question cannot really be answered, the camera is just a tool as well.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "is the output of stable diffusion actually art" Were Duchamp's Fountain[1] and his other readymades[2] art? In the mainstream art world, this debate was pretty much settled over 100 years when museums started exhibiting his works, which are now widely considered not just art but very significant and influential art. Andy Warhol said "art is whatever you can get away with" and as an artist I tend to agree. On the other hand, a person whose only contribution to a work of art is to come up with a prompt and select something they like from AI-generated work would more accurately be called an art director and a curator than an artist. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
actionfromafar 4y ago
His last tweet was "I read, there are machines that take an input text to generate images from it. That’s meant to be surprising. Haven’t programs always been texts? You mean, natural language texts are different? So what? Isn’t there Natural Language Programming?"
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  That's a fairly reductionist view. Yes, it's supposed to be surprising, because it's a very hard problem, and traditional algorithmic programming couldn't crack it. I'm a little annoyed by that tweet, especially considering the high qualifications of the person tweeting it.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    I sort of agree, but he's been predicting our lives half a century in advance, so to him it's maybe not a big deal.
- msla 4y ago
  So they're the art school equivalent of those engineers who think they have really great ideas about something far outside their field based on something they misheard once. Of course, in a world where "The Cremaster Cycle" is considered High Art, I should expect nothing less.
- peterashford 4y ago
  This is to completely misunderstand what programming languages are.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    But not what they could be? Prompting ready programs could easily be a thing.

Show him. Shouldn't be to hard to contact him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieder_Nake

DocTomoe 4y ago
Please note that this guy is considered one of the original "computer artists", and teaches at a art school, which is useful context when trying to understand the article.

DocTomoe 4y ago

But is the output of stable diffusion actually art, or is it just a mimicry of artsy information? Does it have compositional value, or an original idea? Couldn't you make an argument that stable-diffusion-imagery is in the most original of senses derivative (while not explicitly trying to be derivative, like e.g. Warhol)? Sure, there will be people pinning prizes on particularly pretty output of stable diffusion results, and some people may even hang it on their walls - but that is not really indicative of artistical achievement (just consider how many "live, laugh, love"-variations are plastered over walls everywhere).

senectus1 4y ago
Art is in the eye of the beholder... Don't go falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  No, it really is not. This line of thinking makes it too easy to put things individuals may not like into the "not art" category. No good things come from that.
elcomet 4y ago
It's just a tool. It doesn't make sense to call it art or non art. The human intent is what makes it art, and other human's opinion is what makes it valuable art. This is like saying "is the output of a camera art or not?" The question cannot really be answered, the camera is just a tool as well.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"is the output of stable diffusion actually art" Were Duchamp's Fountain[1] and his other readymades[2] art? In the mainstream art world, this debate was pretty much settled over 100 years when museums started exhibiting his works, which are now widely considered not just art but very significant and influential art. Andy Warhol said "art is whatever you can get away with" and as an artist I tend to agree. On the other hand, a person whose only contribution to a work of art is to come up with a prompt and select something they like from AI-generated work would more accurately be called an art director and a curator than an artist. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp

actionfromafar 4y ago

His last tweet was "I read, there are machines that take an input text to generate images from it. That’s meant to be surprising. Haven’t programs always been texts? You mean, natural language texts are different? So what? Isn’t there Natural Language Programming?"

bheadmaster 4y ago
That's a fairly reductionist view. Yes, it's supposed to be surprising, because it's a very hard problem, and traditional algorithmic programming couldn't crack it. I'm a little annoyed by that tweet, especially considering the high qualifications of the person tweeting it.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I sort of agree, but he's been predicting our lives half a century in advance, so to him it's maybe not a big deal.
msla 4y ago
So they're the art school equivalent of those engineers who think they have really great ideas about something far outside their field based on something they misheard once. Of course, in a world where "The Cremaster Cycle" is considered High Art, I should expect nothing less.
peterashford 4y ago
This is to completely misunderstand what programming languages are.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  But not what they could be? Prompting ready programs could easily be a thing.