3 ms·

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'

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

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