4 ms·

What makes art impressive - what invokes awe - is the understanding that the artist is immensely talented and created something that is unique to them; no one e

What makes art impressive - what invokes awe - is the understanding that the artist is immensely talented and created something that is unique to them; no one else could have created that exact same thing. Pressing a button and getting a technically impressive image will simply never invoke awe in the way that a human artist can; at least not after you've experienced it for the first time.

shadowgovt 3y ago
That's one thing that can invoke awe. I wouldn't say it's the only thing. In fact, I unfortunately don't think most art observers think too much about the details of the artist, their craft, or how they created the work. But more importantly, unless I am misunderstanding I think your description just ruled out photography as being able to invoke awe.
- squigz 3y ago
  > But more importantly, unless I am misunderstanding I think your description just ruled out photography as being able to invoke awe. Only if you start with the assumption that no work goes into photography.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Plenty of work goes into photography. But plenty of work goes into actually using AI image generators also (as opposed to just feeding them one prompt and letting them spit out some result, which is the "doodle a stick figure" level of mastery in the tool space).
    - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
      Exactly. AI is a tool that can help people express themselves. People can use AI to create art just like with any other tool. These tools just happen to be the most advanced, which makes sense considering they're the newest thing. Collage is art. Sampling is art. Photoshop can be used to create art. Etc.
      - emporas 3y ago
        As someone who created over 500.000 images last time i checked 6 months ago, i don't know where that notion comes from, that A.I. images need no work. Key here is that the artist wants to express an idea, an emotion something like that. When said purpose requires no work that's fine. When said purpose requires some work, that's fine as well. A.I. generated images in my opinion require a human in the loop for sure, using Photoshop or Automatic1111 or whatever. A good channel to be educated about the amount of work, an artist puts into creating images, is Olivio Sarikas on YT.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    OP literally argued against pressing a button and producing an image. Of course photography can be art, I agree (is this controversial in hn?)
    - squigz 3y ago
      Yes, but my point is photography isn't just "pressing a button".
      - mejutoco 3y ago
        > Pressing a button and getting a technically impressive image will simply never invoke awe in the way that a human artist can This is the original claim. It is intended to be aimed at generative ai, but clearly it is ironically applicable to photography. I agree with you (as I mentioned about photography and art). The comment of OP either applies to both generative AI and photography or to neither IMO. Creating images with ai is also not just clicking a button: choosing the prompt, choosing negative prompts, choosing loras and models, controlnet, retouching and iterating, and deciding what looks good at each step.
        skepticATX 3y ago
        > but clearly it is ironically applicable to photography. It's a gradient. I will readily admit that while I consider photography to be art, I have more appreciation for a truly remarkable sculpture or painting. These are the pinnacle, for me. At the other end you have AI art - sure, "pressing a button" is a bit reductionist, but I'm not sure that it's far off. And I'd also argue that after a certain amount of time spent creating a piece of AI art, it is no longer even AI art. Looking at it from another angle: is anyone going to pay millions of dollars for AI art, aside from possibly a one-off situation built on hype? I seriously doubt it.
        mejutoco 3y ago
        We can agree to disagree, but for the sake of the argument, since I enjoy the discussion, and you make good points. > "pressing a button" is a bit reductionist, but I'm not sure that it's far off I agree. And my tldr is: I think either it is not far off for both photography and AI or it is false for both. > Looking at it from another angle: is anyone going to pay millions of dollars for AI art, aside from possibly a one-off situation built on hype? I seriously doubt it. Duchamp's urinal only input from the artist is choosing the (ready-made) object and signing it. A DJ is basically choosing the songs, the order, and the speed, low/high/frequencies, etc. A photographer is choosing the film, size of sensor, exposure, angle, location, what is out of frame, what is on focus. Somebody using AI is choosing the topic, the prompt, the base image, the negative prompts, iterations, etc. Nowadays there are artists with a team that literally execute nothing, other than directing the team like a CEO would do. Can AI be mindless execution? yes. Can it be art? yes. And IMO the same applies to photography. Sometimes a photo is just clicking a button. It depends. I only ask to evaluate them with the same parameters. As for the paying customer. Performance art has sold limited copies of videos of the performance, Joseph Beuys sold fat on chairs that have to be kept at a certain temperature. Art has been made about making a contract to shoot the artist consensually and recording it. Shredded banksys sold for a good amount. Urinals. The world of contemporary art will have no problem assimilating generative AI. I personally am looking forward to see what art can be created with AI that could not be before. Like any new medium first it copies the previous ones, before it finds its own voice. (Photography, for example, used to not cut things out of frame ,like in most traditional paintings. Early movies used to resemble theater plays, etc)
incrudible 3y ago
This is contradicted by AI art winning competitions for traditional art. People could not tell it is AI art, they felt what they felt. Only later must they convince themselves that it could not have been that good after all, because a machine made it.
- __loam 3y ago
  That was one contest at the very beginning of the gen ai craze and even that was highly controversial. It's pretty bad form to pollute spaces meant for human output with ai bullshit. Clarke's World had to shut down submissions for a while because of the tide of auto-generated bullshit. I feel like people like you who think things like "what's the problem?" don't actually understand what the effect of this technology has been on these creative communities. We still want to hone these skills and produce good work. Flooding online spaces with that stuff makes it harder to curate the signal to noise. Sharing art and getting feedback is how humans improve, and the glut of hacks who now think they're an artist is harming these communities. It's not necessarily about the final product, but the effect of the technology on these communities. AI companies steal the labor then people who were never part of the community come in and flood the space with low effort work. Then people like you dismiss it as gatekeeping. It's a super frustrating conversation to have.
  - skepticATX 3y ago
    This is an unpopular opinion now, and one that I completely agree with. I have always been very bad at all things art, which I think has only increased my appreciation for all of the incredibly talented artists in the world. I often feel sad for those losing their livelihood and passion.
    - __loam 3y ago
      I'm a professional programmer but I've been learning art as a hobby for the past year. Fuck anyone who belittles artists. This shit is hard.
  - incrudible 3y ago
urbandw311er 3y ago
I don’t agree but equally I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted— you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.
- __loam 3y ago
  Hackernews is very pro-ai and allergic to any conversation that might suggest that ai generated art might be garbage.

shadowgovt 3y ago

That's one thing that can invoke awe. I wouldn't say it's the only thing. In fact, I unfortunately don't think most art observers think too much about the details of the artist, their craft, or how they created the work. But more importantly, unless I am misunderstanding I think your description just ruled out photography as being able to invoke awe.

squigz 3y ago
> But more importantly, unless I am misunderstanding I think your description just ruled out photography as being able to invoke awe. Only if you start with the assumption that no work goes into photography.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Plenty of work goes into photography. But plenty of work goes into actually using AI image generators also (as opposed to just feeding them one prompt and letting them spit out some result, which is the "doodle a stick figure" level of mastery in the tool space).
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    Exactly. AI is a tool that can help people express themselves. People can use AI to create art just like with any other tool. These tools just happen to be the most advanced, which makes sense considering they're the newest thing. Collage is art. Sampling is art. Photoshop can be used to create art. Etc.
    - emporas 3y ago
      As someone who created over 500.000 images last time i checked 6 months ago, i don't know where that notion comes from, that A.I. images need no work. Key here is that the artist wants to express an idea, an emotion something like that. When said purpose requires no work that's fine. When said purpose requires some work, that's fine as well. A.I. generated images in my opinion require a human in the loop for sure, using Photoshop or Automatic1111 or whatever. A good channel to be educated about the amount of work, an artist puts into creating images, is Olivio Sarikas on YT.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  OP literally argued against pressing a button and producing an image. Of course photography can be art, I agree (is this controversial in hn?)
  - squigz 3y ago
    Yes, but my point is photography isn't just "pressing a button".
    - mejutoco 3y ago
      > Pressing a button and getting a technically impressive image will simply never invoke awe in the way that a human artist can This is the original claim. It is intended to be aimed at generative ai, but clearly it is ironically applicable to photography. I agree with you (as I mentioned about photography and art). The comment of OP either applies to both generative AI and photography or to neither IMO. Creating images with ai is also not just clicking a button: choosing the prompt, choosing negative prompts, choosing loras and models, controlnet, retouching and iterating, and deciding what looks good at each step.
      - skepticATX 3y ago
        > but clearly it is ironically applicable to photography. It's a gradient. I will readily admit that while I consider photography to be art, I have more appreciation for a truly remarkable sculpture or painting. These are the pinnacle, for me. At the other end you have AI art - sure, "pressing a button" is a bit reductionist, but I'm not sure that it's far off. And I'd also argue that after a certain amount of time spent creating a piece of AI art, it is no longer even AI art. Looking at it from another angle: is anyone going to pay millions of dollars for AI art, aside from possibly a one-off situation built on hype? I seriously doubt it.
        mejutoco 3y ago
        We can agree to disagree, but for the sake of the argument, since I enjoy the discussion, and you make good points. > "pressing a button" is a bit reductionist, but I'm not sure that it's far off I agree. And my tldr is: I think either it is not far off for both photography and AI or it is false for both. > Looking at it from another angle: is anyone going to pay millions of dollars for AI art, aside from possibly a one-off situation built on hype? I seriously doubt it. Duchamp's urinal only input from the artist is choosing the (ready-made) object and signing it. A DJ is basically choosing the songs, the order, and the speed, low/high/frequencies, etc. A photographer is choosing the film, size of sensor, exposure, angle, location, what is out of frame, what is on focus. Somebody using AI is choosing the topic, the prompt, the base image, the negative prompts, iterations, etc. Nowadays there are artists with a team that literally execute nothing, other than directing the team like a CEO would do. Can AI be mindless execution? yes. Can it be art? yes. And IMO the same applies to photography. Sometimes a photo is just clicking a button. It depends. I only ask to evaluate them with the same parameters. As for the paying customer. Performance art has sold limited copies of videos of the performance, Joseph Beuys sold fat on chairs that have to be kept at a certain temperature. Art has been made about making a contract to shoot the artist consensually and recording it. Shredded banksys sold for a good amount. Urinals. The world of contemporary art will have no problem assimilating generative AI. I personally am looking forward to see what art can be created with AI that could not be before. Like any new medium first it copies the previous ones, before it finds its own voice. (Photography, for example, used to not cut things out of frame ,like in most traditional paintings. Early movies used to resemble theater plays, etc)

incrudible 3y ago

This is contradicted by AI art winning competitions for traditional art. People could not tell it is AI art, they felt what they felt. Only later must they convince themselves that it could not have been that good after all, because a machine made it.

__loam 3y ago
That was one contest at the very beginning of the gen ai craze and even that was highly controversial. It's pretty bad form to pollute spaces meant for human output with ai bullshit. Clarke's World had to shut down submissions for a while because of the tide of auto-generated bullshit. I feel like people like you who think things like "what's the problem?" don't actually understand what the effect of this technology has been on these creative communities. We still want to hone these skills and produce good work. Flooding online spaces with that stuff makes it harder to curate the signal to noise. Sharing art and getting feedback is how humans improve, and the glut of hacks who now think they're an artist is harming these communities. It's not necessarily about the final product, but the effect of the technology on these communities. AI companies steal the labor then people who were never part of the community come in and flood the space with low effort work. Then people like you dismiss it as gatekeeping. It's a super frustrating conversation to have.
- skepticATX 3y ago
  This is an unpopular opinion now, and one that I completely agree with. I have always been very bad at all things art, which I think has only increased my appreciation for all of the incredibly talented artists in the world. I often feel sad for those losing their livelihood and passion.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I'm a professional programmer but I've been learning art as a hobby for the past year. Fuck anyone who belittles artists. This shit is hard.
- incrudible 3y ago

urbandw311er 3y ago

I don’t agree but equally I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted— you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.

__loam 3y ago
Hackernews is very pro-ai and allergic to any conversation that might suggest that ai generated art might be garbage.