3 ms·

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)
a1o 3y ago
In photography you have to go to the place and position yourself and wait for the right moment. It's much closer to fishing than clicking a button on the computer.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  I agree it can be, but… it also involves clicking a button usually. Although you can also take photos with light and no camera, like Man Ray.

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)

a1o 3y ago

In photography you have to go to the place and position yourself and wait for the right moment. It's much closer to fishing than clicking a button on the computer.

mejutoco 3y ago
I agree it can be, but… it also involves clicking a button usually. Although you can also take photos with light and no camera, like Man Ray.