4 ms·

Art is art. The argument is just a pile of shifting sands. But artists make choices! But artists require knowledge! But artists need to communicate! A good

Art is art. The argument is just a pile of shifting sands. But artists make choices! But artists require knowledge! But artists need to communicate! A good artist will be able to use AI tools to create compelling art that communicates through decisive choices of their design. Other artists will get lucky and let the computer do most of the work.

haswell 3y ago
Art is a word that humans made up to categorize a form of human expression. Whatever art is, it is because of the value that humans have chosen to ascribe to it, which they do for countless reasons. Many of those reasons are simply not present in AI output, and AI will bring new reasons that will be compelling for some, but entirely uninteresting for others. Clinging to an abstract three letter word as the ultimate definition of something nearly undefinable ignores both the richness of the form and the sociological factors that make the word hold any meaning. Again, I’m not saying that artists won’t do great things with AI. I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. Some people won’t care about the underlying process and it sounds like you may be in that category. Some people will continue to care, and I’d count myself in that category. Many people point out that Photography is to Painting what AI is to Photography. And while I think the analogy is a bit stretched, the primary reason this comparison comes up is because photography is thought of as a “lesser skilled” method of producing images. And I think that’s a fair assessment. It is not debatable that producing a photorealistic or highly skilled representation of a scene with a paintbrush requires far more skill and far more effort than operating a camera, especially in the 2020s. If your enjoyment of a thing comes from appreciating a particular kind of process, e.g. you are fascinated by and enjoy the output of skilled painters, not just for the result, but for the entire process, then AI (or Photography) isn’t going to hold your interest. Coffee is coffee. But there sure is a large spectrum of possible ways to experience coffee. Many people are happy with the Folgers instant stuff. Connoisseurs have a palate that knows that there’s more to coffee than caffeine and brown water, but not everyone is a connoisseur and some people are more interested in the utility of coffee (caffeine/energy). That isn’t to say that instant coffee is not coffee, and people are welcome to enjoy it if they can. But it sure isn’t the same as a cup of recently roasted, freshly ground single origin beans carefully brewed at a temperature calibrated to the properties of the bean and roast. Foljers will wake me up. That carefully brewed cup will wake me up and produce a highly pleasurable taste experience that can alter my emotional state in a positive direction. My point is that nuance abounds, and trying to reduce something like art of all things to a one dimensional description seems not very useful.
- frumper 3y ago
  You keep saying things to denigrate art associated with AI tools. Why?
  - haswell 3y ago
    I don’t agree agree that any of this denigrates AI related art.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  > work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other form It will hold a different kind of value. What that means to the individual is something they have to decide for themselves. I for one love new things and progress, but I can also understand a more conservative mindset even if I feel differently. I am also tired of people screeching „AI is not art!!1!“ and trying to deplatform and attack people who feel otherwise (not insinuating that you do this by the way).
  - haswell 3y ago
    Yeah, I agree it will hold a different kind of value. I don’t think people should be screeching about this either. I do think people are screeching because they enjoy traditional art and they think traditional art is threatened. I’m starting to see this more like computerized chess. When a computer first beat a human, it didn’t end chess. Chess is alive and well, because humans like playing chess. With that said, the chess community is also more susceptible to cheating than it has ever been, and has suffered controversy as a result. I think AI art will be similar. People who want traditional art will keep wanting it. People who create it will keep creating it. The people on both sides of this exchange aren’t going to suddenly stop valuing the things they valued before. But like chess, AI tools make it easy for people to misrepresent themselves, and people will absolutely try to pass off their creations as original. I suspect that over time, tools will catch up and people who eschew AI tooling will be valued for it. It’s just gonna be a mess for awhile.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. The value is literally not intrinsic, it is extrinsic and specifically socially/culturally ascribed. And, yes, that's also true of different forms of art; while all have value, the kind and degree of value in any particular society of sculpture vs. representational oil painting vs. abstract oil painting vs. photography vs. 3d-rendered digital art are all different (and the difference between them aren't constant between times and places where they are present, either.) Yes, art produceed using, e.g., diffusion models will be different from all the others in this regard, but different in the same way that all the others already differ among themselves.

haswell 3y ago

Art is a word that humans made up to categorize a form of human expression. Whatever art is, it is because of the value that humans have chosen to ascribe to it, which they do for countless reasons. Many of those reasons are simply not present in AI output, and AI will bring new reasons that will be compelling for some, but entirely uninteresting for others. Clinging to an abstract three letter word as the ultimate definition of something nearly undefinable ignores both the richness of the form and the sociological factors that make the word hold any meaning. Again, I’m not saying that artists won’t do great things with AI. I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. Some people won’t care about the underlying process and it sounds like you may be in that category. Some people will continue to care, and I’d count myself in that category. Many people point out that Photography is to Painting what AI is to Photography. And while I think the analogy is a bit stretched, the primary reason this comparison comes up is because photography is thought of as a “lesser skilled” method of producing images. And I think that’s a fair assessment. It is not debatable that producing a photorealistic or highly skilled representation of a scene with a paintbrush requires far more skill and far more effort than operating a camera, especially in the 2020s. If your enjoyment of a thing comes from appreciating a particular kind of process, e.g. you are fascinated by and enjoy the output of skilled painters, not just for the result, but for the entire process, then AI (or Photography) isn’t going to hold your interest. Coffee is coffee. But there sure is a large spectrum of possible ways to experience coffee. Many people are happy with the Folgers instant stuff. Connoisseurs have a palate that knows that there’s more to coffee than caffeine and brown water, but not everyone is a connoisseur and some people are more interested in the utility of coffee (caffeine/energy). That isn’t to say that instant coffee is not coffee, and people are welcome to enjoy it if they can. But it sure isn’t the same as a cup of recently roasted, freshly ground single origin beans carefully brewed at a temperature calibrated to the properties of the bean and roast. Foljers will wake me up. That carefully brewed cup will wake me up and produce a highly pleasurable taste experience that can alter my emotional state in a positive direction. My point is that nuance abounds, and trying to reduce something like art of all things to a one dimensional description seems not very useful.

frumper 3y ago
You keep saying things to denigrate art associated with AI tools. Why?
- haswell 3y ago
  I don’t agree agree that any of this denigrates AI related art.
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
> work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other form It will hold a different kind of value. What that means to the individual is something they have to decide for themselves. I for one love new things and progress, but I can also understand a more conservative mindset even if I feel differently. I am also tired of people screeching „AI is not art!!1!“ and trying to deplatform and attack people who feel otherwise (not insinuating that you do this by the way).
- haswell 3y ago
  Yeah, I agree it will hold a different kind of value. I don’t think people should be screeching about this either. I do think people are screeching because they enjoy traditional art and they think traditional art is threatened. I’m starting to see this more like computerized chess. When a computer first beat a human, it didn’t end chess. Chess is alive and well, because humans like playing chess. With that said, the chess community is also more susceptible to cheating than it has ever been, and has suffered controversy as a result. I think AI art will be similar. People who want traditional art will keep wanting it. People who create it will keep creating it. The people on both sides of this exchange aren’t going to suddenly stop valuing the things they valued before. But like chess, AI tools make it easy for people to misrepresent themselves, and people will absolutely try to pass off their creations as original. I suspect that over time, tools will catch up and people who eschew AI tooling will be valued for it. It’s just gonna be a mess for awhile.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. The value is literally not intrinsic, it is extrinsic and specifically socially/culturally ascribed. And, yes, that's also true of different forms of art; while all have value, the kind and degree of value in any particular society of sculpture vs. representational oil painting vs. abstract oil painting vs. photography vs. 3d-rendered digital art are all different (and the difference between them aren't constant between times and places where they are present, either.) Yes, art produceed using, e.g., diffusion models will be different from all the others in this regard, but different in the same way that all the others already differ among themselves.