4 ms·

There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup,

There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.

sunrunner 2mo ago
> There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.
righthand 2mo ago
Oh yeah I can just remember all those famous renowned collages that everyone associates as art. A director does a hell of a lot more than select what goes in a frame and then sit back and watch it come together.
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  A collage made by Picasso is not associated as art?
byronturncoat 2mo ago
There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.
- orangedog 2mo ago
  Writing a blog post is a creative effort, selecting a few pieces (generated or not) is creative, too, whether it is up to your standards are not. The gatekeeping on this is crazy. I really wonder how artists discussed photography and other advances.
  - byronturncoat 2mo ago
    If you write a blog post, yes that is creative. If an AI does it, it's no longer creative, it's derivative (by definition). Selecting AI images for one's blog is technically creativity (akin to decorating), but in the most hollow way possible. If you compare this scenario to photography and art, it's pretty clear you've not actually participated in that community
    - orangedog 2mo ago
      Somebody still has to prompt it, there is a creative task. Somebody still has to curate it, that too is a creative task. I was comparing this to when photography first came onto the scene not today, but I'm tired of the gatekeeping (which you retreated back into) which says this isn't art when as with every creative process, it is derivative and creative. People already splice together videos of generated clips. Is that not creative? It's just gatekeeping. People in a few years (or already) or in a generation won't be this pedantic about it.
      - byronturncoat 2mo ago
        If you use the definition of "creative" in that someone creates, sure, you can make your argument. Most people, however, include a level of imagination and effort in their qualifications of whether something is creative. An AI prompt does not meet the bar of "creativity" for most people. Curating AI slop similarly does not meet this bar. Your personal bar may well be on the floor, but that is not representative of most people, in my experience. You're using your definition of "creative" and "art" interchangeably, which lacks nuance and respect for art. The reference to the arrival of photography similarly lacks nuance and respect for artists and art. Art and creativity have a human element, they evoke emotions. As soon as you delegate the process to an LLM, you've disrespected that human element if you try to pass it off as creative or art. You can call it "gatekeeping" if you want to, but I see it as basic respect for other humans and human imagination and effort.
        orangedog 2mo ago
- Ariarule 2mo ago
  Is a painting not art because individual pigments aren't art?
  - byronturncoat 2mo ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not... I hope so. Assuming you aren't, this is called a "false analogy" or "category error". Pigments are raw materials for painting in the same way that letters are raw materials for writing. Pigments make no claim to be art, never have. AI-generated text, on the other hand, is a fully-realized product that lacks the human intent that makes it art, but can be passed off as "art".

sunrunner 2mo ago

> There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.

righthand 2mo ago

Oh yeah I can just remember all those famous renowned collages that everyone associates as art. A director does a hell of a lot more than select what goes in a frame and then sit back and watch it come together.

RandomLensman 2mo ago
A collage made by Picasso is not associated as art?

byronturncoat 2mo ago

There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.

orangedog 2mo ago
Writing a blog post is a creative effort, selecting a few pieces (generated or not) is creative, too, whether it is up to your standards are not. The gatekeeping on this is crazy. I really wonder how artists discussed photography and other advances.
- byronturncoat 2mo ago
  If you write a blog post, yes that is creative. If an AI does it, it's no longer creative, it's derivative (by definition). Selecting AI images for one's blog is technically creativity (akin to decorating), but in the most hollow way possible. If you compare this scenario to photography and art, it's pretty clear you've not actually participated in that community
  - orangedog 2mo ago
    Somebody still has to prompt it, there is a creative task. Somebody still has to curate it, that too is a creative task. I was comparing this to when photography first came onto the scene not today, but I'm tired of the gatekeeping (which you retreated back into) which says this isn't art when as with every creative process, it is derivative and creative. People already splice together videos of generated clips. Is that not creative? It's just gatekeeping. People in a few years (or already) or in a generation won't be this pedantic about it.
    - byronturncoat 2mo ago
      If you use the definition of "creative" in that someone creates, sure, you can make your argument. Most people, however, include a level of imagination and effort in their qualifications of whether something is creative. An AI prompt does not meet the bar of "creativity" for most people. Curating AI slop similarly does not meet this bar. Your personal bar may well be on the floor, but that is not representative of most people, in my experience. You're using your definition of "creative" and "art" interchangeably, which lacks nuance and respect for art. The reference to the arrival of photography similarly lacks nuance and respect for artists and art. Art and creativity have a human element, they evoke emotions. As soon as you delegate the process to an LLM, you've disrespected that human element if you try to pass it off as creative or art. You can call it "gatekeeping" if you want to, but I see it as basic respect for other humans and human imagination and effort.
      - orangedog 2mo ago
Ariarule 2mo ago
Is a painting not art because individual pigments aren't art?
- byronturncoat 2mo ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not... I hope so. Assuming you aren't, this is called a "false analogy" or "category error". Pigments are raw materials for painting in the same way that letters are raw materials for writing. Pigments make no claim to be art, never have. AI-generated text, on the other hand, is a fully-realized product that lacks the human intent that makes it art, but can be passed off as "art".