4 ms·

Okay but that’s exactly what the painters said about photography when it was invented. They said it was more chemistry than art because of the development proce

Okay but that’s exactly what the painters said about photography when it was invented. They said it was more chemistry than art because of the development process. Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it. https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ I don’t see how blanket labeling all images made with AI as slop is any different from people rejecting photographs because they were made with chemicals and lenses. In 100 years the same article will be written about AI art, and will probably feature the phrase “clanker slop”.

Laurel1234 2mo ago
Can you show me one AI image with artistic value?
- TaLiTr 2mo ago
  I can show an AI image with artistic value. But, to you? Apparently not.
  - Laurel1234 2mo ago
    Do it then
    - TaLiTr 2mo ago
      My comment was referring to the fact that art is in the eye of the beholder. Given your biases, nobody could show you an AI image that you would say is art.
- ModernMech 2mo ago
  Yeah if you want recommendation of things I like, drop a contact and I'll send you some. But I don't really want to get into a public debate about taste in art, because that's all posting anything would come down to. It's a losing battle, because the bias is so strong you can post an actual Monet but say it was generated by AI, and people will come out to tell you how it's clearly not art: https://www.threads.com/@merzmensch_kosmopol/post/DYUaBV2CbEw https://www.threads.com/@merzmensch_kosmopol/post/DYUaBV2CbE... Which is funny because that's how Monet and the Impressionists were originally received by critics. The comment about the light rendering being wrong, so clearly it couldn't be Monet is especially funny given the origin of why they are called Impressionists: Le Havre, he called it Impression. The term, springing from the jargon used by painters, had been an artistic watchword since the middle of the century, reflecting the growing interest in capturing the atmosphere of a scene, or impression, rather than giving a painstaking description of nature https://www.marmottan.fr/en/notice/4014/ https://www.marmottan.fr/en/notice/4014/ So give the above it's really futile to debate over whether any particular image is art. But yeah, drop a contact if you want recs!
  - Laurel1234 2mo ago
    Just post a link bro it's not rocket science.
    - ModernMech 2mo ago
      I told you why I won't, I'm not getting drawn into an argument about aesthetics. What I personally think has artistic value and whether or not you agree doesn't matter at all.
- headcanon 2mo ago
  These artists are pretty cool: - https://andreaciulu.com/ https://andreaciulu.com/ - https://www.rooperainisto.com/ https://www.rooperainisto.com/ You might feel differently, but I feel intention and effort being communicated here.
iamwil 2mo ago
Exactly my point. People simply weren't alive in the beginning of a medium, so they think how it is now is how it was always so. For the first 20 to 30 years of film, people disregarded it as art. And somehow, it's a leap of logic that just because the AI image is generated that the text is also. It's as silly as asserting because someone used a camera, they hired a ghostwriter.

Laurel1234 2mo ago

Can you show me one AI image with artistic value?

TaLiTr 2mo ago
I can show an AI image with artistic value. But, to you? Apparently not.
- Laurel1234 2mo ago
  Do it then
  - TaLiTr 2mo ago
    My comment was referring to the fact that art is in the eye of the beholder. Given your biases, nobody could show you an AI image that you would say is art.
ModernMech 2mo ago
Yeah if you want recommendation of things I like, drop a contact and I'll send you some. But I don't really want to get into a public debate about taste in art, because that's all posting anything would come down to. It's a losing battle, because the bias is so strong you can post an actual Monet but say it was generated by AI, and people will come out to tell you how it's clearly not art: https://www.threads.com/@merzmensch_kosmopol/post/DYUaBV2CbEw https://www.threads.com/@merzmensch_kosmopol/post/DYUaBV2CbE... Which is funny because that's how Monet and the Impressionists were originally received by critics. The comment about the light rendering being wrong, so clearly it couldn't be Monet is especially funny given the origin of why they are called Impressionists: Le Havre, he called it Impression. The term, springing from the jargon used by painters, had been an artistic watchword since the middle of the century, reflecting the growing interest in capturing the atmosphere of a scene, or impression, rather than giving a painstaking description of nature https://www.marmottan.fr/en/notice/4014/ https://www.marmottan.fr/en/notice/4014/ So give the above it's really futile to debate over whether any particular image is art. But yeah, drop a contact if you want recs!
- Laurel1234 2mo ago
  Just post a link bro it's not rocket science.
  - ModernMech 2mo ago
    I told you why I won't, I'm not getting drawn into an argument about aesthetics. What I personally think has artistic value and whether or not you agree doesn't matter at all.
headcanon 2mo ago
These artists are pretty cool: - https://andreaciulu.com/ https://andreaciulu.com/ - https://www.rooperainisto.com/ https://www.rooperainisto.com/ You might feel differently, but I feel intention and effort being communicated here.

iamwil 2mo ago

Exactly my point. People simply weren't alive in the beginning of a medium, so they think how it is now is how it was always so. For the first 20 to 30 years of film, people disregarded it as art. And somehow, it's a leap of logic that just because the AI image is generated that the text is also. It's as silly as asserting because someone used a camera, they hired a ghostwriter.