I always found this such a silly argument. Imagine eating a pizza and thoroughly enjoying it but changing your perception of taste willingly depending on how it was made. It’s admitting you are judging art based on everything except the actual piece, which sounds the opposite of what art is about.
It’s like in olden times when they judged a piece depending on the artists birth and status.
Not to say there isn’t a lot of slop out there that definitely belongs in the dumpster, but it’s hard to take someone seriously when they judge all of it broadly on this kind of basis.
I associate more value depending on skill level. All I’m saying is: if the pizza only taste like shit once you hear the opposite, the bad taste is in your head.
I do get that having the feeling one way leaves place to having the same type of feeling the other way. I guess it feels different though, hard to explain. It’s a valid sentiment in the end, it just feels a bit petty from my viewpoint.
Well, as a human I’ve got plenty of biases, some of them petty I suppose.
Maybe it’s a the curtains are blue situation? Like we attribute all this meaning to art, and we get to guess at whether we’re right, or whether the artist wanted us to be drawn to specific components. We understand that art often has symbolism and that it’s meant to be evocative.
But with AI art, there’s none of that. Whatever meaning I attribute is purely projection - which is often true in regular art too, except that I have a social contract with the artist that we both agree we want me to look at this art and have feelings, whatever they may be. A social contact with a computer isn’t real and feels disingenuous.
I think petty is the wrong word to use in this case and it doesn’t really apply. It’s a bit harsh.
I think it’s your last paragraph that I struggle with. It’s like if someone was saying the same about Photoshop, how in the end, it’s a computer that is doing all the work and the software can’t convey any messages.
This is true for a lot of AI work. 90% of it is slop with little though behind composition or anything of the kind. The last 10% does have someone behind it trying to convey a message, but most are ignoring him and listening solely to the medium.
I also think it’s fine to have bias, and it’s a part of the process, but a lot of people are trying to redefine what art is to fit that bias.
It would be fine if people were saying “this is art I don’t like because of the ethics of it” but most are saying things like “this is bad Art” or even worse, “this isn’t art at all” in broad strokes without actually trying to understand it.
For me, art is in the eye of the beholder (so like his initial emotional reaction, and like what I understand your point to be).
But there are also aspects that are a bit more innate to the art itself. It’s sort of like a conversation, for me; if I see a piece of art I think is beautiful, and I’ve felt something emotional in response to it, I start to try and understand what the artist was trying to say through the work, what story they might be trying to tell, who they might be. It’s a connection. They might be expressing their emotions, thoughts, or experiences, and I might be empathising with another human going through that. There’s a level of trust from my side that they’ve put in effort and are being genuine.
If I find out it’s AI art… Well, there’s no conversation there, is there? Nobody made that picture. Nobody is communicating anything. Nobody is considering how a viewer might feel. Nobody has created anything. A machine has, unfeelingly, mashed a bunch of actual art together, and now the result is in front of me. If I know beforehand, I won’t bother looking. If I’ve felt emotions, I’ve been lied to and will look away.
You can feel differently, of course. I’m just explaining how I feel about art. I don’t enjoy being lied to.
It’s a fair point. When I think about it, I come to the conclusion that at first I both consume them the same way, as pictures on a screen. So they start at both the same baseline (my immediate enjoyment) and learning something was done in a more complicated method or has a deeper meaning just adds to that baseline, but it to never will go down for the opposite.
I attribute more value to human made art, just like how I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digital ones. I just don’t change my opinion towards the negative.
I also think there’s an error when assuming something can’t communicate because it was made partly or completely with AI. The GoP uses it to communicate hate for instance, that part mostly transcends the medium imo (even if again, the medium can add to it at times). I see AI as a tool, I don’t see it as the AI creating the piece.
Obviously, 3/4 of the scene is smut so it’s not like much high level communication is going on most times though lol. I’m selective in what I actually consider art, I wouldn’t call most outputs art just to be clear (or what the GOP is doing for that matter).
Interesting! I understand your first point, about not devaluing the art from your baseline of enjoyment just because it’s not human-made – I don’t agree, but that’s just a personal opinion of mine, and I can totally see what you’re saying.
Your point about the American Republican party using AI images to communicate (or create) anger is really interesting to me. I was thinking after writing my reply that, despite my feelings about generative AI, I ultimately don’t care if AI imagery is used in advertising because adverts are not genuine conversations anyway.
I feel similarly about the Republican party, or any political party from any country, using AI imagery as propaganda.
Propaganda, to me, is an intentionally dishonest and manipulative communication. That’s not a criticism of propaganda; advertising is dishonest and manipulative too. A prosecutor’s closing arguments may “spin” the truth and intend to manipulate a jury. Dishonesty and manipulation aren’t “bad” to me, per se, on their own - it’s what the intention behind the dishonesty and manipulation is that makes those things bad, or neutral, or good.
When I see adverts, or political propaganda, I don’t even begin to establish that “trust” or “connection” I mentioned in my first reply, because I know it’s not a genuine communication. Similarly to if I open a spam email and it contains a sob story about a family that needs money - I know it’s bullshit, so I don’t feel bad for them.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a tool. Part of me feels that for something to be “art”, the kind we’re (I’m) talking about at the moment, it can’t have a utility like a tool would. I’m not sure if I really believe that but it’s certainly a distinction that feels natural to me without thinking.
I always found this such a silly argument. Imagine eating a pizza and thoroughly enjoying it but changing your perception of taste willingly depending on how it was made. It’s admitting you are judging art based on everything except the actual piece, which sounds the opposite of what art is about.
It’s like in olden times when they judged a piece depending on the artists birth and status.
Not to say there isn’t a lot of slop out there that definitely belongs in the dumpster, but it’s hard to take someone seriously when they judge all of it broadly on this kind of basis.
Pizza tastes better, even retroactively, if you find out someone you love made it for you.
I went over this in an other comment a bit.
Real painting > digital painting > AI
I associate more value depending on skill level. All I’m saying is: if the pizza only taste like shit once you hear the opposite, the bad taste is in your head.
I do get that having the feeling one way leaves place to having the same type of feeling the other way. I guess it feels different though, hard to explain. It’s a valid sentiment in the end, it just feels a bit petty from my viewpoint.
Well, as a human I’ve got plenty of biases, some of them petty I suppose.
Maybe it’s a the curtains are blue situation? Like we attribute all this meaning to art, and we get to guess at whether we’re right, or whether the artist wanted us to be drawn to specific components. We understand that art often has symbolism and that it’s meant to be evocative.
But with AI art, there’s none of that. Whatever meaning I attribute is purely projection - which is often true in regular art too, except that I have a social contract with the artist that we both agree we want me to look at this art and have feelings, whatever they may be. A social contact with a computer isn’t real and feels disingenuous.
I think petty is the wrong word to use in this case and it doesn’t really apply. It’s a bit harsh.
I think it’s your last paragraph that I struggle with. It’s like if someone was saying the same about Photoshop, how in the end, it’s a computer that is doing all the work and the software can’t convey any messages.
This is true for a lot of AI work. 90% of it is slop with little though behind composition or anything of the kind. The last 10% does have someone behind it trying to convey a message, but most are ignoring him and listening solely to the medium.
I also think it’s fine to have bias, and it’s a part of the process, but a lot of people are trying to redefine what art is to fit that bias.
It would be fine if people were saying “this is art I don’t like because of the ethics of it” but most are saying things like “this is bad Art” or even worse, “this isn’t art at all” in broad strokes without actually trying to understand it.
AI art is the Tostino’s pizza of art.
it looks like pizza, but it doesn’t really taste like pizza, and not a single human touched it
Except you can’t tell, because it taste the same (as he clearly admits by saying his enjoyment only changes once he learns it’s AI).
It’s basically willingly entertaining and reinforcing your own placebos.
If it tastes the same to you, your taste glands are dead.
Cool if the context doesn’t matter I’ll sell you a replica of the state of David for the price of the original!
For me, art is in the eye of the beholder (so like his initial emotional reaction, and like what I understand your point to be).
But there are also aspects that are a bit more innate to the art itself. It’s sort of like a conversation, for me; if I see a piece of art I think is beautiful, and I’ve felt something emotional in response to it, I start to try and understand what the artist was trying to say through the work, what story they might be trying to tell, who they might be. It’s a connection. They might be expressing their emotions, thoughts, or experiences, and I might be empathising with another human going through that. There’s a level of trust from my side that they’ve put in effort and are being genuine.
If I find out it’s AI art… Well, there’s no conversation there, is there? Nobody made that picture. Nobody is communicating anything. Nobody is considering how a viewer might feel. Nobody has created anything. A machine has, unfeelingly, mashed a bunch of actual art together, and now the result is in front of me. If I know beforehand, I won’t bother looking. If I’ve felt emotions, I’ve been lied to and will look away.
You can feel differently, of course. I’m just explaining how I feel about art. I don’t enjoy being lied to.
It’s a fair point. When I think about it, I come to the conclusion that at first I both consume them the same way, as pictures on a screen. So they start at both the same baseline (my immediate enjoyment) and learning something was done in a more complicated method or has a deeper meaning just adds to that baseline, but it to never will go down for the opposite.
I attribute more value to human made art, just like how I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digital ones. I just don’t change my opinion towards the negative.
I also think there’s an error when assuming something can’t communicate because it was made partly or completely with AI. The GoP uses it to communicate hate for instance, that part mostly transcends the medium imo (even if again, the medium can add to it at times). I see AI as a tool, I don’t see it as the AI creating the piece.
Obviously, 3/4 of the scene is smut so it’s not like much high level communication is going on most times though lol. I’m selective in what I actually consider art, I wouldn’t call most outputs art just to be clear (or what the GOP is doing for that matter).
Interesting! I understand your first point, about not devaluing the art from your baseline of enjoyment just because it’s not human-made – I don’t agree, but that’s just a personal opinion of mine, and I can totally see what you’re saying.
Your point about the American Republican party using AI images to communicate (or create) anger is really interesting to me. I was thinking after writing my reply that, despite my feelings about generative AI, I ultimately don’t care if AI imagery is used in advertising because adverts are not genuine conversations anyway.
I feel similarly about the Republican party, or any political party from any country, using AI imagery as propaganda.
Propaganda, to me, is an intentionally dishonest and manipulative communication. That’s not a criticism of propaganda; advertising is dishonest and manipulative too. A prosecutor’s closing arguments may “spin” the truth and intend to manipulate a jury. Dishonesty and manipulation aren’t “bad” to me, per se, on their own - it’s what the intention behind the dishonesty and manipulation is that makes those things bad, or neutral, or good.
When I see adverts, or political propaganda, I don’t even begin to establish that “trust” or “connection” I mentioned in my first reply, because I know it’s not a genuine communication. Similarly to if I open a spam email and it contains a sob story about a family that needs money - I know it’s bullshit, so I don’t feel bad for them.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a tool. Part of me feels that for something to be “art”, the kind we’re (I’m) talking about at the moment, it can’t have a utility like a tool would. I’m not sure if I really believe that but it’s certainly a distinction that feels natural to me without thinking.
Sorry mate, this was mega rambly 😂