KaySo much this:
Lunatech@sable But not all humans have the skills or the ability to make good art using traditional methods, but they can make art by describing their vision into an AI that will then create what they describe. It is still humans making art, they are just using a different tool that allows more humans to make art, not just those that possess a particular skill set and/or the fine motor coordination to make traditional art.
NockerGeek@Lunatech @sable No, it’s not humans “making art”, if all they’re doing is describing what they want. Someone who commissions an artist isn’t considered an artist, and they do the exact same thing. AI image generation fans are just either uninterested in learning art or unwilling to pay a human being to do it. Claiming that AI makes you an artist is like saying reheating a frozen dinner makes you a chef.
@nockergeek @sable Reheating a frozen dinner may not make you a "chef" but in the end it accomplishes the same purpose, it gets you fed. However the term "artist" is not nearly as narrow a term in the English language as "chef" - the latter is very specific to someone with training in food preparation, whereas there is really no such thing as a "professional" artist, anyone can create "art" and calls themself an "artist", and frankly some artists don't help their cause when a lot of what they produce looks like utter trash to the "uninitiated" (or in some cases actually IS trash, remember the banana peel?). Art is very much in the eye of the beholder, so if you want to believe only humans can produce art (and not chimpanzees or computers) that is your right but don't be surprised that many people who do not make and sell works of traditional art will not agree with you. This is the "rock and roll is not real music" outcry all over again.
@Lunatech @sable "No such thing as a 'professional' artist." Seriously? There is no one out there who practices art as their trade? Not a one? No one who draws for commission, no one who does concept art for a living, no one who does graphic design? No one who draws comics, paints portraits, or sculpts sculpture as their main source of income?
I bet all the artists out there who do art for a living are surprised they were unpaid amateurs this whole time!
@nockergeek @sable What I meant by that is that anyone can call themselves a professional artist. You don't have to go to any schools, get any degrees, or attend any institutions of higher learning to be considered a "professional" artist. As long as someone is willing to pay your for your work, you're a "professional". It's kind of like "professional" contractors, some are great, and then some tear out all your walls and then pocket the money you're given them and disappear. Not saying artists do that (for one thing they may not get paid in advance) but the qualifications for calling oneself a "professional" are about the same.
@nockergeek @sable Also, you are kind of splitting hairs when you say that a human describing an artistic vision to an AI program and letting it fill in the details isn't art. Sometimes it takes effort and creativity to come up with a description that causes the AI to do what you want. On the other hand some images are generated with little thought or talent, and are maybe the equivalent of a child's crayon drawing, but proud parents still call that child's drawing art. Point is, we don't decide who or what can create art, we just as individuals decide wheter we like something enough to call it a work of art, a piece of trash, or something in between. And don't even get me started on the crap art that rich people buy for ridiculous amounts of money, that I wouldn't have hanging in my living room if you paid me!
@Lunatech @sable No, I'm not splitting hairs, because my partner is an artist who does illustration for a living. I've seen how she works with the people commissioning her. They too have creativity and vision, and there's are sometimes rounds of revisions while they hash out details and help her realize what they want to see.
But that doesn't make them the artists, because _they didn't create the art_. She did. It was her skill and effort and time they paid for.
@Lunatech @sable As far as if what the AI image generator is counts as art, tell me this:
What did the AI bring of itself to the process? What did it intend? What did it want to convey? What did it personally bring to the artwork that makes it special? What did the AI want out of it? What was it feeling as it worked on the piece? What memories, what practiced skills did it bring to the work? What feeling did it wish to invoke in the viewer?
@nockergeek @sable Who cares? ART IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. If the AI produces "art" that people enjoy then who cares if it had none of the qualities you would attribute to a human artist? Oh, right, the people who sell art for a living!
What was the human artist feeling when they worked on a piece? Maybe they were wondering how much some gullible rich person would pay for the piece of crap art they were producing, or maybe they were pouring their entire heart and soul into it. You don't know.
@nockergeek @sable Oh, I see now. You have a partner who objects to AI art because they think it will make their art harder to sell. But that is an entirely different debate. That puts you two in the same category as the Luddites who resisted automation because the feared it would cost them their jobs. And yes, that could happen, and maybe in many years everyone will just turn to AI's for their works of art. However you do have some protection, in that right now AI generated art can't be copyrighted, so if a business uses a logo created by AI (as an example) they MAY not be able to protect it.
But anyway as long as you are defending your partner it appears you are incapable of thinking rationally about this subject, and anything I say is probably just going to upset you more. But I don't agree with you.
@nockergeek @sable Oh and I can't let this pass. You said, "AI image generation fans are just either uninterested in learning art or unwilling to pay a human being to do it."
My response is, "so what?" First of all you are painting all AI image generation fans with the same brush, so to speak, but second even where that is true, so what? If it looks like art to them then that's all that matters. You don't get to define what other people consider art, or music, or poetry, or anything of that nature. Where is your outcry when someone puts paint on their dog's feet and let them walk across a canvas, or lets a monkey throw paint at a canvas and calls that art? The people doing things like that didn't "learn art" and they didn't pay a human being to do it, yet somehow things like that are considered art by some people.
@Lunatech @sable You want "art" as a consumable. You want a machine that makes pictures for you so you can skirt around the idea of dealing with a human. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. You dress it up as "look, I put words in a machine and it made a picture and that makes me and artist", but it isn't so. You just feel entitled to feed off the work of actual artists to have AI make image mashups for you. You're a pathetic excuse for a human.
@nockergeek @sable Well if you want to start with the insults (and remember YOU started it), you're just someone who has a partner who gets to sit on their ass all day making commercial art rather than doing any kind of meaningful manual labor. Just because they have a talent that some people will pay for makes you think you have the right to define what is and isn't art. So as far as I'm concerned you are both greedy snobs who should be grateful that anyone is willing to pay for art, and should not be acting entitled as if the world owes you two a living.
And with that I am done. I don't know what the goal was of your little tirade but now I see one more benefit of AI-generated art, you don't have to deal with entitled or emotional human artists. So congratulations, you have pushed me even more firmly into the camp of AI supporters.