Mastodawn

I’ve lost follower acquaintances for saying this, so I’m saying it again: If you think that Statistical Nonsense Machines (wrong terms “AI” or “ML”) make art, you don’t have a clue what art is.

No, really. Go study it.

Art is sociological artifact. Remove the cognition to create interpreted intent in relation to the sign and signified, and the concept of “art” is removed.

Literally *not* art.

@troy_s Counter-argument: Current AI systems like Stable Diffusion or MidJourney are just sophisticated tools translating the intend of their users into visual artefacts. Nothing but a really advanced paintbrush cum compass and straightedge with a bit of scissors, glue, and a polaroid in a handy packet. Of course it's art.

@StephanSchulz See the many responses to the naive notion of “tool” here in this thread. Does not qualify as a tool when it outsources the feedback loop between the sign, the signified, and the interpreter.

We ignore the abject disconnect of meaning due to the Statistical Nonsense diffusion pattern, it *fails* on the interpreter front in that the loop of mark making is outsourced to someone’s else’s code driven nonsense of “meaning”.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s That's not how people I know use these tools. They create multiple prompts, refine both the prompts and the images, do manual touch-up and colour correction, and so on. A similar discussion took place when photography was new - "that's not art, that's just a mechanically produced image". See where that ended...

@StephanSchulz Again, please exert the bare minimum of energy to distinguish what was said and why it is not “tool” class for the reasons mentioned.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s Well, we may be talking at cross purposes. My point is that "feedback" is not outsourced - it's provided by the user. And of course these are tools. If what they produce is art is under discussion - not there status as tools per se (or we have very different definitions of tool).

@StephanSchulz It *is* outsourced. The marks are not the author, but a statistical kitbash of other marks. Worse than that, the focus of any critique should be upon the *mechanism of meaning*. That is, the outsourcing is nothing but someone else’s idea of “meaning”, inscribed into the algorithm, which guides clusters toward or away. Further still, using these things also reveals this clearly; they are brittle and cannot be coaxed into fine grained constellations. +

@StephanSchulz So I implore you to consider the specifics of the mark making itself, and to understand how wildly different it exists from say, a chisel.

1. The “meaning” directionality is outsourced; the “decision” to move toward or away from a mark.
2. The invisible simulacrum nonsense above, is placed atop of *other authorship* to further distort the mark making.

Reading a randomized set of words as a Choose Your Own Adventure is not authorship.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s Putting new features atop other authorship is indispensable for all art. Consider Warhol's Soup Cans - he uses existing art and rearranges it. Or john Cage's 4'33 - it only exists in contrast to all formal music the preceded it.

Also consider that many artists use random elements - an extreme case is found art, but Jason Pollok certainly did not plan every individual splatter.

@StephanSchulz Please read what I typed about marks and attempt to understand it. There is a massive difference in this, that folks refuse to see.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s As I said: We seem to talk at cross purposes. A user of (e.g.) MidJourney creates a prompt - if (s)he has any experience, then that prompt is in a semi-formal language with a lot of explicit instructions, e.g. on style, format, lighting, and so on. That in itself is a creative act. The MidJourney renders several images for the prompt. The user selects one or more for refinement (there is you feedback step!) and iterates the process, sometime modifying the prompt.

@StephanSchulz I assure you I am not speaking at cross purposes. The mark making is the key. But carry on…

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s Well, I'm neither an artist (except in C and Scheme) nor an art specialist, nor even a native English speaker. But "making the mark" (which I understand as the physical act of modifying the surface of an artwork) seems to be a trivial, merely mechanical act. Many artist use virtual tools with pre-defined brushes and textures - is that not art for you?

@StephanSchulz Focus deeper on the *guidance* of the art. That is, what drives meaning of the actual interpretation and selection of the mark, at the lowest level.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s But that is exactly what the user is doing - it guides the system to his desired result. He's doing it at a higher level than with a brush and paint - but then so is a photographer.

@StephanSchulz I’m sorry. The very first post hinted at this distinction in terms of interpreter relation to the guiding of the mark. I cannot force anyone to focus on the actual thing I just described. Note how you avoided explaining what I asked you to explain?

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s I suspect I don't understand what you want me to explain. And I also think our discussion lacks a clear definition of the term "art". Can you imagine a computer ever to create art? Can you imagine hypothetical intelligent aliens to create art?

@StephanSchulz Try to understand the thing I asked you to explain.

Stephan Schulz Jan 20, 2023

@troy_s I think we must distinguish different things. First, ist the output of MidJourney art? Secondly, if so, who is the author? The user? The AI? The programmers? The authors of the art that was used to train the AI? Any combination of the above?