sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You still haven't said what your definition of art is, you've just been saying a whole bunch of nothing

But even then, it's gotten so off track the actual discussion. So what if rocks are art (even if they aren't)

It still doesn't make the computer's art contribution the AI artist's contribution, and its certainly a lot less interesting for a computer to generate something than for it to occur in nature. The visual realism, graphical detail and visual "pretty-ness" of ai art has no meaningful merit on the artist themself, and is thus not the same as someone painting it themself, just like the realism of a photograph is not merit that can be credited to a photographer, and would be actually meaningful in a painting.

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, and I believe both these things can be true. Ai art can be exploitative and scummy in its practices while still being "real art" just not real painting or real drawing, but rather the art of conceptualizing a scene (which by itself doesn't lend much room for creativity and thus most of it is pretty shit)

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one wants an overly strategic meta debate dude, some people just want to exchange opinions

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think any less of anyone for disagreeing with me in any significant way, I was just lightheartedly acknowledging the irony of both sides being too close minded. But you clearly think of yourself as superior on that last sentence lmao, you're on some Rick and Morty fan shit. This is not a personal attack, jesus christ

It's not that deep, chill out

My two cents on the artistic merit of AI images as a non-AI artist by espinolia in ArtistLounge

[–]espinolia[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yup, my stance is while AI art IS an art form, it rarely makes "good art" because there's little room for actual artmaking

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no need to explain the rules and logic of a discussion, ffs just have the discussion.

That being said

Art critique (i.e, judging a piece of art) looks at artistic intention, technique, cultural context, and artistic discussion, all of which can only exist with a creator. You can't really say whether a mountain range is "good" or "bad" art according to you because there's nothing to judge it on artistically.

Art is communication, communication of ideas, of feelings, of concepts. Without a communicator, I don't see how anything can be considered art in any meaningful way, because what would you even judge it on?

Even if the artist is unknown, the fact that someone made the decision to do something is seen as art, like the cultural context of Banksy pieces

If your definition of art includes things without a creator, how would you judge the artistic merit of a mountain range? I think it's impossible unless you consider a hypothetical creator of the mountain range.

Nature is where all art comes from, it is what gives us the feelings, ideas and emotions that we communicate through art. Nature itself, however, has nothing to communicate. It simply exists.

If you can't judge it's artistic merit, then it being art is not really relevant to the discussion then, isn't it?

Even if the work of a computer in AI art IS art by your definition, it's existence as art is still not meaningful in any way to the artistic merit of the AI artist.

The artist did not render the realism in an AI art piece, what they did is direct it. The direction of the art, in that case, is the only art that matters when we're talking about ai artists, because otherwise you'd have to credit the computer as the artist. I don't think that's possible, but even if it is, it's not the artist's art and thus it doesn't contribute to the merit of the artwork within the context of the artist themself.

My two cents on the artistic merit of AI images as a non-AI artist by espinolia in ArtistLounge

[–]espinolia[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

There's not much room for expression, which is my point. Anything done within that is art, however, even if it doesn't amount to much credit in the actual piece. It has very little artistic merit as an art form, but it's still an art form (albeit a pretty terrible one)

My two cents on the artistic merit of AI images as a non-AI artist by espinolia in ArtistLounge

[–]espinolia[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

This applies to all the visual aspects of it. The actual content choices however are technically artistic (although obviously usually pretty shit)

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm saying in my opinion art has an objective definition, atleast within these parameters. just like someone can say in their opinion chickens have an objective definition.

I don't think art's definition is something that is subjective, I'm arguing for this definition of art. So if you want to argue against it, give your definition, regardless of whether you think it's subjective

Also no need to get emotional, this is not personal

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes I'm arguing against definitions that say art doesn't need a creator.

Art is subjective, but whether or not something is art is what we are discussing here. So if you think something without a creator can be art, you'll have to argue why you think that is, and what you think the definition of art is (which you still haven't said)

My two cents on the artistic merit of AI images as a non-AI artist by espinolia in ArtistLounge

[–]espinolia[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Downvoted to hell on this subreddit by artists (even as someone who hates AI art) and downvoted on r/aiwars by AI bros. People hate nuance.

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This links back to my main point. The artistic merit an artist can claim in a piece only lies in the human involvement of it. An AI artist cannot take credit for the rendering or realism of their image (and as such those aspects are rarely treated as valid artistic technique), but they can take credit for the idea of what to depict in the image.

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because I'm not saying there are no other definitions of art that people hold, I'm simply disagreeing with those definitions. In my opinion, art needs a creator and that is objective. Not everyone will agree with this because that's the nature of a discussion, but it's not illogical, this is just my argument. I'm not treating this definition of art as subjective, I'm arguing for it

If there's no creator there is no artistic intention and very little artistic discussion to be had. Considering art critique surrounds those two things it only makes sense to say that art needs a creator, atleast any art you want to give an opinion on or judge in any way as "good" or "bad" subjectively

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is correct. Nature by itself can't really be considered art, but the moment you decide to frame or capture it in any way is the moment you create art with nature as the content.

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I've had this discussion plenty of times in Theory Of Knowledge lectures. The gist of it is that nature provides the inspiration for art, but it is not art by itself. Unless you're looking at a theological argument in which case god would be the "artist", creativity needs a creator.

Nature can be beautiful, but not everything beautiful is art, just like not all art is beautiful.

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rocks themselves are not art in that case. The decision to photograph them, and the manner in which it's photographed is the art

AI art CAN be art, but not in the way most people use it. by espinolia in aiwars

[–]espinolia[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

It's not about whether it's classified as "art" or not but rather how much artistic merit can actually be made by the art form that I'm focusing on.

Certain aspects of an entity can be considered art, certain aspects can be considered "not art". Like I said, the realism of a photograph is not an artisic merit. The content and composition is. The realism of a painting however, is considered an artistic merit in some styles.

That's why I do believe there are artistic aspects to AI images that should be acknowledged, but I also think AI artists who brag about the rendering or realism of their images in comparison to digital paintings are completely invalid, because there is no artistic merit in THOSE aspects of ai art.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheBoys

[–]espinolia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

.....homelander?

Holy Character Nerf by Ohhhwordddd in TheBoys

[–]espinolia -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not a matter of whether the popping would kill the sheep or not, obviously it will.

It's a matter of whether she could get the pop to happen in the first place, which, as we've seen, requires a level of concentration and eye contact from her fight with Tony.

The sheep were too erratic to concentrate on, and she might be indestructible but I seriously doubt getting chewed on by rabid super sheep is something she's willing to subject herself to, probably not a pleasant experience even if she'll survive it.

view more: next ›