14
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
14 points (93.8% liked)
Technology
34745 readers
166 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As a long time artist in traditional and digital mediums, I get frustrated by this attitude. Is there a reason images made with this tool are considered less "art" than Pollock or Newman? Are photographers not artists, because their medium is too easy? I admit midjourney is bottom of the barrel for AI art tools, but they obviously had an intent and goal while creating these images. While I prefer stable diffusion, as I like precise control over every aspect of my creating an image, it gets the exact same response.
When people are creating detailed interactive worlds by dictating to AI art tools, will you refute the medium at every level of complexity, effort, and intention? It's as ridiculous as when people were saying 3D art wasn't "art." Or anything made in Photoshop. Judge it how you wish as an individual piece, but don't be so dismissive of new tools. They are a part of our life and creativity now.
Personally, I've have a wallpaper folder with around 7k+ pictures I've SD create for me. Am I an artist now? Should I put that on my resume? No, I’m not more of an artist as someone who commissioned an art piece from someone else. The only difference is that I tell an AI what I want instead of some person.
I'm not opposed to AI art, but I'm opposed to people who call themself artist because they put in an AI prompt into a textfield. It's just a fucking cringing joke if I see someone like that call themself artist or "AI artist".
How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you've made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective "team" to compete with people who have endless resources.
You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?
I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don't go around claiming "this thing isn't art" because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.
Damn. Shots fired.
Pun intended.