What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can’t be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren’t suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it’s not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don’t care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don’t care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.
At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.
Artists understand that art is primarily about self-expression. Non-artists often instead think art is about producing nice pictures. When all nice pictures come with self-expression baked in, the two groups seem to be on the same page, but when a computer makes nice pictures that are completely devoid of self-expression, we find out they’re not on the same page at all.
That’s the thing about human-made art: even when it’s just cranked out for a job, there’s still an element of self-expression to it just from it having been made using skills honed through self-expression.
The self-expression of art is in its creation, not in its final product. Yes, the self-expression usually results in differences in the final product - if you hired 2 people to make a painting off of the same detailed description, they would be different paintings, largely because of differences in self-expression. However, if you were to, for example, hire 2 different artists to make perfect copies of the same painting, to the point where they’re indistinguishable from each other, the self-expression would still come in when one artist uses a different tool than the other, or starts with a different base color. The methods both still result in an identical final product, and so the product doesn’t showcase their unique self-expression, but the creation is separate, and unique to the artist.
Notably, you, the person who asked them to make the art, contributed nothing but a prompt. Yes, that prompt resulted in nice pictures that you wanted, but the self-expression - the thing that makes it art - was entirely someone else’s. It’s their art, they just made it for you. AI “art” is the same thing, except it’s made by a lifeless computer devoid of self expression. So, it’s still your nice picture, but there’s no self-expression at all, and so it’s not art.
When some weirdo perfects a combination of fetishes shared by seven living persons, insisting self-expression is nowhere to be found is fucking nonsense. His self could not be more expressed. His soul lays bare. There cannot be less personal character in that, than in every identical rote inking of Homer Simpson’s head.
How that freak created his eldritch pornography is an entire iterative process, like any other person using tools. You dismiss that as “nothing but the prompt,” when there’s nothing but the prompt. That’s all there is. That’s the part where a human being expended effort to convey an idea. There is no one else to blame for the horrifying image on your screen, telling you very little about the tools, but more than you ever wanted to know about the person.
And you’re throwing hands with the “process art” movement, or really half of modern art. Marcel Duchamp gave a shovel a silly name and it’s hung in the goddamn Louvre. If intent alone is enough to make something art, how is this the only tool in history that is immune to intent?
tbh, as someone not terribly skilled in pencil drawing, this is how it feels like when i make a mistake but end up liking it. i don’t always have an exact clear picture of what i want to make either.
i see your point, though you can technically iron out every detail if you are proficient enough at prompting it, and have a complete picture in your mind.
No, sorry, you don’t see my point. You’re presented by AI with an image that isn’t yours and it overwrites the one that was in your head because it’s vaguely similar. It’s killing your own imagination in favour of an inferior “version”. The one with your “mistake” is yours only, it came from your head and nowhere else and it might lead to something so much better than anything by an AI that you settle for because it’s “good enough”.
Doesn’t matter. That’s the first panel where the artist develops the image in their mind step by step. Not to mention there are great artists who have no mind’s eye at all (aphantasia).
What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can’t be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren’t suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it’s not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don’t care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don’t care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.
At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.
Artists understand that art is primarily about self-expression. Non-artists often instead think art is about producing nice pictures. When all nice pictures come with self-expression baked in, the two groups seem to be on the same page, but when a computer makes nice pictures that are completely devoid of self-expression, we find out they’re not on the same page at all.
Right, people never make art just for money. The animation outsourcing industry loves when you can tell who drew each frame.
That’s the thing about human-made art: even when it’s just cranked out for a job, there’s still an element of self-expression to it just from it having been made using skills honed through self-expression.
Yet absolutely none of that when someone spends five hours editing text to match the image in their head.
Correct
How.
The self-expression of art is in its creation, not in its final product. Yes, the self-expression usually results in differences in the final product - if you hired 2 people to make a painting off of the same detailed description, they would be different paintings, largely because of differences in self-expression. However, if you were to, for example, hire 2 different artists to make perfect copies of the same painting, to the point where they’re indistinguishable from each other, the self-expression would still come in when one artist uses a different tool than the other, or starts with a different base color. The methods both still result in an identical final product, and so the product doesn’t showcase their unique self-expression, but the creation is separate, and unique to the artist.
Notably, you, the person who asked them to make the art, contributed nothing but a prompt. Yes, that prompt resulted in nice pictures that you wanted, but the self-expression - the thing that makes it art - was entirely someone else’s. It’s their art, they just made it for you. AI “art” is the same thing, except it’s made by a lifeless computer devoid of self expression. So, it’s still your nice picture, but there’s no self-expression at all, and so it’s not art.
When some weirdo perfects a combination of fetishes shared by seven living persons, insisting self-expression is nowhere to be found is fucking nonsense. His self could not be more expressed. His soul lays bare. There cannot be less personal character in that, than in every identical rote inking of Homer Simpson’s head.
How that freak created his eldritch pornography is an entire iterative process, like any other person using tools. You dismiss that as “nothing but the prompt,” when there’s nothing but the prompt. That’s all there is. That’s the part where a human being expended effort to convey an idea. There is no one else to blame for the horrifying image on your screen, telling you very little about the tools, but more than you ever wanted to know about the person.
And you’re throwing hands with the “process art” movement, or really half of modern art. Marcel Duchamp gave a shovel a silly name and it’s hung in the goddamn Louvre. If intent alone is enough to make something art, how is this the only tool in history that is immune to intent?
I wholeheartedly agree with you, OOP is mocking the supposed barriers to art that AI users will bring up as an excuse to use AI.
i think they just want it to look impressive without the big effort to learn how to make it look impressive yourself. that kind of accessibility.
thats part of the reason why i doodle around with ai, but you can definetly make it into self expression if you know how to express yourself.
tbh, as someone not terribly skilled in pencil drawing, this is how it feels like when i make a mistake but end up liking it. i don’t always have an exact clear picture of what i want to make either.
But it’s your “mistake” (remember, we don’t make those), not something implanted into your head from the outside.
i see your point, though you can technically iron out every detail if you are proficient enough at prompting it, and have a complete picture in your mind.
No, sorry, you don’t see my point. You’re presented by AI with an image that isn’t yours and it overwrites the one that was in your head because it’s vaguely similar. It’s killing your own imagination in favour of an inferior “version”. The one with your “mistake” is yours only, it came from your head and nowhere else and it might lead to something so much better than anything by an AI that you settle for because it’s “good enough”.
I don’t think my minds eye is that clear.
Doesn’t matter. That’s the first panel where the artist develops the image in their mind step by step. Not to mention there are great artists who have no mind’s eye at all (aphantasia).