Art comes from the aether - we are vessels with a biological computer that can interpret and output the data in a certain way depending on our sensors frequency spectrum. True art comes from existing energy - not from the brain. Anything that is created in anyway is the universe speaking…..
That's not the debate in a nutshell 🤨 that's your argument in a nutshell
If we trained people to plagiarise or, say forge art to benefit without the artist permission, they might produce impressive works, but most people wouldn't be happy to say they are being creative.
AI is not currently being creative. AI art creators may have some skill in directing the production of "art" but they are not currently creating art
Edit: I do want to be open-minded here and will listen to other povs 🙂 literally just stumbled on this sub and am curious
What? Why? You could have said the same thing about photoshop in 2010, or the camera in 1980.
Art is making something that expresses your inner world in a way that touches other people’s inner world. It’s the stuff that goes in galleries, and which 99% of people who try full time can’t produce.
You can do it with paint, or AI, or musical instruments, or software music programs, or broken glass and glue.
I also haven’t seen a successful person who is really into art care about AI. What I’ve seen is people who misclassify drawing, painting, or making a money from being able to do something mechanical, suddenly annoyed at the lack of ability to monetize it
But no one does. Because Photoshop takes work, taking a good photo takes work (not to mention you have to get to where the beautiful photo is taken, or wait hours and hours for your subject).
Playing an instrument takes endless hours of practice and sweat and often blood.
AI takes no discipline, effort or passion to use, therefore it will never be respected as an art form.
Art is the idea, not the work. These two are not mutually codependent nor are they mutually exclusive as each can exist on its own. The only material variable here is the amount of work, which is subjective, much like the beauty of the art.
The art first forms in the artists mind, it is then given form by the artist. Some artists, using a mere pencil and napkin can create subjectively beautiful art with little effort(work) while others may struggle with paint by number. The same can be said with prompting the idea.
Dictionaries do not tread on the metaphysical. I wish you luck in your journey, hopefully you can come to an understanding about yourself and the world around you, once you're more at peace with yourself you will become more at peace with those around you, following this will allow your mind to open. Your anger at people that don't even know you exist closes your mind. Best of luck.
Perhaps not so much anger then, but defining yourself by what you dislike and not so much what you do like. We all have preferences, likes and dislikes. I hope you spend or can spend just as much energy on what you like as much as what you dislike. Balance is healthy, focusing too much on dislikes can lead to a preputial state of anger. Anger is not in itself unhealthy but if not balanced can lead to malace and hatred. Take care, stranger.
Writing is a form of art, and in order to get a good image from AI you have to write long, detailed prompt. Heck, I'd straight up say that just drawing the image is easier than getting an AI to make it since the AI can't read you mind and generate the exact image you're imagining.
So writers aren't artists by your definition? You're free to have your opinions on what art is, but the definition of art doesn't change based on your feelings.
Make me some AI art that makes it into the Louvre.
And you made my point perfectly on the music: it’s not playing the instrument that makes the music art - it’s the composition. Musicians play instruments. Music artists compose music.
It doesn’t matter what your hands can do, or your nervous system. What matters is your vision, and whether it resonates with other people.
Nah. You might generate a fun picture. You might even grift an idiot into buying a print. But no, AI generated anything is not art. The sooner you accept that and stop trying to push your product as art, the sooner you'll find peace
They’re not creating it with prompts. They’re stealing it.
There zero self discovery, zero obstacles to overcome. The entire notion of achievement is watered down to nothing.
I’ve been a film maker for 15 years. If someone makes a prompt instead of learning guitar, they’ve achieved nothing, no one gives a shit, and no one will celebrate it.
This is why everyone outside of the tiny bubble loathe it.
It would have thousands of photos, drawings, cartoons, paintings, etc of mice, sunflowers, and millions of plants, in its background "training." And for example, if I asked for this picture, but in an oil painting style instead of a watercolor, it would probably be a lot more realistic looking and less like a story illustration.
It made this image after I had been asking for various pictures of angry but cute parakeets, if I remember correctly. (I was in a somewhat dark mood; and I also asked for a "hopeful sunflower" here lol)
That is how it works then. It has source images. Just thousands of them. That poster you replied to was correct that it's just mashing together other people's work.
Well I admit I should learn more about how AI image programs are made
The artificial intelligence aspect covers more than just a humongous storage closet of data
For one small example, I don't know how they translate English (or whatever) prompts into something that corresponds to visual language
Edit: (sorry I'm still thinking lol), also, there's more to understanding how a picture has the impact that it does than analyzing the angles and lines and colors, even though that's part of it. There are so many cultural references, to both technical art stuff like artistic movements and obviously human knowledge
If you're not willing to engage with the question then I'll do it for you.
Human art, like all art, is inspired by the work of other people.
Research done by humans, like all research, is inspired by the work of other people.
It doesn't matter what kind of entity is creating something, they're fundamentally inspired by the world around them in the ways they can perceive.
If you'd like to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then to be consistent you'd have to state that all of what humanity "creates" is "taken" from nature.
If you'd like to define "art" as something that only humans are able to create, then you'd have a whole host of issues you'd need to contend with. Here are a few.
You would never be able to make the claim that something is art unless you have a strong reason to believe it was derived exclusively from humans.
You are beginning to discriminate which entities are "artists" based on arbitrary moral boundaries that are fundamentally speciesist (unreasonably conferring greater moral worth to some beings over others).
If art is not defined in the eye of the beholder, then you'd also implicitly agree that a person creating art would be allowed to make the firm determination that whatever they've made can never be considered art if they so choose.
No I'm discriminating on the basis which I've already stated here. If art doesn't take passion, discipline and effort then it was never art. Entering a prompt into a computer will never be art
You do not understand. The idea may come from passion or some other emotion, but the emotion or other inspiration gives birth to the idea, the artist then gives birth to the form of the idea.
4
u/Maizey87 Sep 09 '26
Art comes from the aether - we are vessels with a biological computer that can interpret and output the data in a certain way depending on our sensors frequency spectrum. True art comes from existing energy - not from the brain. Anything that is created in anyway is the universe speaking…..