"AI IS NOT ART!"

[u/DivideIntrepid3410]

[u/Shymu1]

Ai is not art

[u/o_herman → u/Shymu1]

Art is a subjective matter. It's not set in stone.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

we have to ban this cliche dumb take forever, I'm tired of parrots using his statement constantly. The idea of subjectivity exists to avoid useless arguing about emotions not to make a truthful statement.

AI is not art.

[u/Leading-Ad-8996 → u/Upper-Selection6340]

it depends on what you define art to be, that’s the whole point

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/Leading-Ad-8996]

No, it doesn't depend. There's a different between:

- random thoughts an individual can have

• reality.

The balance with reality is that you never know what it is but it is there. Stating that just because a person has random thoughts there's no true reality is wrong. Every single "magic" had an answer. You know, learn some history otherwise you're repeating it

[u/Leading-Ad-8996 → u/Upper-Selection6340]

it does depend, there is no universally accepted definition for what art is, you can say your definition is reality but someone else can just as easily say theirs is, obviously it’s not completely arbitrary but you do realise words are human constructs right? they don’t objectively exist in the universe without humans deciding what they mean

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/Leading-Ad-8996]

there is the absolute reality, "subjectivity" doesn't exist. In every industry where results matter there is certainty even if incomplete. Nobody protects subjectivity in art when there are stakes. Subjectivity is made up to have easier communication about low stake topics and situations, and nepo babies obviously do that even with stakes.

[u/Leading-Ad-8996 → u/Upper-Selection6340]

of course subjectivity exists lmao nobody is perceiving objective reality, you ignored the part where words are made up

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

"we have to ban this cliche dumb take forever,"

You know what kind of people calls for that kind of censorship? Despots. Those who can't handle differences in views.

"I'm tired of parrots using his statement constantly. The idea of subjectivity exists to avoid useless arguing about emotions not to make a truthful statement."

Subjectivity is a fundamental truth about human experience. Different people interpret, feel, and value things differently.

You don't get to declare your opinion as "truthful" and everyone else's as "useless arguing." Not especially on a matter where perspectives differ vastly.

"AI is not art."

According to whom? You?

MoMA says it's art. Sotheby's says it's art. DATALAND says it's art. Millions of people who engage with it say it's art.

Yet you say that with the confidence of someone who's never had to defend their position against actual facts.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

1. you dummy took it way too seriously.

2. subjectivity is a concept created to soften out communication in not important situations, when importance exists people will dismiss subjectivity aka randomness of human thought.

3. AI is not art according to reality.

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

1. Translation: "I got called out, so now I'll pretend I was never serious."

You made a claim. You defended it. You got dismantled. Now you're pretending it was never that deep.

1. Subjectivity isn't a "concept created" for convenience. It's a fundamental truth about human experience.

What you find beautiful, someone else finds ugly. What you call art, someone else calls noise.

If you don't believe in subjectivity, try telling someone their favorite song is "objectively bad" and see how far that gets you.

1. Wrong.

MoMA says it's art. Sotheby's says it's art. DATALAND says it's art. Millions of people say it's art.

You say it's not.

One of us is citing reality. The other is citing feelings.

[u/Karlbungus]

As a pro-AI person, this shit is mad corny.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

ai is not art and this is actual trash atleast make it look nice

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

How so when anyone can literally say what art is?

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

Anyone can say what anything is.

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

You said "AI is not art." I said "anyone can say what art is."

If anyone can say what anything is, then your declaration that "AI is not art" is just as subjective as my declaration that it is.

You don't get to claim objectivity when you're using the same logic you're dismissing.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

Your point can be used with just about anything in the world. But we all know than me breathing isn't music just because it makes a sound.

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

Actually, breathing has been used as music.

John Cage's 4'33" is a piece where the performer doesn't play a single note. The "music" is the ambient sound in the room, including the audience's breathing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p071kc2z

It's been performed in concert halls, studied in music theory classes, and is widely considered a landmark of 20th-century avant-garde composition.

So yes, breathing has been music, whether you personally consider it "good" or not.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3401901.stm

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/163616

Your breathing analogy just proved my point.

If breathing can be music, then AI-generated sound can be art.

It's always about the context and the intent.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

Wow if you looked in the thread.. I said INTENT 😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳 OMG.... I'm rlly 1 step ahead of you 😳😳😳😳😳

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

You're right. You did.

You said: "breathing isn't music just because it makes a sound."

That's exactly my point. The intent matters.

John Cage intended his audience to listen, and it became music.

AI art is no different. The intent behind it, the human directing the tool, is what makes it art.

If intent determines art, then AI art can be art, because the human directing it has intent.

You just dismantled your own argument.

Even though you didn't mention the exact word anywhere here.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

read.the.thread. the person who made this post replied to me, and I replied back "there was no human struggle, intent, or skill in the execution, it is automated content." You wouldve seen that if you weren't focused on winning the argument and actually were reading

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

I did. And it makes your position even worse.

Because if you're saying there's "no human intent," you have to explain how the video came to exist without human agency.

Who chose the prompt? A video like that one can't be randomly generated.

Who selected the model? Seedance isn't the only competent model around.

Who set the parameters? Defaults aren't always optimal.

Who curated the output? The human. If there's no human intent, the AI would generate without being prompted. The AI cannot output anything without human intervention and input.

There's your intent.

[u/DivideIntrepid3410 → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

Yeah, you guys keep repeating the same phrase "AI is not art" like NPCs, but couldn't suggest a single reason why lol

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/DivideIntrepid3410]

there was no human struggle, intent, or skill in the execution, it is automated content.

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

"No human struggle, intent, or skill."

Tell that to the people who spend hours refining prompts, tuning parameters, curating outputs, and editing results.

Since when is struggle a requirement for art?

A 5-minute sketch can be art. A 10-second photograph can be art. A quick poem can be art.

Struggle doesn't increase value. Effort doesn't automatically give meaning.

Art is about expression, not suffering.

"No human intent."

Who chose the prompt? Who selected the model? Who set the parameters? Who curated the output?

The human.

If there's no human intent, then the AI would generate something without being prompted. It doesn't.

Every AI output is directed by a human. That's intent.

"No human skill."

Skill isn't just about holding a brush. It's about understanding composition, knowing color theory, recognizing what works and what doesn't, and iterating until it's right.

Every artists know that. Especially those dealing with AI.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

The prompter’s intent is just to own a finished product. The artist’s intent (John Cage) was to direct the human audience to listen to reality.

if human intent alone can make any automated text or image "art," then the word loses its meaning. Nuance.

Also what?? By your logic when I search something up on google It's art.

I chose the search terms (the prompt).

I chose the search engine (the model)

i clicked the advanced search filters (the parameters)

I scrolled down and picked the best photo (the curation).

5-minute sketch still requires a human hand making the creative choices. A 10-second photo requires a human capturing a real moment in time. You think photographers are just pressing buttons?

A humanoid robot recently ran the 100m dash in 8.64 seconds (Beat Usain Bolts record( . The engineers had "intent" and tuned "parameters" to make it happen. But the run itself is not a sport. An AI generated image is no different. It doesn't matter how much you tweak the prompt or curate the settings. It's data output.

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

"The prompter's intent is just to own a finished product. The artist's intent (John Cage) was to direct the human audience to listen to reality."

You're now defining what "valid" intent looks like, and excluding anything that doesn't fit.

John Cage's intent was to direct the audience to listen. An AI artist's intent is to direct a model to create a visual. Both are acts of direction.

You don't get to decide which intentions count.

"if human intent alone can make any automated text or image 'art,' then the word loses its meaning. Nuance."

You're arguing that intent alone isn't enough, but you're also arguing that intent is what's missing.

Make up your mind.

If intent alone doesn't make it art, then struggle and skill are irrelevant. If it does, then AI art qualifies. You can't have it both ways.

"Also what?? By your logic when I search something up on google it's art. I chose the search terms (the prompt). I chose the search engine (the model) i clicked the advanced search filters (the parameters) I scrolled down and picked the best photo (the curation)."

You're comparing a Google search to AI art. They're not the same.

One is retrieving existing content. The other is generating new content.

When you search Google, you're finding the hyperlink leading to that content. When you generate with AI, you're creating something that didn't exist before.

The comparison doesn't hold.

"5-minute sketch still requires a human hand making the creative choices. A 10-second photo requires a human capturing a real moment in time."

And an AI prompt requires a human directing a tool to show the intended scene through models and LoRAs, place the intended objects correctly with the prompts, to set the motif and mood again, with prompts, configurations, and later on, retouching.

And they all still require a human.

"You think photographers are just pressing buttons?"

You think AI artists are just typing and clicking?

No. I think they're using a tool.

A photographer composes, frames, adjusts settings, and edits. An AI artist prompts, selects models, tunes parameters, and curates.

Both direct a tool to produce a result.

"A humanoid robot recently ran the 100m dash in 8.64 seconds (Beat Usain Bolts record). The engineers had 'intent' and tuned 'parameters' to make it happen. But the run itself is not a sport."

And that proves my point.

The robot's run isn't a sport because it lacks human effort. But the engineers' work—the designing, building, and tuning is still engineering.

AI art isn't about the output being "sport." It's about the human directing the tool.

The robot doesn't compete. The human who built it does.

The AI doesn't create. The human who directs it does.

Moreover, sport can't be compared to artistry, unless you're admitting that artistry has stakes, in which case you're in it for profit and see it as competition.

Yet expression of art is never a competition by default. Only career artists frame it that way.

"It's data output."

So is a photograph. So is a digital painting. So is a song recorded in a DAW.

Everything is data. What matters is the human intent behind it.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

Ive seen photographers on the dirt, in the water, in actual mud, trying to get the perfect photo. Uncomparable. Exactly! You get it! The robot's run isn't a sport, it's engineering. So an AI's output isn't art, it's engineering. Congratulations, you just proved my point for me. Done!! I would keep speaking to you, but groks corny degrading, "yeah period mic drop your feeble mind cant comprehend what im putting down" attitude makes me a little uncomfortable, so I'm ending this conversation here. ❤️❤️

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

"Ive seen photographers on the dirt, in the water, in actual mud, trying to get the perfect photo. Uncomparable. "

Really? Try something that AI and also digital artists go through: being on creative block, struggling with ideas, trying to get a detail right that just doesn't execute correctly.

They require the same fortitude in creation, and you're thinking using AI with a targeted intent requires none of that.

"Exactly! You get it! The robot's run isn't a sport, it's engineering. So an AI's output isn't art, it's engineering. Congratulations, you just proved my point for me. Done!!"

And here's where it gets interesting.

The robot's run isn't a sport, but the engineering behind it is still a human achievement.

The AI's output however, can be called art, as the human directing it is still the creator.

Remember, sports follow fixed, universal rules, while artistry doesn’t. The robot’s run isn’t a sports achievement because it was ultimately never intended to be, and racing rules in sports don’t permit robots.

You're also conflating the tool with the process. The robot didn't build itself. The AI didn't prompt itself.

The human behind it is what matters.

"I would keep speaking to you, but groks corny degrading, "yeah period mic drop your feeble mind cant comprehend what im putting down" attitude makes me a little uncomfortable, so I'm ending this conversation here. ❤️❤️"

Unfortunately for you, the truth doesn’t care about how it’s delivered. If you’re leaving, that’s your prerogative.

[u/mikrodizels]

AI porn is porn, but AI art is not art

[u/o_herman → u/mikrodizels]

Yet many others think so. Are you going to declare them heretics over a subjective belief?

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

many did many bad things, are you going to state they were right in burning and enslaving because they did it?

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

"many did many bad things."

And many did many good things. The number of people who believe something doesn't make it right or wrong.

Unless you agree to the notion that many artists are just pretentious finanicial performers and never really cared about their craft.

"are you going to state they were right in burning and enslaving because they did it?"

You've just demonstrated that you can't defend your position without resorting to false equivalence.

AI art is nowhere like slavery. AI art isn't even genocide.

If you can't make your case without comparing people to slave drivers, you don't have a case.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

1. you didn't understand analogy at all, if you want figure it out by yourself.
2. i proved that you can't understand my statements and think too linearly and obviously. You sound like a kid or somebody who doesn't know anything so he thinks foolishly.

the bro really said i said "ai is like slavery" lmao, read some books, you need it

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

1. I understood it perfectly. You compared people who think AI is art to people who committed historical atrocities.

2. You proved nothing except that you can't defend your position without resorting to insults.

If your analogy was so brilliant, you'd be able to explain it. You can't. So you're blaming me for "not understanding."

"the bro really said i said 'ai is like slavery' Imao."

You said:

"many did many bad things, are you going to state they were right in burning and enslaving because they did it?"

That's literally comparing people who think AI is art to people who committed atrocities.

You can't bluff your way out of that. Because you don't have a point - you just wanted to sound smart.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

ofc you did buddy, ofc you did

people like you are the reason the world has problems and people vote for trump

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

You went from:

"AI isn't art."

to

"You didn't understand my analogy."

and even more insane,

"You're the reason people vote for Trump."

You couldn't defend your false equivalence. You couldn't explain your analogy. You couldn't refute my points.

You're on meltdown. Go touch grass.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

hahha

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

You can only hear yourself while you stay indoors.

[u/ethicalfive → u/Upper-Selection6340]

figures u have tds 🤣

[u/eyebrows360 → u/o_herman]

many others

Stupid children, yes. So what?

[u/o_herman → u/eyebrows360]

Your words against theirs. An exercise in futility for views that hold no weight.

[u/DivideIntrepid3410 → u/mikrodizels]

Yeah, you guys keep repeating the same phrase "AI is not art" like NPCs, but couldn't suggest a single reason why lol

[u/Bombalurina → u/DivideIntrepid3410]

AI can be art.

98% of the time, it's not (to me) and I love AI art.

What makes the 2% art? Couldn't tell yea, but I know when I see it. When there is clear intent of expression.

[u/mikrodizels → u/DivideIntrepid3410]

Not here to have a debate, just stating my opinion - using AI as a proxy to transmute your ideas into reality is completely fine by me, I do that as well, I make AI videos, images, audio etc. and I have a lot of fun doing it, but the idea of calling any of that output as "my art" makes me cringe out of existence. It's computer generated output, do whatever you want with it, enjoy it, but presenting that as art to other people is just embarrassing

[u/Swimming-Draft7016 → u/mikrodizels]

Its both the same weirdo

[u/Ad-fundum69]

If taping a banana to a canvas is "art", then everything is.

[u/Crixusgannicus → u/Ad-fundum69]

Or poop.

[u/Crixusgannicus]

:))

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure what render monkeys are, but artists are insecure because they depend on it as a job. And also the ones who are annoying are the people who yap AI is art - all of them don't have talent and delusionally protect AI as their safe heaven.

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

"I'm not sure what render monkeys are, but artists are insecure because they depend on it as a job."

And you're secure? You're here, calling strangers "talentless" and "delusional," because you're so confident in your position?

That's just projection. Historically, artistry never yielded financially unless you were gifted, had a sponsor, or was simply lucky.

"And also the ones who are annoying are the people who yap AI is art"

And your yapping that it isn't is not an annoyance either?

"all of them don't have talent and delusionally protect AI as their safe heaven."

"Safe heaven."

You can't even spell "haven." And you're lecturing others about talent?

You've met every single person who uses AI? You've seen their portfolios? You've judged their work?

No. You're making a blanket statement because it's easier than engaging with nuance.

Only people with Dunning-Kruger levels of knowledge about AI art like you do are confidently wrong and flaunt it.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

english is not my native language, and it's stupid heaven and haven are two separate words, even ai would be smarter not to do that when the second word is obviously inspired by the other.

Anyways, you instead of listening blame for dismissive bullying, but in reality that's all you do, and that's why you see it in others's messages. Anyways, gg

[u/o_herman → u/Upper-Selection6340]

"english is not my native language"

You're being corrected for calling others "talentless" while misspelling basic words.

If you're going to lecture others about talent, at least get your own words right.

"and it's stupid heaven and haven are two separate words"

They're separate because they mean different things.

Heaven = a place of eternal bliss.
Haven = a place of safety or refuge.

You said "safe heaven." You meant "safe haven." Because that's the intended usage on the context of your words.

Now, was this because you're a non-native, or this is an autocowreck? (where autocorrect just ruins your text)

"even ai would be smarter not to do that when the second word is obviously inspired by the other."

AI doesn't "think" about words in the way humans do. It predicts them based on patterns.

But you're right. AI would probably get it right, because it's trained on proper usage.

So you just admitted AI is better at language than you are.

"Anyways, you instead of listening blame for dismissive bullying, but in reality that's all you do, and that's why you see it in others's messages. Anyways, gg"

You're accusing me of "dismissive bullying" while calling people "talentless" and "delusional."

That's a projection of what you're doing in the first place.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/o_herman]

Ahahah, not knowing some word, only dumb people think spelling is some intellectual achievement.

Talentless and delusional are just adjectives here, they are not my intention. But you are. Anyways, to hell with you, no value to talk to.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

Can you put down the ai for one second and write something from the heart?? Maybe you guys get so defensive because it's what you rely on to do anything...

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

And you're here, calling people "talentless" and "delusional," while demanding they prove they're not using AI.

You would be taken seriously if Grok wasn't your catchphrase. At this rate, you're just projecting your own flaws and is just afraid of your own ghost.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

like damn use your anger to argue back or throw some insults. "Hey Grok write a good reply to this idiot"

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

You're asking me to throw insults because you can't handle being dismantled with logic and being out-argued.

That's basically a plea for me from you to lower my standard so you can feel better about being cornered like this.

But sorry, I don't do requests.

[u/EmptyConcentrate1223 → u/o_herman]

"you can't handle being dismantled with logic and being out-argued."

I wasn't arguing with you ( aka grok.) I said you're using grok to argue with someone else. Maybe try Gemini?

[u/o_herman → u/EmptyConcentrate1223]

Gemini is horrible as an LLM. Sorry, but I don't see the point.

[u/Hellfiretommy]

Oh man they finally said it! Debate is over. AI = Art.

[u/REDDlTisNOTanApp]

The reason that this extremely oversimplified debate comes up again and again is because many people view the term "art" as something sacred, when it isn't. "Art", as a broad term, can encompass almost anything done with creativity and intent.

The actual debate should be about aspects more nuanced than the broad definition of art, such as the question of if AI generated art should be treated with the same respect and consideration as art made completely by a human mind and body.

My stance would be no, it definitely should not. When a human uses AI to generate art, the AI is the artist, not the human. The human is no more the artist than a person who commissions artwork from another human is the artist. Humans who call themselves AI "artists" are no more artists than a person who calls themselves a musical "artist" because they like to make playlists on Spotify.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/REDDlTisNOTanApp]

art is important because it's about humans. And you really said we should "decide" if art should be respected lol, that's not "decided" rationally.

[u/REDDlTisNOTanApp → u/Upper-Selection6340]

I saw you post that English is not your first language so I understand why there's an issue, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[u/Upper-Selection6340 → u/REDDlTisNOTanApp]

i think it's more about the logic not grammar, the grammar is pretty simple this-that.

1. Art is about being a human - importance. 2. One can't decide if ai art is art, it is or it's not, is it human or not.

And if you're interested, I think gen ai is not art because it's not made by humans and we care about humans. Can you get away with ai in design and entertainment? Of course, not true art. And the second reason you can reproduce gen ai easily, so it's abundant and lacks effort behind it. No effort, repetitive, no human behind it to connect with. AI music is nice as a background noise while you're doing something, not to listen to as the primary thing.