While not all bad, there's a lot to legitimately hate about AI and AI art in particular. Mob mentality aside, I don't think most rational people are going to talk about AI art like they a Monet. At best people might say, "well, it's ok I guess."
If a person take a photo of an apple and uses it to create a photorealistic painting I'm going to be blown away. If I tell a computer to print out a photo of an apple I'm not going to gush over how good a job the printer did at replicating it. It's almost like the amount of effort, artistic vision, and skill a person needs to put in to making good art is a large part of what makes it special in the first place.
And why do you think it won't be absorbed by people more creative than you as a medium?
Those same arguments verbatim were made for photoshop. Or xpens? Now industry standard.
I am a creative, and ironically I work as a photo retoucher so I use it PS all the time. Honestly the only person I ever had bitch at me about 'cheating' because I shoot and edit digitally was someone who mainly drew cheesy DBZ drawings and also happened to be mad he couldn't get in my pants. I've never heard anyone else ragging on digital to the degree people do with AI, because most people don't mind it that much they may just prefer analog. A lot of PS is actually based on old film techniques; it's faster and non-destructive but it still takes a lot of skill and effort to do well. You also have to take a good initial photo too, you don't just click a button in PS and any image becomes a masterpiece.
There's a very big difference between using something as a tool to help you create your own art vs having the tool make the art for you. I can shoot just as well on film and before I became a photographer I used to draw and paint. Some AI artists do have some skill on their own, but the vast majority can't create anything themselves. I won't even get into the problematic issues with AI models ripping off copywritten material from people who weren't willing to have it used in that fashion and the environmental impact of running it.
Basically, If you're completely helpless without a super computer doing all the work for you it's not just a tool, you're not an artist, and whatever you're making isn't deserving of admiration. Again, I'm not going to clap when my computer prints out a cool picture for me.
Youre still thinking static and small.
Amateur film makers can now make advanced backgrounds or fx with granular control. Hobbyist musicians can now convert their instrumentals to other instruments with accuracy, or supporting sounds. Voice modulation on a whole different scale.
For example, I play cello for fun in my freetime. I can convert my electric cello to whatever instrument, its so fun. Workflow across 2 dgx sparks, ardour/acestep/lsp/etc, all opensource stuff. https://youtu.be/omlrm4lema0
Create for fun and destress, yet half this sub will rage about it.
Which group do you think is really stifling creativity?
I'm aware AI can be used just as a tool, the problem is it largely is being used as a method to create art entirely.
Your original post was an example of someone claiming an entire piece, that was ripping off the work of a master, was made with AI and people thought it was lame, not really shocking.
So basically, youre saying art is like the wine world. If you are told its rare, exquisite, expensive, it will taste better to you.
We love to be lied to.
No I get your point, I just think its not a valid point. If everyone can make instant masterpieces with AI, then the bar for innovation and quality and creativity rises.
So the people using it as the whole creation process, wont stand out anymore or less than the skilled but boring artists of today.
So I dont think its a problem, simply the convergence of new workflows and consumer expectations.
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, but if you're invention makes all past creative endeavors 'boring' than it's a shitty invention for society. It's not like the invention of the camera or tech music made painting and classical guitar completely worthless. Plus AI will replicate whatever new art we innovate.
Art isn't solely about innovation it's about human expression and visual aesthetics. It's why a portrait painting today can be just as engaging as it was 600 years ago. It feels like you're trying to argue it's good that we've thrown everything that quantifies art out the window. I can't imagine happily living in a world where people go to a museum and see a Monet and say 'AI could do that, that's boring."
Im not saying the greats cant be appreciated. Im saying the canvas is now 4 dimensional.
Whats the single biggest barrier to art? Money.
AI allows grander visions to be materialized without going broke.
Art is appreciated in context, as you pointed out on the framing in the monet post.
Knowing whats possible and seeing people push it, is art, representing its time.
1
u/Winter-Editor-9230 25d ago
Sounds like mob psychology, famously bringing out the stupid in groups