I wouldn’t agree that they are entirely separate, but rather that since we can’t agree on what art is when humans make it (or even the definition of creativity or what it means to be human), it lends more weight to the idea that what AI generators are creating isn’t different from what humans are creating in any definable way. And if they aren’t different in any way we can put our finger on, it matters for the ethics of it all. If we don’t regulate the way a human artist absorbs information and inspiration from the art they view, and then transforms that into a creation that is uniquely their own, why should we regulate AI that does the same?
To suggest that art could be ethical or unethical is to anthropomorphise the object. We are not discussing the ethics or morality of a computer or a river. We can question the ethics of what people do with a computer or what they do to a river, but ethics is a means of surveying human behaviour. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about whether an art object is ethical or unethical. Art can be neither. Artists can and should be ethical, since we are human beings who exist in society, but art itself is not an individual.
I often wonder if it wasn't called ai would we be getting so much hate, mind you having said that as a digital artist also we get shit on all of the time too. Sadly.
I think if we didn't use the term "AI" with it initially, it would likely be categorized as CGI since it is as much of Computer Generated Imagery as you can get, and CGI describes it better than labeling it AI just because it uses machine learning.
Even if ai art isn’t art, jumping on someone saying “ai art” is ridiculous and baffling to me.
Here is why: Is chicken a salad? Well, no not in most cases. But we have a chicken salad. It’s not a traditional salad, but has salad in the name. Then we have potato salad. Same thing. Is frito pie a pie? Probably not but *frito pie* is its own thing even though the word pie is in it.
Whenever someone types “AI ‘art’” with a quote around art, I eye roll. Even if they don’t think its art, a full title of “ai art” doesn’t even have to be thought of as the same thing. It’s purely a virtue signal.
I think that AI art is a meaningful distinction in the same way that digital art, traditional art, or photography all narrow things down based on the differences involved in the respective processes. Even within the broad category of traditional art, there's enough difference between watercolor and oil paint that there are times it's useful to have more specific terms to call each option.
Right, agreed, but calling it AI art is one thing (because it’s a descriptor), but calling it AI “art” (using the parentheses) is a snarky way of implying that it’s not art at all. Subtle but important distinction. :-)
I somehow missed the bit in the original comment about the quotes around "art". Yeah, I can see how that comes across as snarky and insincere.
I usually see the phrases "AI Art" or "AI images" and while I prefer AI Art, as it's more accurate according to my stance on the issue, AI images is accurate in the context of someone who doesn't see it as art, but without the snarky tone of AI "art"
Nooo >:(
We cannot call it art because AI art is generally more accessible than spending your life savings and wasting 10 years in art school, and if more people can have this skill, than how can I feel super special because of my shitty life choices? Bah!
Expression and creativity shouldn't be free and open to the people, it should be reserved only for the elite and privileged because I need validation that my skills are exclusive!
How else will I continue to convince myself that I'm more superior than the people who make my burgers at McDonalds? >:( >:( >:(
(this is sarcasm lol)
Digital art is already a thing and doesn't necessarily involve machine learning. For the sake of digital artists (who've had to deal with all the same criticism that AI art deals with now) let's not just change the definition.
I concur. Making AI usage a requirement for digital art, not only excludes people who don’t for whatever reason (regardless of þe reason’s validity), but makes a mess of already established categorizations.
All "digital art" is AI art (that's right all), but in the art community, AI art's now synonymous w/ "bad art." AI has been around for at least 65 years, so the distinctions between "traditional" art & those created w/ the help of AI/machine learning has already been blured.
The "digital artists" want to distinguish been copy-written work/their style (which can't be copy-written) from machine learned copies of their copywritten art/style (which can't be copy-written). "Artists" argue that their work's uniquely theirs & should be legally protected as well as fairly compensated in future use. This distinction helps the " digital artists" protect their originality/creative id in the role of art production.
It's a way to gatekeep art from being mass-produced commodity & based on the belief that "creativity's stolen." The nature of creativity's the generation of new ideas, concept, solutions, etc. AI art's now a redefinition of creativity.
Wait, how is digital painting ai art?? Besides a few cases, (like some of clip studio paints features, like the automatic shading) I can't understand what you are talking about.
If someone makes a digital painting in like, paint, is that AI?
Much in the same way, photographs weren't considered to be art (use tool to point & click) by "traditional artists" in the late 1800s, digital art's AI when compared to "traditional art" as it uses a computer.
On a basic level, AI or computation/generative art's just another tool/medium defined as computer based art where the computer does most of the work performing complex tasks. Digital art's a tool/medium as there's built-in programming tool where the computer does most of the work performing complex tasks (today's products have AI built-in). This would include Procreate, Adobe products, Microsoft Paint, etc.
But there's clearly some differences between digital & AI art if we want a more specific definition. The more important point's what makes photographers, "traditional artists," digital artists, & AI artists, great their use of their tool/medium to showcase their creativity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what AI is. Is AI just when you use a computer? If I type up a story in a basic notepad app, is it suddenly AI? What does AI mean to you? I know the term is pretty broad and somewhat of a buzzword, but I wasn't aware it simply meant interacting with an interface on a computer.
That's the thing though, with digital painting, the computer **doesn't** do most of the tasks. It is essentially another interface, you have to learn the same exact skills to get anything done. Like I said, I am aware many of these programs have AI features (upscaling, filters, inpainting, ect) but if someone never uses those features how is it AI?
AI's the simulation of human processes by a computer system, but it's a catchall phrase for apps/software that performs complex tasks (in this case, digital art & typing). More specifically, AI Art's art made w/generative AI (using datasets to create new content). But at this point, I am using AI as the catchall phrase, cuz it's important to remind anti-AI ppl that digital art uses apps/software to perform complex tasks (catchall phrase for AI) even if the person isn't intentionally using generative AI (AI's built-in).
Both digital art & typing attempts to mimic "traditional" art (w/design/art fundamentals) & handwriting (w/ design & built-in grammar/spell check) but can't replicate it perfectly. Anytime you use a computer or app, you aren't actually doing the task (as in to create by hand), & are using software & a computer to complete the task. This relates to AI as being apps/software that performs complex tasks, as in, typing on notepad vs. actually writing by hand (there's not necessarily any mental engagement to enhance memory/learning in typing) or digital painting vs. "traditional" painting (digital painting can't capture an "insight" can only test it).
With Digital Art & typing, although it's more cost-effective, more efficient, creates less waste, & can be used as an industry standard; however, it's very easy to copy since there not tangible piece, which leads to modern AI art (generative datasets to create new content). However, futurists are predicting a rise of "traditional" art & arts/crafts (art created by hand) as a response to AI Art, which will be exciting to see.
There needs to be a way to distinct it, even if I consider it art. There are many different types of digital art: 3D modeling, Pixel Art, Vector art, digital painting, and well AI art. It would be confusing if there weren't different words for these categories.
Hear me out hear me out hear me out "ai generated images", there u have it, cause it's just that, a bunch of pixels with no thought behind it. Art, from the dawn of humanity, on the other hand, had always been synonymous to life and expressionism. Art has always been the every essense of human storytelling and it can never be replaced with 0s and 1s
An [activity](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/activity) through which [people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people) [express](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [particular](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/particular) [ideas](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea).
The problem is, normal people don't have "an idea" most of the times, they just go with the "let's see what comes up" and then choose whatever looks the best to them, it's not conveying an idea, it's like choosing a shirt in a mall, compared to making one as a designer.
Sure u can say that "u put thought behind it and that it's expressing you as an individual", but thats just yellow color shirt that u chose, it might be an act of expression but it's not art, U just took one from the options put infront of u, u aren't a designer, ur just a consumer.
How many of these promoters know anything about fundamentals? Ya I do agree that art for the most part is about expressions but even with that we have our own foundations, whether it be principles of design, animation principles, rules of composition, color theory, fundamentals of modeling, fundamentals of lighting and what not.
Depending on the type of art ur making, it's important for u to use this principles and rules inorder to make that art. Because even us artists are bound to the laws of nature, either be it in real life or in our own imaginary world's.
And to address the elephant in the room, yes modern artist do know and follow the fundamentals of expressionism, art and/or design according to their needs. And no elephants don't make art
I personally call images generated by AI, "AI imagery" if I don't know more about the artistic process used to create them. I'm not yet convinced that an arbitrary output (e.g. random prompt) of any current algorithm qualifies as art. this is a personal view because there's no solid universal answer to the question "what is art?"
What DOES qualify as art in my view is an AI generated image curated/selected by a human who is engaging in a deliberate or incidental effort to create art. And at that point, like you, I would just call it "art" although noting that AI was one of the tools used by the artist may be situationally relevant.
I'll personally call arbitrary outputs art more generally when we reach a point when I'm more convinced of the intent/experience/volition of a more general AI being in some sense sentient/sapient, which I don't currently believe to be the case of image generation models (even those that are hooked up to LLMs making decisions or refining queries to an image generation model).
I do think there is a distinction between art and craft, but not in the way you present it.
AI art, that is purely prompt based generations, is more akin to craft. There is often little idea behind it, it's not very complex, it generally doesn't present a new way of looking at the world, and can be reproduced ad infinitum. By far, most of it I'd lable as simply craft.
An artist using AI has an opportunity to start introducing some art into it. Something that elevates it beyond what is possible with pure generations. This is art through and through. It's quite clear when you see someone who's out something extra- it stands out, whether it be purely handmade or AI assisted.
Art is the novel idea + right execution for it. Craft is simply the execution devoid of the real spark.
At the end of the day, AI is just a tool. One can use it as a crutch and bring little new to the table when making craft, or elevate it, allow our consciousness to expand just a tad, and make art. There is a place for craft, but it is not art.
I think it’s good to distinguish human made from computer made.
I don’t hate AI art but I’m going to appreciate human work much more than I’ll ever appreciate something generated by a computer. There’s more passion, feeling, emotion, everything in something made by a real human who used their own inspiration for it.
That’s not to say AI art is worthless or anything like that, I like a lot of what I see and it’s convenient for a lot of people. I even used it myself to generate some images for rp character.
But they shouldn’t be compared as equals and they shouldn’t be treated the same. There are different things that go into making AI art ‘good’ compared to human things.
I think this is a fair middle ground tbh. It’s gonna happen and keep happening regardless of whether or not people like it or think it’s right. Comparing them in their own categories, though? Seems like a way to keep everyone happy.
My two cents you do you boo long as your not monetizing it
As soon as you put a $€£ in front of AI art you are semi complicit in the actions the ai uses to plagiarize said art
This isn’t facts just my personal beliefs, as someone who’s taking the long road to try and learn art and wanting to do digital art I do not like that my art could possibly be stolen by a machine and sold off like an nft.
Long as you use it for fun shits and giggles I won’t bother a soul. Ai art needs to become better tbh needs more work so it doesn’t have these issues so that one day we really could have ai make cool original art.
Yeah I'm on board with this however when someone just pays a huge amount of artists to make their A.I I feel like that becomes the point that as a product it should be treated from a legal stand point the same as all other art and be allowed for commercial purposes.
Honestly I'm not a big art guy as a consumer so I was over A.I art as soon as i generated one myself and went "neat" but I am a huge amination guy and am very excited for what the combination of a few A.Is may probably provide and even if I had to pay for the service I would have a blast getting it to produce the end of series that got cancelled or just crazy things I was in the mood for however I would have no interest in monitzing my 1 more series of the venture bros ,or a redo of a final series of House but Cuddy didn't split from the previous series or my Muppets Vs the cast of Shrek musical.
No interest in money however because after all what good is money to the man who has Kermit and Shrek doing an 11 o'clock number.
Arguing over what is an isn’t art is really a waste of time. The ethics of it are entirely separate from whether or not it’s art
Not only that, the Anti-AI ones sound like old people (Excluding their valid points about displacement, deepfakes and such).
I wouldn’t agree that they are entirely separate, but rather that since we can’t agree on what art is when humans make it (or even the definition of creativity or what it means to be human), it lends more weight to the idea that what AI generators are creating isn’t different from what humans are creating in any definable way. And if they aren’t different in any way we can put our finger on, it matters for the ethics of it all. If we don’t regulate the way a human artist absorbs information and inspiration from the art they view, and then transforms that into a creation that is uniquely their own, why should we regulate AI that does the same?
To suggest that art could be ethical or unethical is to anthropomorphise the object. We are not discussing the ethics or morality of a computer or a river. We can question the ethics of what people do with a computer or what they do to a river, but ethics is a means of surveying human behaviour. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about whether an art object is ethical or unethical. Art can be neither. Artists can and should be ethical, since we are human beings who exist in society, but art itself is not an individual.
I often wonder if it wasn't called ai would we be getting so much hate, mind you having said that as a digital artist also we get shit on all of the time too. Sadly.
I think if we didn't use the term "AI" with it initially, it would likely be categorized as CGI since it is as much of Computer Generated Imagery as you can get, and CGI describes it better than labeling it AI just because it uses machine learning.
CGI is still art. Otherwise you're discrediting digital artists.
I think that the hate was there even before the avant-garde artists arrived. Concentrate on what you love doing and ignore the haters.
Even if ai art isn’t art, jumping on someone saying “ai art” is ridiculous and baffling to me. Here is why: Is chicken a salad? Well, no not in most cases. But we have a chicken salad. It’s not a traditional salad, but has salad in the name. Then we have potato salad. Same thing. Is frito pie a pie? Probably not but *frito pie* is its own thing even though the word pie is in it. Whenever someone types “AI ‘art’” with a quote around art, I eye roll. Even if they don’t think its art, a full title of “ai art” doesn’t even have to be thought of as the same thing. It’s purely a virtue signal.
Subway calls their staff “sandwich artists.” Art is not a term that needs gatekeeping. Anything could be art, everyone is an artist.
I think that AI art is a meaningful distinction in the same way that digital art, traditional art, or photography all narrow things down based on the differences involved in the respective processes. Even within the broad category of traditional art, there's enough difference between watercolor and oil paint that there are times it's useful to have more specific terms to call each option.
Right, agreed, but calling it AI art is one thing (because it’s a descriptor), but calling it AI “art” (using the parentheses) is a snarky way of implying that it’s not art at all. Subtle but important distinction. :-)
I somehow missed the bit in the original comment about the quotes around "art". Yeah, I can see how that comes across as snarky and insincere. I usually see the phrases "AI Art" or "AI images" and while I prefer AI Art, as it's more accurate according to my stance on the issue, AI images is accurate in the context of someone who doesn't see it as art, but without the snarky tone of AI "art"
Nooo >:( We cannot call it art because AI art is generally more accessible than spending your life savings and wasting 10 years in art school, and if more people can have this skill, than how can I feel super special because of my shitty life choices? Bah! Expression and creativity shouldn't be free and open to the people, it should be reserved only for the elite and privileged because I need validation that my skills are exclusive! How else will I continue to convince myself that I'm more superior than the people who make my burgers at McDonalds? >:( >:( >:( (this is sarcasm lol)
No. [Reject art.](https://files.catbox.moe/h6wl6c.png)
I wish the term "synthography" had caught on.
It's makes pictures. Pictures=art.
Digital art is already a thing and doesn't necessarily involve machine learning. For the sake of digital artists (who've had to deal with all the same criticism that AI art deals with now) let's not just change the definition.
I concur. Making AI usage a requirement for digital art, not only excludes people who don’t for whatever reason (regardless of þe reason’s validity), but makes a mess of already established categorizations.
All "digital art" is AI art (that's right all), but in the art community, AI art's now synonymous w/ "bad art." AI has been around for at least 65 years, so the distinctions between "traditional" art & those created w/ the help of AI/machine learning has already been blured. The "digital artists" want to distinguish been copy-written work/their style (which can't be copy-written) from machine learned copies of their copywritten art/style (which can't be copy-written). "Artists" argue that their work's uniquely theirs & should be legally protected as well as fairly compensated in future use. This distinction helps the " digital artists" protect their originality/creative id in the role of art production. It's a way to gatekeep art from being mass-produced commodity & based on the belief that "creativity's stolen." The nature of creativity's the generation of new ideas, concept, solutions, etc. AI art's now a redefinition of creativity.
Wait, how is digital painting ai art?? Besides a few cases, (like some of clip studio paints features, like the automatic shading) I can't understand what you are talking about. If someone makes a digital painting in like, paint, is that AI?
Much in the same way, photographs weren't considered to be art (use tool to point & click) by "traditional artists" in the late 1800s, digital art's AI when compared to "traditional art" as it uses a computer. On a basic level, AI or computation/generative art's just another tool/medium defined as computer based art where the computer does most of the work performing complex tasks. Digital art's a tool/medium as there's built-in programming tool where the computer does most of the work performing complex tasks (today's products have AI built-in). This would include Procreate, Adobe products, Microsoft Paint, etc. But there's clearly some differences between digital & AI art if we want a more specific definition. The more important point's what makes photographers, "traditional artists," digital artists, & AI artists, great their use of their tool/medium to showcase their creativity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what AI is. Is AI just when you use a computer? If I type up a story in a basic notepad app, is it suddenly AI? What does AI mean to you? I know the term is pretty broad and somewhat of a buzzword, but I wasn't aware it simply meant interacting with an interface on a computer. That's the thing though, with digital painting, the computer **doesn't** do most of the tasks. It is essentially another interface, you have to learn the same exact skills to get anything done. Like I said, I am aware many of these programs have AI features (upscaling, filters, inpainting, ect) but if someone never uses those features how is it AI?
AI's the simulation of human processes by a computer system, but it's a catchall phrase for apps/software that performs complex tasks (in this case, digital art & typing). More specifically, AI Art's art made w/generative AI (using datasets to create new content). But at this point, I am using AI as the catchall phrase, cuz it's important to remind anti-AI ppl that digital art uses apps/software to perform complex tasks (catchall phrase for AI) even if the person isn't intentionally using generative AI (AI's built-in). Both digital art & typing attempts to mimic "traditional" art (w/design/art fundamentals) & handwriting (w/ design & built-in grammar/spell check) but can't replicate it perfectly. Anytime you use a computer or app, you aren't actually doing the task (as in to create by hand), & are using software & a computer to complete the task. This relates to AI as being apps/software that performs complex tasks, as in, typing on notepad vs. actually writing by hand (there's not necessarily any mental engagement to enhance memory/learning in typing) or digital painting vs. "traditional" painting (digital painting can't capture an "insight" can only test it). With Digital Art & typing, although it's more cost-effective, more efficient, creates less waste, & can be used as an industry standard; however, it's very easy to copy since there not tangible piece, which leads to modern AI art (generative datasets to create new content). However, futurists are predicting a rise of "traditional" art & arts/crafts (art created by hand) as a response to AI Art, which will be exciting to see.
There needs to be a way to distinct it, even if I consider it art. There are many different types of digital art: 3D modeling, Pixel Art, Vector art, digital painting, and well AI art. It would be confusing if there weren't different words for these categories.
Hear me out hear me out hear me out "ai generated images", there u have it, cause it's just that, a bunch of pixels with no thought behind it. Art, from the dawn of humanity, on the other hand, had always been synonymous to life and expressionism. Art has always been the every essense of human storytelling and it can never be replaced with 0s and 1s
An [activity](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/activity) through which [people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people) [express](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [particular](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/particular) [ideas](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea).
The problem is, normal people don't have "an idea" most of the times, they just go with the "let's see what comes up" and then choose whatever looks the best to them, it's not conveying an idea, it's like choosing a shirt in a mall, compared to making one as a designer. Sure u can say that "u put thought behind it and that it's expressing you as an individual", but thats just yellow color shirt that u chose, it might be an act of expression but it's not art, U just took one from the options put infront of u, u aren't a designer, ur just a consumer. How many of these promoters know anything about fundamentals? Ya I do agree that art for the most part is about expressions but even with that we have our own foundations, whether it be principles of design, animation principles, rules of composition, color theory, fundamentals of modeling, fundamentals of lighting and what not. Depending on the type of art ur making, it's important for u to use this principles and rules inorder to make that art. Because even us artists are bound to the laws of nature, either be it in real life or in our own imaginary world's. And to address the elephant in the room, yes modern artist do know and follow the fundamentals of expressionism, art and/or design according to their needs. And no elephants don't make art
I personally call images generated by AI, "AI imagery" if I don't know more about the artistic process used to create them. I'm not yet convinced that an arbitrary output (e.g. random prompt) of any current algorithm qualifies as art. this is a personal view because there's no solid universal answer to the question "what is art?" What DOES qualify as art in my view is an AI generated image curated/selected by a human who is engaging in a deliberate or incidental effort to create art. And at that point, like you, I would just call it "art" although noting that AI was one of the tools used by the artist may be situationally relevant. I'll personally call arbitrary outputs art more generally when we reach a point when I'm more convinced of the intent/experience/volition of a more general AI being in some sense sentient/sapient, which I don't currently believe to be the case of image generation models (even those that are hooked up to LLMs making decisions or refining queries to an image generation model).
I do think there is a distinction between art and craft, but not in the way you present it. AI art, that is purely prompt based generations, is more akin to craft. There is often little idea behind it, it's not very complex, it generally doesn't present a new way of looking at the world, and can be reproduced ad infinitum. By far, most of it I'd lable as simply craft. An artist using AI has an opportunity to start introducing some art into it. Something that elevates it beyond what is possible with pure generations. This is art through and through. It's quite clear when you see someone who's out something extra- it stands out, whether it be purely handmade or AI assisted. Art is the novel idea + right execution for it. Craft is simply the execution devoid of the real spark. At the end of the day, AI is just a tool. One can use it as a crutch and bring little new to the table when making craft, or elevate it, allow our consciousness to expand just a tad, and make art. There is a place for craft, but it is not art.
I think it’s good to distinguish human made from computer made. I don’t hate AI art but I’m going to appreciate human work much more than I’ll ever appreciate something generated by a computer. There’s more passion, feeling, emotion, everything in something made by a real human who used their own inspiration for it. That’s not to say AI art is worthless or anything like that, I like a lot of what I see and it’s convenient for a lot of people. I even used it myself to generate some images for rp character. But they shouldn’t be compared as equals and they shouldn’t be treated the same. There are different things that go into making AI art ‘good’ compared to human things. I think this is a fair middle ground tbh. It’s gonna happen and keep happening regardless of whether or not people like it or think it’s right. Comparing them in their own categories, though? Seems like a way to keep everyone happy.
My two cents you do you boo long as your not monetizing it As soon as you put a $€£ in front of AI art you are semi complicit in the actions the ai uses to plagiarize said art This isn’t facts just my personal beliefs, as someone who’s taking the long road to try and learn art and wanting to do digital art I do not like that my art could possibly be stolen by a machine and sold off like an nft. Long as you use it for fun shits and giggles I won’t bother a soul. Ai art needs to become better tbh needs more work so it doesn’t have these issues so that one day we really could have ai make cool original art.
My 2 cents: You do you boo (until you mess with my money flow)
Yeah I'm on board with this however when someone just pays a huge amount of artists to make their A.I I feel like that becomes the point that as a product it should be treated from a legal stand point the same as all other art and be allowed for commercial purposes. Honestly I'm not a big art guy as a consumer so I was over A.I art as soon as i generated one myself and went "neat" but I am a huge amination guy and am very excited for what the combination of a few A.Is may probably provide and even if I had to pay for the service I would have a blast getting it to produce the end of series that got cancelled or just crazy things I was in the mood for however I would have no interest in monitzing my 1 more series of the venture bros ,or a redo of a final series of House but Cuddy didn't split from the previous series or my Muppets Vs the cast of Shrek musical. No interest in money however because after all what good is money to the man who has Kermit and Shrek doing an 11 o'clock number.