daniskarma @ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

1,293

Joined

1 yr. ago

I will try to make it more clear, if you didn't understand me.

1. not all art is creative. A great deal of art is representative. Saying that art NEEDS to be creative is conflictive. Art can be representative, just picturing something beautiful or not without any creativity effort on the artist.
2. Art being expressive does not conflict with AI generated art. As it is just a tool used by a human to express themselves. A human being can use an AI to make true an image they have on their head in order to express that image to the world. So AI art will enter in your definition of art being a product of human expression.

I'm just analysing you definition of art. Let's be clear that it's not my own definition, nor I agree with it. But you definition is faulty at its intention which is trying to come out with a definition that excludes only AI art from an art definition while including any other technique. Try again. Let's see how convoluted could you ad hoc definition of art can be.

Keep trying really. It's interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans. And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book. I remember when I studied story of art, that this have been a recurrent debate. Is a white toilet art? Is Malevich black square art? People have been debating this for ages. Many times with underlying political agendas, of course.

The thing is that I as a single person, can algo use AI self hosted in my computer. And I can, and being me I will, offer anything I made for free.

If you tell me that the bad thing about AI is pretending to charge money for their usage we would have an agreement. I think is a technology that should be funded by the community or the state and distributed for free usage of everyone.

So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?

In all those cases you are reheating someone's else creation.

Let's be precise here.

In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.

You are just a bully following me and insulting me.Reported and blocked.

No. i'm not. I would consider myself between anarchism, communism and socialism. Those are the ideologies more close to my mind.

You know that I'm probably a better painter than you are, don't you?
I have done a great deal of handmade painting. And whenever I'm doing some art is still my primary way of doing things. I took several courses in traditional painting back in university. Hell, I'm far better at doing other forms of art than at doing AI art, I have not dedicated enough time to the technique yet to be truly good at it.

I also play guitar and have some songs I'm quite proud of.

I'n just not a brainwashed radical, and I'm open minded enough to see that there are many different ways to do things or to see the world.

Says you. I just don't agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.

I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in "I'm an artist" are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day

Use that energy against homeopathy and pseudosciences that are prevalent in liberal spaces.

People using AI also choose what they want to create.

And generative artists for instance, a lesser clue of what the final result will be than a AI artist.

Generative art is not art?

Collages are art?

Art gatekeepers are always funny, full of inconsistencies.

If art is just human creativity and expression, why would the media, format or process used for expressing would matter, then? Why classify between art or not arr depending on which computer program would be used to make it?

Everything a human made being used for expressing something would be art. By that definition.

Also including creativity here would be plain wrong, as a great deal of art is representative, not creative. Like my mountain example, humans that represent that mountain on a canvas are not creating anything, humans taking pictures of that mountain are not using their creativity, they are just representing something that was created by something different. As said before, humans did not created the mountain, they are just representing it. Specially a photographer for instance, would just be pushing a button and getting a exact picture of the mountain that was created by nature. I don't think if we could say that creativity was used to take that picture.

Are we starting to notice how ridiculous and useless is to try gatekeep art or shall I go on?

I don't even mean AI here.

I was thinking about a mountain (I'm sitting in front of one right now).

A mountain is beautiful, so beautiful that many humans have made paintings of it, take pictures, write poems. They have try to mimic the mountain beauty with their tools. But they did not make the mountain. Erosion made it. In reality here humans are just copying something nature made and calling it "their art", but they did not make those shapes and colors, they did not create the emotions that everyone seeing the mountain feels. They are just replicating it. Here the artist is just erosion, the wind and the rain, the trees and the snow, not a human being.

You can agree with me in a more open-minded vision of art.

I consider everything art, even things not made by humans or even living forms. Everything that tickles my mind is art for me, no matter how it was made.

Less CO2 than playing a videogame.

I can generate an AI image with my graphics card at 100% in 5 seconds, probably less.

I gaming afternoon can be 5 hours with the same graphics cars at 100%.

I suppose you are also worry by the increase of CO2 usage in 3d art, or in digital art instead of pen and paper art. Are you not?

For me it takes less processing power to generate an AI still than to render a frame in blender with a lot of lighting, shaders and whatnot involved.

You are not a God who decides what's art and what's not... sorry

If art is the ability to paint then photography is not art. If art does not require ability to hand paint then AI is art. Logical inconsistencies are for religions and gods.

For guys, saying "hi".

For girls, I have to go hunting a Dragon with the sword of King Arthur to be considered worth of a cup of coffee.

It also would be funny of you handle a pencil to a photographer and tell them that if they cannot draw the Mona Lisa they are not allowed to use the camera to just push a button and make a portrait. C'mon guys let's bully those Photographer Bros, it's fun!

#PhotographersAreNotRealArtists #GatekeepingIfFun

A d that's a great depiction on how the space you chose to be and the people you surround yourself with can and will shape your thoughts.

If you would have been surrounded by a different environment you would have read different news and opinions and you may had not change your mind in that regard.

There are people who hate anything new.

Call it flatpak, call it wayland, call it systemd. There's always haters.

Build it from source them.

If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that's cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.

Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don't even dare to try to express yourself.

It makes me sad too. But the amount of people who just push hate speech for every little thing in left leaning spaces nowadays is too big.

In this case the little thing is just insulting people using an AI tool (not even the big bussiness they are insulting the PEOPLE). But I've seen it more and more with a lot of different examples in the latest years. Another big instance is militant veganism, I'm sick of being called a rapist and a genocidal guy equivalent to Hitler for just eating meat, so they are alone until they got their shit together and start calling out the bigots in their spaces.

And like those two each year that passes there's something new you have to blindly follow the lead or be insulted for doing nothing wrong. It feels like in the left community things are not open to debate anymore, and any dissidence of though is quickly punished. It's almost ironic that the place for diversity does not feel like any diverse thinking is allowed anymore.

This AI thing have not even be debated anywhere, some people decided that it's bad and that's it. No further arguments are allowed, and it's free season for hunting and insulting the PEOPLE that even dares to use a tool that's everywhere to use right now.

I know is a vocal minority, and that's the vocal minority I want to leave out, and I hope we can build spaces where this hateful people are called out. Because right now in the community spaces we have these people are not being called out, quite the contrary they are prone to reach positions of power and take hold of the communities, most probably because people prone to violence and conflict are far more likely to fight and achieve for positions of power. While peaceful people tend to get away from such conflicts.