daniskarma @ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

1,316

Joined

1 yr. ago

We agree on that to some part. I don't disagree with piracy, I'm a free culture person. But I hate that big companies took images for free and then charge money for the result. I'll never pay for any AI tool or to any AI company in my life, because of that. I think the moral philosophy here would be "taken for free, offered for free". Thus I only have used tools that are "open sourced" (not 100% but close enough) and that I can self host for free. And I would never charge money for anything done with those tools.

If some piece of art is bad is bad, there's no denying that.

There's a particular style I really dislike and probably is why I'm also bias to defend AI, which is what I call twitter commissioner art. Which is a particular style of very badly made digital art, all look the same, very little detail or work in each piece, uninspired, and the spice of the cake is that people making it tend to ask for a lot of money to do commissions of that. And they tend to guilt trip a lot with them being "small artists" and nowadays they are some of the most aggressive pushing against AI (and I can see why, why would anyone pay for such badly drawn something when you can get it for free elsewhere). BIG note here, I'm not referring to all small artists, most of them are cool, and a lot of them make really nice pieces of amazing art that's better than anything an AI can produce (but for some reason I don't see those being worried or being too militant against AI). I'm only referring to those whose work is actually worse than AI output but they refuse to acknowledge that.

But it's true that I have never seen a 10/10 AI made piece. Some of them are ok though, I specifically enjoy those who make art of very small niches, like dark fantasy on a style that I've come to known a tik tok style (I literally know no traditional artists that do those ik that particular style, and I've look for). Or folk music about geek topics in my language (for instance I have a playlist of AI made songs about Warhammer 40k that I really enjoy, and no music group do those so that dude making them with AI is my only choice for these).

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your points. Sometimes I get so much pressure defending AI as legit that I tend to think everyone is being extra-hostile. Sorry.

If was thinking of creativity as creating something that os not there, by contrast to representation that would be the pursuit of replicating something that is already there.

Creativity as the tool which humans use to make their ideas materialize in the world... I can buy that concept. I I could be ok with a definition of art that requires creativity, thus human involved. Not my favourite definition, I still think that art can exist without human or intelligent intervention. But it's true that a creative art in that way will be very coherent.

I'm not that sure about permission being important in art would led to coherent definition. How could art know if it had permission to be made or not?

Taking a picture and printing it on a t-shirt is art? I don't know. What if you took a picture of your own art and put it on the t-shirt. What if the idea of the art needed to be on a t-shirt?"

Imagine I take a picture of the mona lisa on a t-shirt and with some text like "it is not smiling" or something clever. Because my idea is to make a t-shirt like that. Is that much different if instead of the mona lisa (whose artists cannot consent) I use AI to give me any other image?

About the mountain being art:

I talked about a beautiful mountain, but it does not need to be beautiful. It could be horrible, scary, ugly, peaceful, agitated. What I meant is that it had some emotions in it. And the artists will try to take those aspects, those emotions and copy them, but the mountain had those inherently.

For instance an attacking lion, it's scary. And an artist could try to portray that emotion by copying the lion, but the artist did not create the scaryness of it. For my the attacking lion itself could be considered art, if you see it with your own eyes, without needing it to be portrayed by an artists before it became art.

Another approach to this would be the infinite monkey problem. Infinite monkeys with typewriter write Shakespeare's plays. Are those versions of Hammlet not art because they were not written by Shakespeare, or Hammlet being art is inherent to the play deapite how it came to be?

It doesn't need to be beauty. For me art is anything that provoque a feeling or emotion. It's an incredibly open interpretation, and subjective. But I like it because it lets everything to be art, without it being able to gatekeep anything. Again pushing my own political agenda probably, as I like things open.

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.