i fucking hate "AI" art but sometimes i see people on "my side" of this sort of imply (maybe accidentally, a lot of the time) that any art that just exists to be pretty is invalid somehow and that all art has to have some kind of deep meaning or be some unprecedented act of creativity/uniqueness. and like. i think it is very human and valid to not always have brain on. i think "ooooo pretty" is a worthy pursuit in itself. i love folk art. i love kitsch. and whether you are drawing something very emotionally meaningful for you or going "tee hee" and painting pretty little flowers onto a dollar store flower pot for no other reason than you felt the impulse to do so, you are doing a thing that humans have always done. i think it's important not to denigrate human art while we rightfully speak out against the mushification of it by shitty tech bros.
- they/them/moo
- chimoora.zone/
avatar by @citriccenobite
you can say "chimoora" instead of "cow of tailed snake" if you want. its a good pun.โ
i ramble about aerospace sometimes
I take rocket photos and you can see them @aWildLupi
I have a terminal case of bovine pungiform encephalopathy, the bovine puns are cowmpulsory
they/them/moo where "moo" stands in for "you" or where it's funny, like "how are moo today, Lupi?" or "dancing with mooself"
แ
Bovigender (click flag for more info!)
in reply to @doodlemancy's post:
There's an ever growing issue with the AI Art debate in which people insist in rallying against it because "it has no soul" or because "machines don't have feelings" or "feels artificial" when the crucial matter of the problem is that the whole thing is built on the back of art theft, misappropriation and exploitation of workers.
People have been making souless art for years, that was never the point.
yeah i think a lot of this also comes specifically from people who are not artists and trying to be supportive and it's like. i don't think it's really ill-intentioned. but it's not a good frame for the conversation of Why Thing Harmful and Should Not Be Allowed. you can't argue whether something is soulless in court lol
surprise, even little flower on dollar stors flower pot have deeper meaning. Someone gave drawn it. They have a reason that they understand or not. They choose to make their life better and probably the life of all that will encounter their art.
AI art, I don't know. I guess it could but probably not. You see an amazing outfit thinking it's a cosplay, you look for an author thinking they have done similar stuff to get that good. And all you find is 15 pinterest, 3 tweet and a collage of 9 AI pictures and it dawn on you it's maybe not a cosplay and you won't find someone who will have older pieces and maybe later newer, better pieces.
It is kinda annoying how the default argument is this, overly flowery and waxing-on monologue about the inherent beauty, complexity and soul that all hand drawn art has ... usually subjective things that cant be measured.
I think the Copyright offices comparison to AI Art being similar to commissions , is a good starting argument for people to adopt.
When the only tool an art critic has is a Radio Orphan Annie Secret Society Decoder Pin Brought To You By Ovaltine, they will sadly see every piece they evaluate as a cipher with a single correct 'solution.'
100%.
I feel like the basis for this issue is a kind of conflation of art-as-labor and art-as-human-expression. The act of entering AI prompts easily meets the criteria for art-as-human-expression, just as much as seeing what the tools in Kid Pix do when you use ceratain of them and freeze the screen in place, or (hi, fellow old people) enter various commands into the Apple II turtle drawing program to see the variety of patterns that emerge.
So if that's all art by the broadest definition, we need a different definition to clarify the labor issue, and that definition has to have labor by artists on one side of the line, and vomit from AI prompts on the other side. It's a labor issue! It's ok that what we're defining here is practical rather than pure and philosophical! Tech bros designed this system of massively distributed theft in order to defeat labor based on current law; labor doesn't have to concede a damn thing to 'em.
And so some people define that line with tired old saws about "high" versus "low" art, and define art without "serious" intent as on the wrong side of the line. Just a shitty, shitty worldview. Kill the cop art critic in your mind.