I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
I’m not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can’t create art without AI, you won’t be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn’t make the message art if it wasn’t art in the first place.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
No. I’m saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn’t come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you’re employing it.
You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium.
That makes sense! I’d guess that the other guy agrees with this sentiment - their definition seems to center around art enabling the production process.
It’s been a while since I’ve used it, but when I first started playing around with stable diffusion, the results were far from perfect. I’d have to regenerate segments multiple times, go back in with manual image editing, etc. before I would have something I was happy with. Generative models definitely aren’t “push button, receive art”. On the other hand, I’ve gotten a few pieces I rather enjoy, but I’ve had very little artistic training, so I’m grateful.
I’d have to […] go back in with […] editing, etc. before I would have something I was happy with.
There. Artistry. The tension between vision and perception, the space of choices that has to be navigated.
Most people’s vision when using SD is limited to some thematic idea and a pedestrian sense of aesthetics once they get something that even remotely hits both aspects they post it and call it art that’s a) not actually making choices and b) the reason why so much AI-generated stuff out there is barrel bottom at best.
I’m not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can’t create art without AI, you won’t be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn’t make the message art if it wasn’t art in the first place.
No. I’m saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn’t come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you’re employing it.
That makes sense! I’d guess that the other guy agrees with this sentiment - their definition seems to center around art enabling the production process.
It’s been a while since I’ve used it, but when I first started playing around with stable diffusion, the results were far from perfect. I’d have to regenerate segments multiple times, go back in with manual image editing, etc. before I would have something I was happy with. Generative models definitely aren’t “push button, receive art”. On the other hand, I’ve gotten a few pieces I rather enjoy, but I’ve had very little artistic training, so I’m grateful.
There. Artistry. The tension between vision and perception, the space of choices that has to be navigated.
Most people’s vision when using SD is limited to some thematic idea and a pedestrian sense of aesthetics once they get something that even remotely hits both aspects they post it and call it art that’s a) not actually making choices and b) the reason why so much AI-generated stuff out there is barrel bottom at best.