[autokad]

I'm not arguing artists are going to go away, just that story telling is going to become a lot easier. it also doesn't mean the content produced is necessarily painted with 'broad strokes' and absolutely doesn't mean its soulless. It means the barriers to entry for producing stories just came down a whole lot - akin to the printing press did for books.

[JohnFen]

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer.

If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person.

If you are in the camp that you don't care whether or not art was made by a human, this isn't even a little problem. If, however, you are in the camp that cares a lot about that, then this is a very, very serious problem.

Either way, this means that this isn't "just a tool" like a printing press. It's something completely different, and more than a tool.

[erksa]

Yes, the artist that chooses to use AI-tools to generate art-work are in fact artist.

For those who are afraid of AI being content generators that puts artist out of work will most likely be disappointed. However the technical gatekeeping some artist do goes away, and it makes room for more people being able to express them self creatively.

Art is about the why. We as humans will always ask that question, and we will produce answers, no matter the tools.

We've gone through multiple iterations of technology questioning if you are really an "artist" for using it, but the new creations and the new generation of artist puts that to shame in my opinion.

Digital pixels are not paint brushes. So if you do not move your mouse/brush to generate a stroke? What does it matter?

AI-tools speeds up the creative process which for some will let them go places we currently are having a hard time to imagine.

[JohnFen]

> Digital pixels are not paint brushes. So if you do not move your mouse/brush to generate a stroke? What does it matter?

If you are literally explaining every stroke, then it doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about describing something in pretty general terms and allowing a computer to make the creative decisions (what "brush strokes" to make).

[erksa]

No, "the computer" allows the artist to be exposed to a magnitude of various arbitrary and curated creative decisions that can help guide their work and their intent.

Here's a stupid personal and anecdotal example:

I've been trying to teach myself to do watercolor paintings of my photography.

That's been going OK, but with the help of img2img, I can "quickly" generate thousands of variations of Watercolor paintings of my OWN work, then choose the various elements I like, then I paint them into one painting. Which have led my freehand painting skills to improve at a much higher rate.

If however I just put up a feed of the generated watercolors from Sdiff, it would be immediate obvious. Of course, that's right now and doesn't speak to the vast improvements that are on the horizon.

This is what I'm personally seeing in my own circles of overlapping art creators trying to experiment with AI.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that: Artist will find ways to make their intentions stand out, whatever the tools we all have access to.

[renewiltord]

And if you move a horsehair brush, do you determine where each hair lands? If you spray paint, do you say where each drop lands? We have, for long, handed control to physical random processes. To modify that to land on mathematical random processes is not some categorical shift.

[mejutoco]

> If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person.

I completely disagree with this. According to this, no code can be art. For instance, videogames.

It has been enough time since ready-made (Duchamps urinal) and found objects, djing and sampling, and concept art. Art is not only drawing beautiful illustrations since at least the 2 world wars.

> If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story.

This is exactly how many artists work today, with a small army of workers, even interns, to execute the plan of the artist. Even Rembrandt had people painting to produce more pictures. Another example would be architects: does the star architect execute everything, or do they have the vision and instruct their very large teams?

IMO it is all about the intent and interpretation of a human.

[arsome]

> no code can be art. For instance, videogames.

I feel like this is probably a pretty bad example, generally the "art" in video games comes from things like dialogue, storytelling, level design, graphical art, not the physics engine or the renderer. There is simply not art there, it's more engineering.

There's little more art in the code portion of video games than there is in a jet engine.

[mejutoco]

Again, I hear art here often as "that nice cover illustration, or that 3d model". A bit like people talk about "content".

Art can be anything, and I definitely consider some videogames art. The same can be said about architecture.

[jhbadger]

In the early days of Pixar, some traditionalist animators claimed that Pixar was "cheating" because they used 3D modelling tools rather than physically drawing the frames. The traditionalists didn't see computer animation as a "tool"; they saw it as the computer doing the work of the animator. Were they right? Computers make making things easier. But the human using the computer is the real creator.

[krapp]

Artists using 3d modeling software actually design and create the model, rigging and animation themselves, they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows" and call it a day.

It's a matter of how much control you have over the end product, with AI it's very little. At best, if you want to be charitable, you could describe the role of the person using AI as an art director, but not an artist.

[erksa]

> they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows"

They would if they could. Your premise seems to be based on you only getting to interact with the AI "art"generator once.

What makes you finish the quote with "and call it a day."?

What about a writer that uses a recorder to record themselfs speaking out a book and never actually "writes"? Would they be a singer instead?

[hammyhavoc]

They would be a voiceover artist, a storyteller, a voice actor, a narrator, a performer, even an entertainer. Depends whose book it is and if the book already exists to be read from.

Ever heard of radio plays? Audio dramas?

[erksa]

So, if I record myself talking transcribe it into a book and publish it, I would be a performer, narrator or even an entertainer -- but not a writer?

Maybe my point was unclear. If I had no arms, but still managed to publish a book, would I not be considered a writer since I do not have arms?

[hammyhavoc]

Toy Story was not generative art though. Pointless comparison.

Compare generative art tools to other generative art tools.

[jhbadger]

Programs take in input and produce output. The whole point of using any program is that the program produces more than you put into it -- otherwise why wouldn't you just use pen and paper? Either all programs are "generative" or none are.

[hammyhavoc]

It comes under the category of "generative art". It isn't intentional or self-expression, regardless of what the prompt engineers may kid you. Is it "art"? Sure. Is it traditional art? No.

[JohnFen]

I totally agree with this. But as an art lover, I want some real way of being able to tell if a piece of art is this, or is traditional.

[hammyhavoc]

Artistry is a beautiful thing. It's also why I love hearing from industrial designers on how they arrived at their design decisions, challenges they faced, intent, nuances in the design you might overlook that were difficult etc.

Unfortunately, short of more behind-the-scenes material and interviews, the only way to really get a feel for it is looking at their body of work as a whole. The great ones always have a specific style that they refine or evolve over time. It's unmistakably x.

I have to say, I've yet to see any AI artist hit a signature style, and I've yet to have an AI generated piece of art move me emotionally or conceptually.

Are they interesting? Sure. So's glitch art, but there's not much substance to any of it, and I remember none of it. Intent and self-expression is such a huge part of art.

Can you imagine what Hitchcock would say about AI anything? He wanted it 100% his way.

[krapp]

It is intentional, it's just a generated approximation of intention.

[hammyhavoc]

No, it isn't intentional, it's generative. StableDiffusion DALL-E, MidJourney et al are quite literally by definition a generative art model. This isn't up for debate. That is quite literally how they function.

[alimov]

> If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person.

Tell that to music producers and digital artists. They don’t know what detailed instructions are run by the cpu of the device they use, and yet it is still art and they are still artists.

[JohnFen]

But that's entirely different. A digital artist is directly engaging in art. The computer is, in that case, just a tool like a paintbrush. The artist is still the one making all the creative decisions.

To go back to my ghost writer analogy, the reason that nobody would say I was the author is because I wasn't the one who made the creative decisions. I just described what I wanted to another person who made the creative decisions. Therefore, the other person is the author, not me.