Perhaps you just feel that way because it's made by a machine. Would need some double blind experiment really, preferably with people who don't know the 'style' of these models.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it is influenced by context and expectations.
Take one of those images, put it in a nice frame, hang it in a quiet art museum, stick a little placard on the wall next to it with a made up backstory, and your emotional response will probably differ.
Conversely, go to your local art museum and randomly pick 10 paintings. Take a hi-res picture of each and place them on a web page entitled, "AI is getting better at generating art" and you'll probably pick out a bunch of tell-tale flaws that are evidence of machine-generate pictures. :)
My current background on my PC is AI generated. I only know about it because when I was looking for a higher res version I found the origin. It's my current favourite image(which always changes).
My point is that your argument is non-sensical. Just because you don't feel anything from AI art doesn't mean others don't.
No I don't feel anything. But it's very rare for me to feel anything from a piece of art. Even something as renowned as the Mona Lisa evokes nothing for me. The only classical piece of art that I know of the top of my head that makes me feel something is Edvard Munch’s “Anxiety”. Most of it seems drivel to me where well constructed AI art is better.
If you specifically mean still images it’s worth remembering the context. A great deal of “art” in museums isn’t really aiming for emotional responses. Portraits are just selfie’s before camera phones etc. It’s degraded because the colors have changed over time as the paint degraded. At the extreme ancient sculptures weren’t just stone they got painted. Further even modern art was meant to be viewed in person, a life sized animal sculpture hits very different than that same art on a screen.
Anyway personally walking around museums I responded to quite a bit of the art excluding portraits etc.
I like them, if anything a little more than the contents of the pre-AI art galleries I've walked around.
But some of my friends say as you do.
I wonder if this could be uncanny valley? I understand that sense of off-ness will be in different places for everyone, as we know (and therefore spot) different things about what we're looking at.
Modern art is considered art because it's a form of human expression, regardless of whether you "get it" or not - it matters that a human being made it, as opposed to a machine.
The definition i'm using is a commonly held one. Art is subjective, and obviously people disagree about what is and isn't art, but most people agree that some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art.
But your definition seems to be that anything which elicits an emotional response is art, which seems far less useful.
I suppose it could be argued that because AI requires models and prompts, the end result could be considered art. Also that it's art simply due to the controversy it provokes. Then again, I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs. To that end, the human being doesn't really matter. To me, if the human being doesn't matter, it isn't art. I'd also dismiss most "generative" art for the same reason - even if fractals are pretty I wouldn't consider them art.
> But your definition seems to be that anything which elicits an emotional response is art, which seems far less useful.
Your definition is not very useful either: "some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art."
A lot of mundane things done by humans - from smoking a cigarette to filling a form -qualifies as something that elicits a "degree of human intent and expression"
> I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs
If I make a perfect copy from "Starry Night Over The Rhone" is it not art? Impasto on canvas and all?
If I sit at the Organ and play Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor is it not art?
I would argue that in both examples I am duplicating art with the correct inputs.