Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. It must forever parrot.
A human might generate a piece of media using AI (either via a slot machine spin or with more advanced workflows like ComfyUI) and once they deem it looks good enough for their purpose, they might display it to represent what they want it to represent. If Guernica was AI generated but still displayed by Picasso as a statement about war, it would still be art.
Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about the intent of the human using those tools. Image generators are not autonomously generating images, it is the human who is asking them for specific concepts and ideas. This is no different than performance art like a banana taped to a wall which requires no tools at all.
> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?
In my opinion, yes. But that's the entire point here: art is in the eye of the beholder. I think much much much less of AI-generated art than I do of human-generated art. Even if an artist who is well-known for his human-generated art were to use an AI to make art, I would still likely think less of that art than of their earlier work.
> The other spent years programming servers.
I will be the first to shut down people who try to say that programming isn't a creative endeavor, but to me this is not "art".
> The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.
I don't agree with that. Consider just regular argumentation. If I'm trying to argue a point, how I express my argument matters. The way in which I do it, the words I use, whether I am calm and collected or emotional and passionate, perhaps graphs or charts or some other sort of visual aid, all of that will influence whether or not you buy my argument.
So If art is to make a statement, each individual has to believe that the way it's presented is powerful and resonates with them. This is a personal thing, and people are going to differ in how they react.
> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?
To whom?
One of my favorite quotes is "The product of your art is you." (I heard it from Brandon Sanderson, not sure if he's the original.) I have come to believe this is true on multiple levels. So in your example, I can answer "they're both equally valid and profound" assuming they put similar levels of effort, skill, and basically themselves into that work.
I think that's the part where generative art falls behind. Sure, I can generate some art of a frog, print it, and hang it on my wall. But the print next to it, that I took with my actual camera after wading through a swamp all day? That will have much more profound meaning to me.
Excellent question though. I had to think for awhile on this, and most importantly, I learned something while doing it. Thank you.
> Your answer to that is the answer to your question.
In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion? You're not making a grand philosophical point, you're frustrating the attempts of other people to understand your point of view and either blocking them from understanding your point of view or addressing your argument in a meaningful way.
If you cannot or will not engage in the conversation it would be more efficient and more purposeful for you to say so than the "whatever you say is what I say" falseness you're expressing in the above comment.
> In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion?
Because priors affect your conclusions.
For example, I don't like licorice, that makes me not like many kinds of candy. But I know that if a person likes licorice, they will have a very different view on these candies. Similarly how you define art affects how you see AI art, because its meaning is completely different to different people.
So for the example in question, I don't view a banana taped to a wall as art, but I know some other people do, and I understand why they do so, so answering that question tells us a lot about a persons priors.
If some don't understand why, I argue art needs to stand on its own, without the surrounding social context. If you view trash as art just because an artist told you, then the art isn't the trash the art is the artists explanation.
So, if you see a banana taped to a wall on a house when out walking, would you see that as beautiful art? If not, it isn't art according to my definition. The art piece is the whole thing, the banana and the explanation.
But many pictures can be considered art on their own without the social context, they are just beautiful and nice to look at. A banana taped to a wall doesn't pass that test.
Edit: So according to this definition AI art can be art, since some of those images can stand on their own as beautiful pieces of art without needing a social context.
It is a rhetorical device that nevertheless clearly explains the various thought groups of AI art. If one requires human creation rather than mere human intent to be art, then similarly they can't consider a banana taped to a wall as art, nor AI as art either. But if one considers the former but then discounts the latter, then that's a logical hypocrisy. I am of the group that considers both as art, because both require human intention.
It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.
Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist?
> AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case
So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art?
Edit: And if you think an AI can't handle that question, I just gave it to an image model and got this. Did I create this art-piece? If not, who did? Did the AI create it?
And let's not forget that people call "art" to more things than the popular masterpieces. A guy sold an invisible sculpture¹ clamming it was art. If things like this can be called art, whatever AI makes can be called art too.
"What is or isn't art" didn't simply become a topic because people like to philosophize about the meaning of words. Over the 20th century the art world took fascination with the subversive, transgressive, the postmodern, rejecting authority and standards of beauty that were deemed limiting and oppressive etc. One direct contributing component was photography. Skill of realistic depiction became deemphasized, with mass production, plastic etc., the focus became abstract ideas. It was also a protest against the system that brought the two world wars.
It was considered "anti-art" at the time, but basically took over the elite art world itself and the overall movement had huge impact on what is considered art today, on performance art, sculptures, architecture that looks intentionally upsetting etc.
It's not useful to try to think of the sides as "expansive definitionists" who consider pretty much anything art just because, and "restrictive definitionists" who only consider classic masterpieces art. The divide is much more specific and has intellectual foundation and history to it.
The same motivations that led to the expansive definition in the personally transgressive, radical and subversive sense today logically and coherently oppose the pictures and texts generated in huge centralized profit-oriented companies via mechanization. Presumably if AI was more of a distributed hacker-ethos-driven thing that shows the middle finger to Disney copyrightism, they may be pro-AI.
By this same logic, AI will also become accepted as art in 50 years. And by the way, no one who's serious about AI "art" uses commercial generators, they use local AI with workflow managers like ComfyUI. They are not just typing into a box like Midjourney. Therefore these are the hackers who're showing the middle finger to Disney, they dislike copyright as much as anyone.
That's right, and a lot of stuff is being conflated and the "debate" is mostly on the level of soundbites and emotional vibes. Many have strong opinions who have never tried the models or seen someone skilled using them (easy to find YouTube streams), combining LoRAs, ControlNets, etc.
I generally find the specific debate around "whether it's art" super boring. People have squeezed all the juice out of "what even is art" decades before the banana taped to a wall. Duchamp's Fountain, Manzoni's Artist's Shit, John Cage's 4′33″, the Red Square by Malevich, Jackson Pollock etc.
I simply don't care if it's art. It's not an inherently prestigious label to me given this history.
This is a debate that existed long before LLMs with things like action painting. If I give you a Jackson Pollock and a piece from someone who randomly splattered paint on a canvas until it looked like Jackson Pollock, are they the same?
Same in what sense? That is the real question, and perhaps not even the important one when it comes to art. Because, if the Pollock is more "important," there is an implication that it's better because it's by a more famous person, while art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.
The same in whatever sense you want to compare the art rather than the creators. Pollocks try to convey the action and emotion of the creation process. Our hypothetical copycat lacks that higher level meaning, even though they've created an otherwise similar physical product.
As an aside:
...art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.
is an immensely political view (and one I happen to agree with). It's not a view shared by all artists, or their art. Ancient art in particular often assumes that the highest forms of art require divine inspiration that isn't accessible to everyone. It's common for epic poetry to invoke muses as a callback to this assumption, nominally to show the author's humility. John Milton's Paradise Lost does this (and reframes the muse within a Christian hierarchy at the same time), although it doesn't come off as remotely humble.
It depends what the copycat was thinking, maybe they wanted to follow in Pollock's footsteps, maybe they wanted to showcase the point you're making, whether a copycat is as good as the real thing and therefore also considered art, perhaps even as important (apprentices often copied their masters, such as da Vinci's), maybe they are just creating it because it looks good. If there's no other reasoning, then I'd still say they're the same, because how can one say they're not art too? Even as an observer of the art, what if I like the copycat more? These are all open questions to the philosophy of art and I'm glad it's accessible today to everyone rather than only to the historically abled.
Pollock was a part of a coherent intellectual movement across all of art. You can't productively discuss whether it's art without focusing on that. He didn't just wake up one day and think to himself that it would be fun to throw paint on the canvas like this and then people looked and wondered if that's art or not.
It was the intellectual statement conveyed through that medium that made him famous.
Art is not art. Art is the thought manifested into something which convey the thought. If an artist is using an AI to manifest a thought, then that can be art.
Similar, music is not music, but rather the thought of an musician manifested is what we call music. This is why silence can be music, but silence without the thought is not.
Images generated through an AI that lacks the human thought is not art. It can look like art, have similarities to art, but it is no more art than silence is music. Same goes to music and text generated by AI.
People can inject defective thoughts into the process like "what generates me most money" or "how can I avoid doing any thinking", in which case the output of the AI will reflect that.
Cavemen probably once had the same argument about whether musical instruments could be considered “music”; something previously only possible by singing.
Obviously, the answer is yes; musical instruments, including synthesizers, can be music and art.
Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified.
If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in.
Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is.
There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.
You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard.
> It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.
I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally".
I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman
It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.
I looked up Picasso's Guernica now out of curiosity. I don't understand what's so great about this artwork. Or why it would represent any of the things you mention. It just looks like deranged pencilwork. It also comes across as aggressively pretentious.
What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?
Since you seem to have no problem dishing it, I hope you can eat it as well, so here you go. It's your comment that can be rightly described as pretentious. First of all, "aggressive" doesn't make sense as a modifier to "pretentious" - you were probably influenced to pick this word because of the subject and the feeling of the mural, then self-indulgently left it in, no doubt imagining yourself an innate art critic taking poetic license. Second, the way you italicized artwork. Thirdly, and mostly, because even though you just "looked up Guernica now out of curiosity", you imagine your uninformed opinion worthy of consideration to someone else out there. It's not.
Yes. I consider these to be trivial attributes of what I wrote.
It was basically all part of the point: I don't appreciate the position taken in the blogpost in the OP, as it is willfully dishonest (its author not only admits, but even flaunts this).
This is why I remarked that I'm following in its spirit. All the points you list out are issues I also have in general with discourse like the blogpost, and with derivative discourse spawned by it. I was expecting people to react badly, specifically in order to demonstrate why. Even felt a bit bad about italicizing artwork, and felt it was a bit on the nose in hindsight. Wouldn't quite call it a flamebait, but in a sense I guess it was one.
In the end though, I got some reasonable discussion out of it, a bit to my surprise. Still kind of processing whether this was an exception to my conjectured rule, or how else I should wrestle with it. I ended up restoring a bit of "faith in humanity" for myself, rather than confirming my resignations.
This isn't to say I don't believe or didn't mean what I said though, to be clear. I just presented it in a way I consider malicious (the way the blogpost is written). You seem to consider so too and have reacted now in kind - although it doesn't read like along this same idea. But then maybe I'm just falling for my own trap at this point.
I see, you were playing "Picasso hater" to OP's "AI hater". Well played, in this case, but you could have just written what you just have above, it would have prevented some confusion and misdirection. Yes, OP is unreasonable and arrogant and thus ends up going totally overboard, even though there is some truth in his complaints (pinpointing better what that is would be a worthwhile conversation to have). In my book, being a hater is not something to flaunt, but rather something to look into. Deep enough understanding inevitably softens that hate if not all the way into appreciation, at least into tolerance. It's the same with Picasso's work: once the missing historical, emotional and artistic context is perceived, the value of the work will become self-evident as well.
You not thinking it's great just means you personally don't like it. Which is fine.
> What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?
Because Guernica was made by a human who was passionate about something, and poured that passion into his work. Even if you don't "get it", I hope you can at least acknowledge that truth.
To put another way, on one hand we have:
1. Deranged pencilwork created by someone who created it with purpose, to express a feeling he had about something.
2. Deranged pencilwork created by a probabilistic algorithm, that doesn't mean anything to anyone.
Even if we look at it in these sorts of terms, #1 is still orders of magnitude "better" to me.
Why do you care to connect with another human? Try to feel his emotions, what he tried to express? If you see no value in that, there's no discussion to have, honestly. For most people I know there's value in connecting with others and emphasizing with their emotions
Art is a difficult, subjective matter sometimes. I don't think we can expect everyone to "get" every piece of art. If the poster upthread wanted to, they could read more about the painting, in detail, where perhaps someone writes about various specific features of it and what people believe those features mean. Maybe that would provide more understanding, and they could feel his emotions that way.
I'm not saying they have to or should do that; maybe they just don't care enough. And that's fine. But the option is there.
If someone prompts an AI, "generate an image in the style of Picasso's Guernica", then the result of that, by definition, has no deeper meaning. No emotion went into creating it. The person who prompted the AI could make something up, but it's hard to say what's "real" there. Even if they were to guide the image generation by describing their own emotions, the result wouldn't really be their own expression of their emotions. It would be the AI's probabilistic guess as to what those emotions look like on paper, when rendered using Guernica's style, based on a mish-mash of thousands of different artists and art history research. Ultimately it just doesn't mean anything.
I accept the idea that a talented artist could guide the AI with much deeper specifics about what to "draw", how to draw it, etc. And maybe -- maybe -- that's something that would convey the human's emotions faithfully. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
Many things require one to reject self-imposed boundaries. For example[1]:
> There's a story that, IIRC, was told by Brian Enos, where he was practicing timed drills with the goal of practicing until he could complete a specific task at or under his usual time. He was having a hard time hitting his normal time and was annoyed at himself because he was slower than usual and kept at it until he hit his target, at which point he realized he misremembered the target and was accidentally targeting a new personal best time that was better than he thought was possible. While it's too simple to say that we can achieve anything if we put our minds to it, almost none of us are operating at anywhere near our capacity and what we think we can achieve is often a major limiting factor.
---
Art is nothing like shooting. My first instinct looking at Guernica is that I also feel nothing, but one can limit oneself and say: if I feel nothing initially, I will feel nothing at all. If you prime yourself to be open to an experience of putting yourself into the shoes of the author, you might start feeling something.
That goes for all art. It either stirs you or it doesn't. I find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjstsWoQiw to be one of the most beautiful pieces ever recorded, others can't listen to it and think it is bland and a terrible recording.
I don't think this is just taste. The painting was made in a specific historic context and commemorates the bombing of Guernica. Without knowing that context, it may be appreciated as a disembodied visual artifact, but that's not how art really works or ever worked. An influential artpiece usually states something relevant to the historic moment and intellectual Zeitgeist of the time.
You may like the music of Zombie by The Cranberries, but I'd say it belongs to the complete appreciation of it to know that it's about the Irish Troubles, and for that you need some background knowledge.
You may like to smoke weed to Bob Marley songs, but without knowing something about the African slave trade, you won't get the significance of tracks like 400 years.
For Guernica you also have to understand Picasso's fascination with primitive art, prehistoric cave art, children's drawings and abstraction, the historic moment when photography took over the role of realistic depiction, freeing painters to express themselves more in terms of emotional impressions and abstractions.
I don't consider context a clear win. I'd argue that there's also quite the disconnect sometimes between what a work is about and why it's popular.
Let's take Zombie by The Cranberries as an example. I really liked this song as a kid, still do, I think it has a great sound. The difference is that I now speak English, can understand the lyrics, and could look up the historical context. Ever since I did so, listening to it has never been the same, and not in a good way.
There are also examples which are not going to be so specific to my opinions. Kendrick's Swimming Pools was a house party staple, despite the song carrying heavy anti-alcoholism messaging. The contrast is almost comical.
For a different example, let's consider temporal contextuality; you describe Guernica being reliant on this. When I try to think of an example, I'm reminded of vague memories of shows with oddly timely subtitles. Subtitles that referenced things that were very specific to the given cultural moment, basically memes, but vanished since. It's not a good experience, and I'd say it would be reasonable to chalk such a thing up as a critique, rather than something worthy of praise.
This is also why I half-seriously referred to the piece being "aggressively pretentious". Rather than coming across as something I'm just genuinely missing the context for, it comes across as something with manufactured sophistication (which then I am indeed missing the context for, but unapologetically). This might still be a mirage, but I think with how pretty much stereotyped this experience is at this point, I'd imagine there's got to be some truth to it at least.
Yes, context is really important. But:JS Bach made a whole raft of music, and quite a large fraction of it was religiously inspired. In spite of that it is perfectly possible to appreciate it at a deep emotional level without that particular spiritual connection. This is the genius of art to me: that it opens up an emotional channel between two individual separated by time and space and manages to convey a feeling, as clear as day.
Take U2's October as a nice example. (You mentioned Zombie, incidentally one of my favorites, the anger and frustration in there never fail to hit me, I can't listen to it too often for that reason), superficially it is a very simple set of lyrics (8 lines I think) and an even simpler set of chords. And yet: it moves me. And I doubt any AI would have come up with it or even a close approximation if it wasn't part of the input. That's why I refuse to call AI generated stuff art. It's content, not art.
Because it is mimicking human input. Effectively you are getting a mixture of many pieces of artwork that humans made distilled down into some sloppy new one that was made without feeling, purpose or skill and that can be described by its prompt, a few kilobytes at best. Original human art can only be approximated but never captured with 100% fidelity regardless of the bitrate, that is what makes it unique to begin with. Even an imitation by another human (some of which can be very good) could stir you in the exact same way but they'd be copies, not original works.
Anyway, this gets hairy quickly, that's why I chose to illustrate with a crappy recording of a magnificent piece that still captures that feeling - for me - whereas many others would likely disagree. Art is made by its creator because they want to and because they can, not because they are regurgitating output based on a multitude of inputs and a prompt.
Paint me a Sistine Chapel is going to yield different results no matter how many times you would give that same prompt to Michelangelo depending on his mood, what happened recently, what he ate and his health as well as the season. That AI will produce the same result over and over again from the same prompt. It is a mechanistic transformation, not an original work, it reduces the input, it does not expand on it, it does not add its own feelings to it.
It's not. If one takes the fact that art is in the eye of the beholder [0], then yes, even AI art may stir you, especially as a human is the one generating at the end of the day, for a specific purpose and statement about what they want to convey.
There is a good part of the series Remembrance of Earth's Past (of which The Three Body Problem is the first book) where the aliens are creating art and it shocks people to learn that the art they're so moved by was actually created by non-humans. This is exactly what this situation with AI feels like, and not even to the same extent because again AI is not autonomously making images, it's still a human at the end of the day picking what to prompt.
> What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?
I think this is a fantastic question. Full disclosure, Guernica is one of my personal favorites and I initially felt pretty poorly about this particular string of words. But the implied question, "So what?", is literally what separates art from x. I don't think that there's a direct answer to this, but I'll do my best to articulate my feelings towards it.
When I was much younger and first learning how to play guitar, I heard that Eric Clapton was a guitarist that a lot of other guitarists looked up to. I decided to listen to his works and initially dismissed them. To my ears he sounded like a worse, more basic, more derivative version than the artists I was listening to at the time and I wondered how he could even be in the same conversations as other, more modern artists. It was later that I realized I had the arrow of causality wrong. He wasn't revered because he was the best or had taken the artform to the furthest reaches or would be successful today. He was revered because he exposed so many people to a new way of expressing themselves that they likely wouldn't have known about otherwise and certainly wouldn't have invented themselves.
This analogy applies directly to Picasso, I think. You mention you felt the piece was "aggressively pretentious". Where do you think that pretense comes from? There is a whole history to the deconstruction of art in the visual medium and a whole backlash to that deconstruction and a whole response to that and that's your cultural inheritance when you view pieces like this. You don't have to even be aware of this to know that it's affecting how you feel about the piece. I think one facet of "so what?" is that this piece has existed for long enough to generate discussion about its own worth and value and at the very least is spawning literally this post.
The fact that one could find the work with one word and have a discussion about it is also pretty incredible. I don't think a model generated output is that widely known. I do think that sort of cultural reach is a facet of "so what".
There are more answers to "so what?", but to answer your question directly, "what makes it any better", I think an argument could be made that it's not. "Better" when applied to art doesn't have any particular meaning in my mind. What makes it more culturally relevant, more widely known, more widely loved, more important, and more gratifying to study each have dozens of answers, and I think that's more interesting.
Along with being against any form of animal cruelty.
They were also pretty obsessed with spiritualistic quackery.
Are we giving each other fun facts or what? Surely one does not need to go all the way to the nazis to find a Picasso hater? Or are you just following the footsteps of the blogpost author too?
Needless to say, most humans are unoriginal parrots too, one need only look at the prevalence of memetic desire. Few are capable of artistic genius like Picasso.
One technical definition of empathy is understanding what someone else is feeling. In war you must empathize with your enemy in order to understand their perspective and predict what they will do next. This cognitive empathy is basically theory of mind, which has been demonstrated in GPT4.
If we do not assume biological substrate is special, then it's possible that AIs will one day have qualia and be able to fully empathize and experience the feelings of another.
It could be possible that new AI architectures with continuously updating weights, memory modules, evolving value functions, and self-reflection, could one day produce truly original perspectives. It's still unknown if they will truly feel anything, but it's also technically unknowable if anyone else really experiences qualia, as described in the thought experiment of p-zombies.
The same Picasso that was notorious for churning them out towards the end of his career?
I'm being slightly flippant but I do think this is a motte and bailey argument.
Not even painting is a Guernica nor does it need to be.
And not every aesthetically pleasing object is art. (And finally - art doesn't even have to be aesthetically pleasing. And actually finally "art" has a multitude of contradictory meanings)
Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about the intent of the human using those tools. Image generators are not autonomously generating images, it is the human who is asking them for specific concepts and ideas. This is no different than performance art like a banana taped to a wall which requires no tools at all.