|
|
|
|
|
|
by gilleain
26 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting point - usually people approach the question "who draws the tiger" from the other end. As in, the assumption is (not unreasonably!) the genAI is doing all the work and the AI 'artist' is doing nothing. Of course, the more control you have - as you say - over the process, the more you are the artist. I have to say, I'm not that interested in whether the output 'really' is art or not. I'm sympathetic to non-AI artists and I personally prefer art made by humans. However ... it is not impossible to make something that looks good or communicates an interesting idea with AI, but not trivially. |
|
|
Yeah. I agree it’s reasonable, but there’s a fun twist I experienced myself. I used to do a type of generative digital art… artificial evolution… long before anything like Dall-E. I wrote the procedural tools, so I was creating the imaging software and doing all the work. Some people still assumed the computer was doing all the work and jumped to the conclusion that it was art of lower value than other kinds. There is another angle about art that can be mechanically and exactly reproduced having lower value, and I think that is also valid and factors into how people see digital art.
Personally, I also prefer art made by humans. AI can easily make beautiful and interesting images, but it has little meaning and seems far less interesting. Art is often as much about the narrative or story of the art and/or the artist, about why they’re doing what they do, as it is about the artifacts. I used to think it was somewhat ironic that the art-consuming public behaved this way, but now I realize I very much do the same and value human motivation and original ideas & execution and unique unreproducable art as much as anyone else.