[esikich]

They are awful because there is no effort put into it. You're missing the point entirely with generative art. Generative art with care and intent is indiscernible from "real" art at this point. You just don't realize it.

[qnleigh]

I would love to see an example of this! Can you link anything?

[4chandaily]

Generative art with care and intent is art.

The intent and care is the whole point. It is the difference between slop and art whether generative or not.

[esikich]

I completely agree and this is a very unpopular opinion outside of people who actually are artists.

[slopinthebag]

I think because pretty much all AI generated art is slop. When artists use AI with care and intention in their works, people don’t even realize it’s AI and they don’t care. And that’s fine.

[esikich]

It's a new medium and I think that is really exciting to watch it develop.

[4chandaily]

Agreed. As with any new tool, there will be an adjustment period before the Overton Window catches up.

This is the current era's version of these hit classics:

   - "If you use autotune,you aren't a real singer!"
   - "Programming a drum machine isn't really writing percussion!"
   - "If you use Photoshop, you can't be a real artist."
   - "No real artist would use duct tape as a medium."
   - "Video games can't be art."
   - "Sampling is just ripping off other people's music."

Etc. The general public believed each of those things for a few years before accepting, each time, the simple truth.

Art is simply a conversation between the artist and the audience.

The medium, tools, subject, content, or even size of the audience are all just metadata which accompany the art. It will happen with these tools also.

[slopinthebag]

But at the same time, we've had people commissioning art for centuries and we still don't consider the commissioner to be an artist.

Using AI as part of your workflow? Possibly art. Using it as your entire workflow? Slop, not art.

[slopinthebag]

To each their own I suppose.