520
A cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inman (theoatmeal.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

But you still choose the final result...for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they're the ones to settle on the final solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    the how is really quite irrelevant

    That's our point. The how is entirely relevant. It's what makes art interesting and meaningful. Without the how and why, it's just colors and noise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    it's just colors and noise.

    But that's exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye...might as well just get it auto-generated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That you can't see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn't mean it's not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I would honestly argue that the way an artist makes art is also completely irrelevant. The art is only meaningful in the way it's perceived, how the artist physically makes it is of very little importance. The tools and materials are just a means to an end, it's the finished product that inspires feelings and thoughts, not the process of how it came to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You've stated as much already. If we're just repeating ourselves here, I'll just copy-paste.

    That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Not really. It's the equivalent of ordering a "build it yourself" sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn't actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.

    I'm not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I'm arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial "art" work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Your example is shit. It would be more appropriate for when you commission a piece of work from someone, where they are using their skills and choices and you're telling them what you want and don't want on the sandwich.

    AI doesn't make choices when creating an image. It generates an image based off of other images and you hope that it gets something that follows some aesthetic principles that it's lifting from other images. Just because you reroll the die doesn't mean you're choosing shit.

    That "menial" process when you're making art is literally the best part. When you're painting a sky for the background of something you don't want that just filled in, that's where you can experiment and maybe even add an element that you weren't thinking of before when you started the piece. AI can't do that for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    and having someone else make it.

    No, having a soulless machine make it.

    Then claiming that you made it yourself even though all you did was select a few things on a menu.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh my fucking god people...I didn't say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Way to shit on everyone who's job it is to make those things.

    Why do you think logos and so on have no artistic value? What defines value? Because if it's influencing people and culture, then logos definitely do.

    Corporate art sucks ass but it's still made using choices, which ai doesn't do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent