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
[–] 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