Using AI to create "Art".

[RaysJ]

First thing to do is define what art is.

One can look at 2 things. The result (what do we see) and the process (how was it made).

Some people in this thread state that art is only art if created by human beings.

At first I was a bit skeptical about this statement, but there is a truth in that.

Why? I will try and explain with a silly example.

Let's imagine a white beach. Someone has put 500 paint cans in a storage unit located on that beach. Then all of a sudden a very very heavy storm comes up. It blows away the storage unit and cracks open the paints cans. The paints start flooding all over the beach. The colors mix up and the heavy wind creates amazing never before seen shapes in the sand. Once the storm has passed, a palette of the most beautiful colors and shapes is visible in the sand.

Now, would we call that art? Probably not, because it was not created by a person. It was a lucky, random coincidence that created the result.

So, although the result resembled a piece of art, it was not. Why? Because the process was not 100% intentional. The result was created by randomness and luck.

One could say that AI also uses randomness and luck. It combines a sh1tload of different elements (stolen from real artists) and combines them. If you are lucky, you get a nice result. But the result you get is not 100% intentional. It is an interpretation based on text input.

The artist is like: I paint this 5 by 5 cm square blue. I will add a 9 by 9 cm yellow circle.
AI is: do something with blue and yellow, and let's see what comes out.

Artist: the result is exactly as meant to be by the person who created it.
AI: the result is based on solely some thoughts of the person who instructed the generator and is based on randomness and coincidence.

Dictionary Definition: "

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."the art of the Renaissance"

2.the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.".

You didn't define what dictionary. It's not the OED I already posted that.

This is from the OED "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "art" broadly as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, sculpture, or drawing, but also encompassing other forms like music, literature, and performance."

So it is the same as l quoted.

 

[Cherry_F]

Well, if we adopt the generally accepted definition of Art, i.e. an activity whose purpose is to foster feelings among the recipients, AI-generated products can undoubtedly be qualified as Art.

Laziness is a natural part of the human character (and probably all other living creatures: it's purely economy, lions go hunting only when hungry, trees shed leaves when water becomes too scarce...), so it was unavoidable to see some of them create the idea only, and subcontract the craft part of this cumbersome activity to a machine.

So, as many others commented in this thread, the problem is not about the product, but the process, and giving the credit to the right people.

Another interesting phenomenon to observe IMO is what people create when the tool is able to generate whatever they can imagine. Will it be original? Will it be desperately mundane? Or will it be deja-vu?

As for me, I like this quote from Walker Evans: "photography has nothing to do with Art, that's precisely why it's an art".

___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire

 

[Leigh A]

Since there is no accepted, finite definition of the word '"art", the validity of what is, or what isn't considered art is solely based upon individual opinion, and therefore all such opinions are rendered irrelevant. :-|

Art - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Art is a diverse range of cultural activity centered around works utilizing creative or imaginative talents, which are expected to evoke a worthwhile experience,[1] generally through an expression of emotional power, conceptual ideas, technical proficiency, or beauty.[2][3][4]

There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art"

 

[Bill Ferris]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

How about plagiarism? AI uses other people's work to create the final result.

That is an interesting take, one worthy of consideration.

If the user's prompt includes the phrase, "in the style of (artist's name, here)," should the resulting image be considered a type of forgery? A visual plagiarism?

There is some merit to that position.

Why does there need to be a prompt? Many AI tools that are used within photograph and videography based software have no prompts. E.g. NR.

Prompted AI-generated works are devoid of human creativity.

I believe this to be false with the caveat the word human should be removed.

Art is product of human creativity.

 

[Ephemeris]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

How about plagiarism? AI uses other people's work to create the final result.

That is an interesting take, one worthy of consideration.

If the user's prompt includes the phrase, "in the style of (artist's name, here)," should the resulting image be considered a type of forgery? A visual plagiarism?

There is some merit to that position.

Why does there need to be a prompt? Many AI tools that are used within photograph and videography based software have no prompts. E.g. NR.

Prompted AI-generated works are devoid of human creativity.

I believe this to be false with the caveat the word human should be removed.

Art is product of human creativity.

Established by others here and the wide variety of descriptions that seem available from various dictionaries, enclopedic sources that Art isn't acceptably defined. The Latin Ars, the origin of the word art would say it's skill, ability, capability.

I have also seen other mammals creating art, and human made machines.

Those defining art in each case have a wide scope given the lack of true definition. Could it be defined in our future? Perhaps this is purely philosophical I'm not sure.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[Bill Ferris]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

How about plagiarism? AI uses other people's work to create the final result.

That is an interesting take, one worthy of consideration.

If the user's prompt includes the phrase, "in the style of (artist's name, here)," should the resulting image be considered a type of forgery? A visual plagiarism?

There is some merit to that position.

Why does there need to be a prompt? Many AI tools that are used within photograph and videography based software have no prompts. E.g. NR.

Prompted AI-generated works are devoid of human creativity.

I believe this to be false with the caveat the word human should be removed.

Art is product of human creativity.

Established by others here and the wide variety of descriptions that seem available from various dictionaries, enclopedic sources that Art isn't acceptably defined. The Latin Ars, the origin of the word art would say it's skill, ability, capability.

The dictionary definitions shared in this thread have all called art the product of human creative activity.

I have also seen other mammals creating art, and human made machines.

Your response to what animals do is anthropomorphism. A machine is incapable of independently making art. Humans use machines as tools to make art.

Those defining art in each case have a wide scope given the lack of true definition.

AI-generated content requires society to make a choice: are we going to respect art as a human creative activity or diminish the arts by recognizing automated content-making machines as artists? I've made my choice.

 

[jrkliny]

AI-generated content requires society to make a choice: are we going to respect art as a human creative activity or diminish the arts by recognizing automated content-making machines as artists? I've made my choice.

I certainly respect your choice, but there are still plenty of grey areas. AI can be just another computer tool that is controlled by the artist.

We can start by questioning what is AI? In the not too distant past, our software programs were built on code that was written by a human. Those codes included often sophisticated algorithms for performing various functions. The Photoshop healing brush is a good example. Later versions also included more sophisticated coding for content aware editing.

As you can imagine writing code to perform these actions is extremely challenging and difficult. More recently we have seen code that is AI generated. In theory that coding could have been written by a human. The programs are typically AI-generated but the coding is fixed and does not change until a new software version is made available for sale.

AI has been growing in a new direction. Vast computer power is being employed. This goes way beyond computer generated coding and algorithms for our home computers. Instead massively capable centralized computing is employed. These computers continue to learn and in addition the coding/algorithms are complex beyond human capability to understand or simulate. They "grow" and "learn" based on vast, vast input of data.

Regardless of whether the capability was human generated or AI generated or based on evoluting capability, it seems any of this capability can be directed by a human and used as a tool to create new and powerful images which reflect characteristics of fine art such as originality, creativity, and communicating moods, beauty, or other concepts.

So where do we draw the line on what is acceptable? I decided on this way before AI was a common term. Way before Photoshop and other pp programs became extremely advanced. I try to use early film processing and printing as the standard. I typically compose in camera, but am not adverse to leveling and final cropping. I make exposure adjustments including dodge and burn. Sometimes a white point adjustment is needed. I might need to "fix" colors based on not what is "true" but how we perceive which includes consideration of color constancy and color relativity. For my purposes, simple Photoshop Elements has way more capability than I need or even understand.

I know I am an exception. The vast majority of photography enthusiasts are using all sorts of advance Lightroom and Photoshop tools and plugins to manipulate their images. IMO they have already gone down the rabbit hole, living in fantasy land.

 

[Ephemeris]

AI-generated content requires society to make a choice: are we going to respect art as a human creative activity or diminish the arts by recognizing automated content-making machines as artists? I've made my choice.

I certainly respect your choice, but there are still plenty of grey areas. AI can be just another computer tool that is controlled by the artist.

We can start by questioning what is AI? In the not too distant past, our software programs were built on code that was written by a human. Those codes included often sophisticated algorithms for performing various functions. The Photoshop healing brush is a good example. Later versions also included more sophisticated coding for content aware editing.

As you can imagine writing code to perform these actions is extremely challenging and difficult. More recently we have seen code that is AI generated. In theory that coding could have been written by a human. The programs are typically AI-generated but the coding is fixed and does not change until a new software version is made available for sale.

AI has been growing in a new direction. Vast computer power is being employed. This goes way beyond computer generated coding and algorithms for our home computers. Instead massively capable centralized computing is employed. These computers continue to learn and in addition the coding/algorithms are complex beyond human capability to understand or simulate. They "grow" and "learn" based on vast, vast input of data.

Regardless of whether the capability was human generated or AI generated or based on evoluting capability, it seems any of this capability can be directed by a human and used as a tool to create new and powerful images which reflect characteristics of fine art such as originality, creativity, and communicating moods, beauty, or other concepts.

So where do we draw the line on what is acceptable? I decided on this way before AI was a common term. Way before Photoshop and other pp programs became extremely advanced. I try to use early film processing and printing as the standard. I typically compose in camera, but am not adverse to leveling and final cropping. I make exposure adjustments including dodge and burn. Sometimes a white point adjustment is needed. I might need to "fix" colors based on not what is "true" but how we perceive which includes consideration of color constancy and color relativity. For my purposes, simple Photoshop Elements has way more capability than I need or even understand.

I know I am an exception. The vast majority of photography enthusiasts are using all sorts of advance Lightroom and Photoshop tools and plugins to manipulate their images. IMO they have already gone down the rabbit hole, living in fantasy land.

 

[Bill Ferris]

AI-generated content requires society to make a choice: are we going to respect art as a human creative activity or diminish the arts by recognizing automated content-making machines as artists? I've made my choice.

I certainly respect your choice, but there are still plenty of grey areas. AI can be just another computer tool that is controlled by the artist.

It can be and I've not said anything to contradict that.

We can start by questioning what is AI? In the not too distant past, our software programs were built on code that was written by a human. Those codes included often sophisticated algorithms for performing various functions. The Photoshop healing brush is a good example. Later versions also included more sophisticated coding for content aware editing.

As you can imagine writing code to perform these actions is extremely challenging and difficult. More recently we have seen code that is AI generated. In theory that coding could have been written by a human. The programs are typically AI-generated but the coding is fixed and does not change until a new software version is made available for sale.

AI has been growing in a new direction. Vast computer power is being employed. This goes way beyond computer generated coding and algorithms for our home computers. Instead massively capable centralized computing is employed. These computers continue to learn and in addition the coding/algorithms are complex beyond human capability to understand or simulate. They "grow" and "learn" based on vast, vast input of data.

Regardless of whether the capability was human generated or AI generated or based on evoluting capability, it seems any of this capability can be directed by a human and used as a tool to create new and powerful images which reflect characteristics of fine art such as originality, creativity, and communicating moods, beauty, or other concepts.

So where do we draw the line on what is acceptable?

A bright line for me is AI-generated images. The human role is that of a patron commissioning a work. The resulting image, having been made by software; not by a human, is not art.

I decided on this way before AI was a common term. Way before Photoshop and other pp programs became extremely advanced. I try to use early film processing and printing as the standard. I typically compose in camera, but am not adverse to leveling and final cropping. I make exposure adjustments including dodge and burn. Sometimes a white point adjustment is needed. I might need to "fix" colors based on not what is "true" but how we perceive which includes consideration of color constancy and color relativity. For my purposes, simple Photoshop Elements has way more capa¹bility than I need or even understand.

I know I am an exception. The vast majority of photography enthusiasts are using all sorts of advance Lightroom and Photoshop tools and plugins to manipulate their images. IMO they have already gone down the rabbit hole, living in fantasy land.

Your focus appears to be the distinction between images that are photographs and of another type. That's certainly a worthy topic of discussion though, perhaps on another thread. I may have missed it but I don't see anyone arguing that an AI-generated image is a photo.

 

[Mako2011]

...as the subtle derogatory back and forth doesn't seem to want to stop and the number of complaints is rising. Turning into a stuck record thread and a bit off topic