Using AI to create "Art".

[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. I could say prompted human generated works are devoid of none human system ls creativity. Not sure where that gets us.

The human commissioning the work provides guidance but the AI tool creates the image.

A photograph with AI noise reduction applied is still a photograph made by a human using photographic tools.

Not necessarily. The source doesn't have to have a human in the loop.

Of course, you're free not to use that tool to process your photo should you so choose.

As is a none human system.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[bridge77]

I think you forgot to include something.

When I include the YouTube link it gets deleted for being "off topic". Too bad because it gives a great insight into how AI works. Search YouTube for "Rick Beato I'm Sorry...This New Artist Completely Sucks" where he uses AI to create music.

ouch.

maybe you can just put the title of the video instead and we can find it.

what deletes youTube links, is that the policy of this forum?

 

[tbcass]

Anyone familiar with AI capability can see that AI images have moved beyond copying. So are they mimicry or creativity? Seems that we want to call them mimicry and not creative. If the user helps direct the results, does that make them creative? Is it creative if the user merely used a simple prompt?

I think the difference is easily blurred. A few months ago I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and spent a lot of time looking at a large collection of O'Keeffe paintings, including some of her charcoals.

Later at home I got out the charcoals and dark pastels and made some works of my own inspired by her style. Should they be considered creative or mimicry?

I would call it mimicry.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

If someone had commissioned you to create a work of art in the style of Georgia O'Keefe, would that person deserve credit as the artist who creates the work?

The system that creates them output.

That's the role of prompting in AI image-making. The human commissions the work. That's different from being an artist creating a work.

No.

You're human. You have the capacity to be an artist. AI tools don't have that capacity.

I believe your incorrect.

I believe the position you are taking indicates you don't understand how AI works. A computer using AI is not capable of creating something from scratch. Instead it looks as a lot of other examples and combines them to create something similar. In other words you are giving AI a capability it does not yet possess. Maybe sometime in the future it will but at present it's not even close. To create something original requires a lot of human input. If there's enough human input to create something truly original than the human is doing all the creativity and not the computer which is simply following instructions. In my opinion what we call AI is not really AI. An AI computer would have to have the capability to produce results with no human interaction at all including not being prompted to do so.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

I think you forgot to include something.

When I include the YouTube link it gets deleted for being "off topic". Too bad because it gives a great insight into how AI works. Search YouTube for "Rick Beato I'm Sorry...This New Artist Completely Sucks" where he uses AI to create music.

ouch.

maybe you can just put the title of the video instead and we can find it.

That's what I did highlighted above. Copy and paste it on YouTube's search engine.

what deletes youTube links, is that the policy of this forum?

No but in this case a video about music was considered off topic.

 

[tbcass]

While this is about creating music with AI it is equally relevant to creating visual "art". It shows how easily it can be done.

The definition of "Art" is conclusively human creativity, that's why works of art are generally associated with the human artists name.

This has been challenged many times in these forums. I've challenged. I believe this is false.

Because there seems to be no consensus for the definition of ART or even AI for that matter it is neither true nor false. It's entirely subjective. That's why conversations like this are so interesting because no definitive conclusion is ever reached.

 

[Ephemeris]

While this is about creating music with AI it is equally relevant to creating visual "art". It shows how easily it can be done.

The definition of "Art" is conclusively human creativity, that's why works of art are generally associated with the human artists name.

This has been challenged many times in these forums. I've challenged. I believe this is false.

Because there seems to be no consensus for the definition of ART or even AI for that matter it is neither true nor false. It's entirely subjective.

I think I agree; there seem to be so many definitions rather than consensus.

That's why conversations like this are so interesting because no definitive conclusion is ever reached.

Absolutely. Happened a few times here from memory

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

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.

So do humans. They can be mutually exclusive which so your description I would say is incorrect.

When humans do it I don't consider it ART. There's a difference between influenced by someone or copying someone else's style. You are free to disagree with that if you must.

 

[Aidan Williams]

Being a traditionalist, I believe the demonstration of skills, in the widest sense, is a central factor to the appreciation of a piece recognised as a product of the arts in general.

These skills could be apparent in the conception, execution and/or presentation of the piece - 'originality' would be covered under 'conception', 'dexterity' would be covered under 'execution', and 'genius' would be covered under 'presentation'.

In photography, the camera often does most of the execution (compared to say, in painting). With AI image generation, it's typical to believe the 'big data' algorithm does even more of the execution - but does a creative spending days honing an AI image to his or her satisfaction put less effort into the resulting image than a 'happy snapper'? I think not.

However, at the end of the day, anything being merely 'a common pleasing image' only bestows upon it a very low position in the arts, not one worth discussing. There most certainly will be great art created with the assistance of AI, at least in the field of cultural morphosis - but I'll stick to my camera (and my pencils) for the time being.

 

[RaysJ]

If AI creates art, then that is the end of art, imo.

l don't consider most photos to be art.

 

[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.

So do humans. They can be mutually exclusive which so your description I would say is incorrect.

When humans do it I don't consider it ART. There's a difference between influenced by someone or copying someone else's style. You are free to disagree with that if you must.

I suppose some of it depends on what one defines as plagiarism, and if it's binary. If we had a Picasso afciando and they created some painting in that style is that art? Id think so. If another system did the same I would say that would equally be art (or equally not depending on one's views of plagiarism definitions).

We then have the issue of a lack of solid and majority agreed definition of art. I personally avoid the word as I don't feel it's adequately defined and agreed by a majority.

--
Tom

 

[Ephemeris]

If someone had commissioned you to create a work of art in the style of Georgia O'Keefe, would that person deserve credit as the artist who creates the work?

The system that creates them output.

That's the role of prompting in AI image-making. The human commissions the work. That's different from being an artist creating a work.

No.

You're human. You have the capacity to be an artist. AI tools don't have that capacity.

I believe your incorrect.

I believe the position you are taking indicates you don't understand how AI works

That would be a mistaken believe and unfair

. A computer using AI is not capable of creating something from scratch.

I believe that to be false. We have the theory of mind capable systems today which do claim to be able to demonstrate this. That's ToM AI and ML ToM. We see this on BASt level 4 and 5 autonomous systems.

Instead it looks as a lot of other examples and combines them to create something similar. In other words you are giving AI a capability it does not yet possess. Maybe sometime in the future it will but at present it's not even close. To create something original requires a lot of human input. If there's enough human input to create something truly original than the human is doing all the creativity and not the computer which is simply following instructions. In my opinion what we call AI is not really AI. An AI computer would have to have the capability to produce results with no human interaction at all including not being prompted to do so.

--
Tom

 

[Bill Ferris]

If I were to boil down my position to a single sentence, it would be: I distinguish between a person using a tool to make art and a person telling a tool to make an image.

 

[jrkliny]

I suppose some of it depends on what one defines as plagiarism, and if it's binary. If we had a Picasso afciando and they created some painting in that style is that art? Id think so. If another system did the same I would say that would equally be art (or equally not depending on one's views of plagiarism definitions).

We then have the issue of a lack of solid and majority agreed definition of art. I personally avoid the word as I don't feel it's adequately defined and agreed by a majority.

The lines blur rapidly. If someone created an original work using Picasso's cubism style, I would call that creative, artistic. Most would say the same for someone who painted as realistically as possible. In fact such works are greatly revered and appreciated. Personally I have mixed feelings about such works. They may show skill but also a lack of creativity, originality. A lot of wasted skill.

Now if we ask AI to create a certain image in the style of cubism, is that art? What if the user has AI create a great many images. Then they pick one and go through numerous revisions to fine tune the image. Is that art? Did the person use a tool but still create an image that matched their vision, style, goals?

Does the artistic merit of an image change depending on how it was created or how much effort was needed?

 

[Ozzie SD]

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.

 

[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."

 

[FrancoD]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Personally i boycott business using AI images and hate seeing AI fake images in Photography groups on facebook or elsewhere

100% with you. By the time some will realise the ramifications it will be too late.

 

[jrkliny]

The term arts is often used in a very general sense to include the idea of doing something well. An example would be the art of speaking or negotiating or even driving. It is often used in the phrase "arts and crafts". Often there is little distinction, but typical art is about producing something of beauty and craft of utility.

Regardless of the dictionary definitions, we are all often imprecise in our uses of words. I prefer the term "fine arts". Again definitions vary widely but this term typical implies originality, creativity, intent to express beauty, mood, or another concept.

 

[Aidan Williams]

The artist is like: I paint this 5 by 5 cm square blue. I will add a 9 by 9 cm yellow circle.

The 'art' is selling that piece, or more precisely a presentation of that piece, as an artwork.

When you consider the 'Found Object', (Readymade / Objet Trouvé), which is quite possibly the most important single development in fine art in the last one hundred and ten years, and then apply that practice to the 'AI assisted arts', ('AIA', why not?), the underlying suggestion that anything cannot be presented as art rapidly begins to let in water - in fact, it sank a century ago.

 

[Ephemeris]

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. Its not the OED I already posted that.