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.
Using AI can be much more involved than a single prompt. Often the user makes different prompts and requests specific changes for AI generated images. Eventually the human settles on the final product that reflects their chosen content. Is that art?
It's not art.
The process described is not unlike a patron who commissions an artist for a work and repeatedly provides feedback/revision requests until the artwork is to their liking. The human who creates the work is the artist and their work is art. Patronage isn't artistry and a work created by a machine isn't art.
Or a photographer takes a raw image file into Photoshop and uses sliders to make a bunch of enhancements. That might include using auto adjusts, or hitting image with the haze filter, or bumping up saturation, or pulling details out of the shadows. Maybe also some cloning and removing distractions with the healing brush. Is the final product art?
Yes, it is art.
The photographer is an artist. Their medium is photography. The camera, lens, accessories, and image processing software are artistic tools. The photo is art.
The photographer's role goes well beyond providing one or more written or verbal prompts. They choose the subject, the perspective for the lens, the composition, light, depth of field, how movement will be rendered, and the moment to initiate the shutter actuation.
All of this occurs before image processing begins. All are artistic choices effected by the photographer, who is human. That's artistry at work. How they process the image is also an artistic act.
How much work does the artist need to make? Do they need to scale a mountain for that special image or can they just send up a drone and go click?
Use of a drone takes advantage of available tools to create more options for where to place the lens; which perspective to use. Choosing to use a drone and positioning the drone are artistic acts.
Is it art, if the maker sees a nice sunset and goes click with their cellphone?
The photographer chooses the subject, the perspective, the camera mode, and the moment to trigger the shutter actuation. They're human and making artistic choices. The photo may not be great or even good art. But it's art.
Is it art if they capture a double rainbow above the Grand Canyon. Is it art if there is no rainbow but they add it with Photoshop?
I'd say, yes, to the first and, possibly, to the second. Adding a double rainbow in Photoshop transforms the image from a photo to a composite. Was the double rainbow taken from a second photo of the same scene made at a different time on the same day at the same general time? If so, I'd call that second image a composite photo. It's also art.
Was the double rainbow taken from another photo made in a different day or at a different location? If so, I'd call that image a composite - not a photo - and it would still be art.
Was the double rainbow added in Photoshop using a generative AI tool? If so, the resulting image isn't a photo and may not be art. It's not a photo because the photographic process requires light from objects in the scene. The double rainbow was not in the scene at any time. The rainbow, a critical element of the image, was fabricated using a process other than photography. The image isn't a photo.
Is it art? That's a question open to debate. Personally, I'm torn. If the artist and the work, itself, make it clear that the rainbow is a fabrication, I'd be more open to seeing the work as art that merges multiple image-making techniques. If the artist attempts to deceive the viewer - to present the image as something it's not - Of be less inclined to view the work as art.
Art is honest, sometimes brutally so. A work that's dishonestly presented as something it's not should not be considered art. Doing so would violate a trust the artist and viewer ask of each other.
