Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ggtsu_00 t1_ja6vcc5 wrote

Reply to comment by BigBadMur in A Photographer Who Found Instagram Fame for His Striking Portraits Has Confessed His Images Were Actually A.I.-Generated by PauloPatricio

It already has. If anything, it has made art a lot less meaningful. You can't really look at an elaborate piece of artwork anymore without thinking: "Eh... could this have been generated by AI?" instead of "Wow the artists here is really talented!".

3

MetricVeil t1_ja7if4b wrote

>... it has made art a lot less meaningful.

I disagree. If anything, it has highlighted the increased meaning in human created art.

What has more, overall, value, an original painting by a human artist, a forged version of the painting by another human artist, a printed copy of the original picture or an AI generated interpretation of the original work?

Art is a direct expression of an artists humanity made using their skills and imagination and emotions. Generative art algorithms generate emotionless, sterile, images with no meaning or purpose.

16

Dragon7619 t1_ja8tyc4 wrote

Absolutely. Original art with sufficient documentation of its creator is goin g to be more valuable in the future. Humans will value Human made things from a human point of view.

I am originally was once a fine artist then turned concept artist in Hollywood and then back to being a fine artist again. I saw the writing in the wall 3 years ago. Even though it was rudimentary in its beginnings, I could see the value of the artwork, hell I actually liked it. That sealed it for me. There would be no future in this. What would take me all day to complete was being done in 10 -20 minutes. Now it’s on your phone.

I value original artworks like I have never before. I also value the stories that accompany them as well and always try to get the artist to fill me in on the meanings or state of mind when creating it.

To make something out of nothing is the most amazing trick that humans can do. We like Prometheus have give fire to the machines and they are capable of the same feat. Even better I might add. It is a tool but the trajectory of machines and man are now on 2 very different paths. It does not however replace the human experience but it’s up to us to preserve it and celebrate it as much as we can.

6

ggtsu_00 t1_ja8i5nu wrote

I would love to believe that was the case, but we already reached the point where human artists are getting banned for creating art that happens to looks like AI generated art.

0

MetricVeil t1_ja8lmr7 wrote

I think this says more about the Moderator of r/Art than the devaluing of art.

The artist deserves an apology from the anonymous Mod and reinstated in the sub.

The fact that generative art is being called out is because it can be produced with nothing more than a few prompts.

If generative art wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be presented transparently, as being produced by an algorithm - not touted as human-created. But people will - and do - take credit for things that they have not made.

The real issue here is the drive to monetise generative art for corporations and individuals who see a cheap and easy way to make a profit.

6

am_i_a_panda t1_ja78lqq wrote

Or you don’t actually understand what art is if you think a robot can create it.

1