As a long time artist in traditional and digital mediums, I get frustrated by this attitude. Is there a reason images made with this tool are considered less “art” than Pollock or Newman? Are photographers not artists, because their medium is too easy? I admit midjourney is bottom of the barrel for AI art tools, but they obviously had an intent and goal while creating these images. While I prefer stable diffusion, as I like precise control over every aspect of my creating an image, it gets the exact same response.
When people are creating detailed interactive worlds by dictating to AI art tools, will you refute the medium at every level of complexity, effort, and intention? It’s as ridiculous as when people were saying 3D art wasn’t “art.” Or anything made in Photoshop. Judge it how you wish as an individual piece, but don’t be so dismissive of new tools. They are a part of our life and creativity now.
Personally, I’ve have a wallpaper folder with around 7k+ pictures I’ve SD create for me. Am I an artist now? Should I put that on my resume? No, I’m not more of an artist as someone who commissioned an art piece from someone else. The only difference is that I tell an AI what I want instead of some person.
I’m not opposed to AI art, but I’m opposed to people who call themself artist because they put in an AI prompt into a textfield. It’s just a fucking cringing joke if I see someone like that call themself artist or “AI artist”.
How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you’ve made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective “team” to compete with people who have endless resources.
You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?
I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don’t go around claiming “this thing isn’t art” because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.
“Artist”
As a long time artist in traditional and digital mediums, I get frustrated by this attitude. Is there a reason images made with this tool are considered less “art” than Pollock or Newman? Are photographers not artists, because their medium is too easy? I admit midjourney is bottom of the barrel for AI art tools, but they obviously had an intent and goal while creating these images. While I prefer stable diffusion, as I like precise control over every aspect of my creating an image, it gets the exact same response.
When people are creating detailed interactive worlds by dictating to AI art tools, will you refute the medium at every level of complexity, effort, and intention? It’s as ridiculous as when people were saying 3D art wasn’t “art.” Or anything made in Photoshop. Judge it how you wish as an individual piece, but don’t be so dismissive of new tools. They are a part of our life and creativity now.
Damn. Shots fired.
Pun intended.
Personally, I’ve have a wallpaper folder with around 7k+ pictures I’ve SD create for me. Am I an artist now? Should I put that on my resume? No, I’m not more of an artist as someone who commissioned an art piece from someone else. The only difference is that I tell an AI what I want instead of some person.
I’m not opposed to AI art, but I’m opposed to people who call themself artist because they put in an AI prompt into a textfield. It’s just a fucking cringing joke if I see someone like that call themself artist or “AI artist”.
How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you’ve made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective “team” to compete with people who have endless resources.
You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?
I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don’t go around claiming “this thing isn’t art” because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.