Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    8 months ago

    Respectfully disagree. There’s a plethora of artists with exceptional skills that create photorealistic art in several mediums. While the process takes an inordinate amount of time it is completely devoid of any creative input. These are essentially human xerox machines that match color values from a photo using the naked eye. The skill is impressive, the art: not so much.

    • metaldream
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Isn’t that what the person you replied just said?

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        No. The person I replied to was exclusively praising skill and emphasizing its relevance to the final product. I pointed out that effort does not by default result in an original or creative product. OP dismisses effort and equates time with quality. Take for instance japanese calligraphy: the master places only a handful of strokes to render something gorgeous. On the other hand, someone could spend 80 hours meticulously recreating a photorealistic portrait in watercolor but it’s just a human xerox at that point. The human element is completely missed.

        • metaldream
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          They didn’t say that though? The last paragraph made it clear (to me) that they were saying the end result isn’t the only part of at that makes it impressive, but also the effort/skill involved

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I guess you’re right. I suppose this last phrase threw me off:

            • i don’t need to take time to look at stuff people didn’t take time to make

            The way I read it this statement stands apart from the rest of their comment. Skill is nice–I agree–but I stand by my original statement: time or effort does not by default result in an artistic product. I suppose I could have read it wrong in that the comment as a whole is a bit disjointed.

    • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I always hated that the most upvoted art on reddit was just photorealism… Abd then the comments were all like, “Wow! I was 100% sure this was a photo until i zoom in!!!”

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah I agree, but with large platforms it’s inevitable for tastes to converge towards the median. A Rothko wouldn’t even register on such a platform.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think Rothko probably doesn’t look as impressive on a phone screen either, compared to real life