I feel the same way about all things digital. Maybe it’s the medium, or that all of it is largely a string of ones and zeroes, and a portrait of the artist as a person who moves a contraption around on his desk, clicking it every once in a while. Of course artificial intelligence could do that better than a human being, when you think about it.

I would like to think you're right. — T Clark

Me too, though part of the reason for me saying that is that it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 when DALLE-2 was introduced. Although generations have gotten more detailed and covered more subject matter as a result (I suspect) of models being fed more data, I don't really see much progress being made in addressing the obvious shortcomings that I've mentioned in my previous post, and it doesn't really feel like feeding it more will change that. My guess is that it's because it doesn't understand the world the same way we do, since (to my knowledge) the way it "learns" is largely a matter of statistics.

Now I could be wrong, and things could change rapidly in the next few months but the more time passes the more doubtful I become of that happening. At this point it just seems like society is settling into a harmonious coexistence between AI and human artists.

So… Thoughts? I have no particular agenda here. I guess I’m just looking to clarify for myself how to think about these things. — T Clark

Looks like AI has a Kitch sensibility. It all seems like tasteless crap to me.

Try telling AI to start a new 'school of art'. What is happening is industrial plagiarism, and industrial forgery. It has an empty feel because it is clever copying and there is nothing creative happening. That does not mean it is possible to tell the difference, though. Plagiarism and forgery have long traditions too and can already be hard to impossible to detect. So it goes. Art has survived printing and photography, it will probably survive this.

Like Jurassic Park the novelty of digital art grabs you but it cannot hold for long. It becomes tedious. These days computer art makes me feel queasy. I enjoyed Jurassic Park but I could not sit through yet another digi movie.

I think special effects such as CGI have to be combined with compelling story telling otherwise it’s just unsatisfactory eye candy which after novelty loses its appeal it becomes tedious and empty but the same criticism can be levelled at human created art. The issue is art is meant to evoke emotion to the observer by changing the way we look at the world.

Reading through this topic you might think there was no such thing as cheap mass produced art before AI came along. :lol:

Pop art has been around for ages now, but that does not negate its value - if it can alter the perspective to the viewer then it’s been successful in that regard …no ?

I’m not referring to pop art. I mean what I said, art that is cheap and produced in mass. There will always be a place (market) for it in a capitalist/materialist society. AI just makes production more efficient. The fact is that modern society (all of us) loves efficiency and predictability.

Could a comparison then be drawn with production line of other products such as cars, electronics, fashion where automation has taken over…why should art be different if the end result is the same if not better eventually. There is human input in both art that is currently output by current AI and production line manufacture of other goods - the question pertinent is that of originality which is what real art should bring to the table and if originality is indistinguishable between ai and human art then ai has been a success no ?

Also it’s the aim of every artist, be it bands who wish to make it into the mainstream rather than stay under the radar and thus reap the rewards of their creativity. So to me just because something is cheap and mass produced does not always necessarily mean it’s of lower quality.

We have higher bit rates of music reproduction since the days of Vinyl though vinyl retains its value in terms of a physical asset/sentiment which you can exhibit in your living room.

... the question pertinent is that of originality which is what real art should bring to the table... — simplyG

People have various criteria for art, such that it should be original, authentic, true, meaningful, reflect the values of society, or whatever else. I wonder if aesthetic experience is taken for granted or if it's practically an afterthought in our materialistic society and it is not enough.

Whilst aesthetics is an important part of art it’s not the be all end end all of art because as long as art is able to meaningfully communicate some aspect of human experience than beauty (aesthetics) does not necessarily come into play because life sometimes can be ugly in certain ways such as misery and suffering but if these can be expressed aesthetically then the better the work is for it…without depriving it of subjective interpretation from the viewer point aspect.

Whilst aesthetics is an important part of art it’s not the be all end end all of art... — simplyG

I agree, and like I said it's not enough. I'm wondering what it would be like if it were enough. If it were maybe there would be no need for AI art.

Art is a creative process but sometimes it’s a destructive one too. Destructive in terms of destroying our deepest held convictions about the world and creative via romantic ideals or impressionism. Whatever the style may be beauty is mostly universal if it’s expressed elegantly enough and transcends time by being timeless and says something no matter how much society changes through the centuries.

The question is what distinguishes human creativity from machine creativity as the latter is merely a program which produces results via input whereas human creativity stems from something different altogether such as emotion which machines are incapable of feeling.

As emotion can be conveyed in an aesthetically pleasing way in a sense the AI is just faking emotion but we only know this post fact of the work being produced.

I wonder if it primarily appeals to a certain type of male taste. — Tom Storm

If Midjourney allowed it, I'm pretty sure most of the images created would be pornographic.

Mind you, there's a lot of art painted by highly skilled human beings for the market that I experience as empty and device ridden. — Tom Storm

That is what I was thinking about when I wrote "this makes me question my responses to human-created art."

If I sense a vitality and a distinctive point of view in a work, I tend to like it. But this is entirely personal. — Tom Storm

We've talked about what art is and what good art is before. I don't think your standards are unreasonable. In reading fiction or poetry, I judge written works first by whether or not I am moved. With visual art it's harder. I am very easily moved intellectually, so I'm a sucker for something interesting and clever, unexpected and unconventional.

I think sufficiently advanced paint by numbers will be indistinguishable from any art humans can create. Human art will change, my guess is it will blend with science and scientists will be the new artists. Once we can do anything, there will be artistry in the choices in how to do it. — DingoJones

I agree with what @Angelo Cannata wrote - "The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated." It's communication from one person to another. What happens when there is no actual experience being communicated?

No. But a lot of artists have day jobs to pay for paints or clay, rent and catfood, and the computers can certainly take that away. — Vera Mont

Yes, I guess there are two sides - the aesthetic one and labor rights one.

I feel the same way about all things digital. Maybe it’s the medium, or that all of it is largely a string of ones and zeroes, and a portrait of the artist as a person who moves a contraption around on his desk, clicking it every once in a while. Of course artificial intelligence could do that better than a human being, when you think about it. — NOS4A2

I'm still not sure about that.

it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 — Mr Bee

That seems like a pretty short-sighted view. I can't imagine there won't be significant advancements in the near future. AI as a real thing has only really been out in public for a year or so.

Looks like AI has a Kitch sensibility. It all seems like tasteless crap to me. — Janus

There is truth in that, but I'm not sure I would say much different about most of the human-produced graphics I've seen.

Try telling AI to start a new 'school of art'. What is happening is industrial plagiarism, and industrial forgery. It has an empty feel because it is clever copying and there is nothing creative happening. That does not mean it is possible to tell the difference, though. Plagiarism and forgery have long traditions too and can already be hard to impossible to detect. So it goes. Art has survived printing and photography, it will probably survive this. — unenlightened

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but this makes me think about political issues like the 32 hour work week and universal basic income. At what point are humans just along for the ride while machines do all the real stuff? Would that be a bad thing? I'm retired and I'm as happy as I've ever been. What would human life be like if we never had to work?

The issue is art is meant to evoke emotion to the observer by changing the way we look at the world. — simplyG

Yes, this is at the heart of what I have been thinking.

Reading through this topic you might think there was no such thing as cheap mass produced art before AI came along. :lol: — praxis

But think about all those poor guys who make motel room and doctor's office art. They need to work too.

I wonder if aesthetic experience is taken for granted or if it's practically an afterthought in our materialistic society and it is not enough. — praxis

For me, "aesthetic experience" is an act of communication between two people. What happens when there is only one person there?

Art is a creative process but sometimes it’s a destructive one too. Destructive in terms of destroying our deepest held convictions about the world and creative via romantic ideals or impressionism. Whatever the style may be beauty is mostly universal if it’s expressed elegantly enough and transcends time by being timeless and says something no matter how much society changes through the centuries. — simplyG

Seeing beauty in what's normally regarded as ugly via aesthetic experience can be rather depatterning, if you asked me. Anyway, it's not like revolutionary art comes before the impulse to revolt.

Once again we're talking about the utility of art, I note.

The question is what distinguishes human creativity from machine creativity as the latter is merely a program which produces results via input whereas human creativity stems from something different altogether such as emotion which machines are incapable of feeling. — simplyG

So far, AI doesn't identify creative problems or possess the impulse to express itself. Nor does it explore, play, or innovate of its own accord. I guess the impulse to express oneself requires consciousness, but I think the rest could be developed without it, and that's just around the corner.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote, as if I was talking about one single thing and nothing else, while actually I have been talking about degrees of importance. Degrees does not mean that what is secondary and below can be ignored. As in a house, you can’t have just the pillars, just because they are the essential. As in a path, starting is the primary most important step, but you cannot stop just after the start. Many other examples can be made. If an abstract painting is upside down and nobody notices it, this doesn’t mean that the correct direction can just be ignored.
We can consider that actually everybody approaches any work of art by steps, it cannot be otherwise, simply because we are humans and we are immersed in the flow of time. I think that, in the gradual personal approach that everybody builds in their enjoyment of art, the fact that art is communication of what the artist has inside themselves should be kept all the time as the essential reference point. This does not mean that you just need to concentrate on this aspect and ignore everything else. Art is an infinite phenomenon, so, stopping at any stage, at any aspect, is just disrespectful of it.

As I said, art is infinite, so “aesthetic experience” can have a lot of meanings. As a human, I don’t want to waste my time with low quality aesthetic experiences, so I want to look for the richest ways of enjoying art. This does not mean that what I consider less rich ways should not be practiced. It is just my way. I think that the richest way to live an aesthetic experience is when you try to think that there was an artist who tried to communicate themselves. This does not mean that enjoying a stone shaped by nature is meaningless. Personally I find myself very prone to admire the stones that I step on, for example, when I have a walk near the sea, and I admire them in themselves, as they are, I am not a believer in God.
However, I find that a work of art produced by a human gives me a richer experience than the one I can have with things produced, for example, by nature; I even think that I have to continuously educate myself to the appreciation of art produced by humans. Primarily, not exclusively. Secondarily, there are other things, like the works of art produced by nature and everything else, even including art produced by AI.

But think about all those poor guys who make motel room and doctor's office art. They need to work too. — T Clark

One of the first jobs I had was working in a painting factory that would mass-produce crap for hotels and the like. It was piecework, doing batches of around 20 canvases simultaneously. Talk about starving artists. :cry:

For me, "aesthetic experience" is an act of communication between two people. What happens when there is only one person there? — T Clark

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck:

What would human life be like if we never had to work? — T Clark

The devil would make some work for idle hands.
Or in modern parlance, ennui leads to mindless violence and destruction, much bombing etc, until there is some work to do clearing up and fixing things. :sad:

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but this makes me think about political issues like the 32 hour work week and universal basic income. At what point are humans just along for the ride while machines do all the real stuff? Would that be a bad thing? I'm retired and I'm as happy as I've ever been. What would human life be like if we never had to work? — T Clark

That's a whole other issue. Since retirement, I have had time for creative endeavours that I only dreamed of while I had a family and a full time job. We might all be much happier, tinkering and inventing, exploring and foraging, painting and composing, volunteering and teaching, if it didn't have to be done either on top of a job or as a job.
But then, arts and sports should never have become jobs in the first place.