Hacker News Reader

Comment by fsloth | Hacker News Reader

Not really sure why removing the AI component would make anything better. They are a new modality for art and expression.

View on HN

Are there people seriously thinking they’re making art by generating images with AI?

> Are there people seriously thinking they’re making art by generating images with AI?

I'd like to ask you a question. I'm asking in good faith. Here are a few random examples of images people create with AI:

    https://civitai.com/images/146193427
    https://civitai.com/images/17108902
    https://civitai.com/images/63175621
    https://civitai.com/images/10703900
    https://civitai.com/images/28673784
    https://civitai.com/images/59645082
    https://civitai.com/images/97017376
    https://civitai.com/images/63656891
    https://civitai.com/images/99196859

Are none of these art according to you?

Fundamentally, what makes art, well, art?

Is it the physical act of drawing it manually? Surely not, because generative art[1] (the original non-AI kind) is a widely recognized thing.

Or maybe it's the amount of effort that's spent creating it? Surely not, because paintings as trivial as a simple black or red square are considered art[2].

Or maybe just the very act of self-expression makes something into a piece of art?

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

> Art is a diverse range of human activity centered around works, crafted as an expression of creativity or imagination, which are expected to provide an audience with a worthwhile experience—generally, an experience of emotion, thinking, or beauty.

So is the thesis that, no matter how it's used, and no matter how much effort is spent, an image created with the help of generative AI can never satisfy this definition?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square

No, those are not art in themselves if they are based on dumb prompting.

They are random noise pastiches.

Art requires authorship.

I mean that's my definition :)

The author needs to have sufficient level of artistic skill and talent to be able to produce pieces with artistic merit. Even if they just prompt it - which they likely wont because prompt based outputs alone generally suck.

My definition for sufficient level of skill where AI tools become useful as a form of expression with true artistic merit, would be that you must be able to generate the same image with traditional media without AI:s help

If it turns out there was deep authorship in these works on some level (other than just running through random prompts) then the situation becomes more nuanced.

You should be able to tweak each individual detail with exact authorship. And _understand_ what you are doing.

So if an established painter, photographer or cinematographer uses prompt based tools, there the tools become part of expressive workflow that likely has higher artistic standard.

You can't really develop this sensitivity with prompting alone (generally).

_General_ artistic value is a DIFFERENT thing from doing something a person personally enjoys, though!

It's totally fine to enjoy prompting images.

People enjoy doing puzzles, building legos, practicing piano, playing computer games etc.

Ie engaged in activites which they enjoyu without external valuation mechanism involved.

These things are called _hobbies_. And it's awesome to have hobbies whatever they are.

I'm more surprised that people think using AI automatically makes image generation not art. AI tooling can be quite complex, and it's much harder than most people think to produce consistent, compelling results, especially with local setups on modest hardware.

Depends how much involment there is for the end result. Does using traditional, digital paint tools make people artists?

I like your analogy. Plotter art is a thing. Mostly boring, but there are some people who push the boundaries (and break pens/machines/paper/drivers). I think art is about exploring these boundaries.

You can use AI to transfer content between mediums and manufacture designs.

Succesfull artists don’t necessarily develop the pieces beyond conceptualization and editorial control.

See for instance Damien Hirsch. Or the academic painters with their own workshops.

AI can handle large amounts of routine tasks. Like converting an image to a 3D mesh. I don’t frankly see the difference between that and Damien Hirsch giving his craftsmen a task to deliver a piece.

If you talk to modern art critica you will end up with argumentation where the concept of the piece is what matters not the execution or it’s quality.

If original concept is all that matters very hard to see how AI generated steps could not be part of that pipeline.

Nobody is claiming getting random stuff from generic non-specific prompting counts as art.

But what if you do an original painting or drawing; then have AI convert it to 3D mesh and print it - and pass it off as art? That is a non-obvious situation.

Wish my high school art teacher had graded on conceptualisation instead of execution

That was because they were training for the "manual labour" part. Which is what most people enjoy and cherish, I think (including myself).

But that's not really how art market values the merchandise.

Conceptualization suffices for the market after sufficient prestige and brand value exists. I guess the Damien Hirsch reference was not that obvious for this venue so -

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-damien-hirst-is-controve...

Note: I'm not saying you should measure the value of art with money. I'm saying those people _who measure the value of art in monetary terms_ may value branding and conceptualization more than manual skill.

It's the same sort of people that think they're making art when they take a photograph with their iPhone.

My friend who is professional artist argues that no photography is art. If you disregard his view then you need to define where art begins and 'some rando with a camera' ends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com