If it's AI is it Art?

[Eddi]

The criminals are already doing it, and of course they are hiding the fact that it's AI. And as more and more people come to realize that they are being fooled, they will come to distrust and reject all art. Or they will accept any crap that gets put in front of them and called "art".

I have seen a lot of AI images on Facebook lately

All variations on a theme

There are literally hundreds of ones featuring Jesus in situations that make less than zero sense

And in the comments thousands of people say "amen" at them, even if Jesus is drawn as having four arms

Very depressing

 

[Secret Chief]

An artefact deliberately crafted by a human and shaped by their experiences and emotions

Do you think Duchamp's Fountain (as per image) fits that definition?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, I guess my attempt at humor missed the mark there...

Zing, right over my head. I can be a bit thick where humor is concerned.

 

[Eddi]

Do you think Duchamp's Fountain (as per image) fits that definition?

If someone deliberately made it as a work of art then yes

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Only the charlatans would use it. Real artists will know better than to allow machines to make fake art in their name. But the posers and charlatans will flock to it all trying to be the first.

Eventually there will be an exception to this axiom here and there, but they aren't going to matter.

I recall that much the same things were said of the use of computers for the editing of pictures and the creation of cgi images...yet both are accepted as art forms now. The question of how it would be possible to use such a tool creatively is another matter, imo

 

[Secret Chief]

If someone deliberately made it as a work of art then yes

So by this definition, if I said I've deliberately made a work of art, it's art then - even though I tell you later that I utilised AI. Or would it stop being art when I told you this?

Or my deliberately made work is not art, for some reason? But the urinal is?

 

[Secret Chief]

I recall that much the same things were said of the use of computers for the editing of pictures and the creation of cgi images...yet both are accepted as art forms now. The question of how it would be possible to use such a tool creatively is another matter, imo

If it's not a painting in a cave it doesn't qualify.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If it's not a painting in a cave it doesn't qualify.

or a bone carving of a pooping goat...

(Sorry, I can't find that image...it's been many years ago...but it's one of the oldest surviving pieces of artwork...)

 

[PureX]

I have seen a lot of AI images on Facebook lately

All variations on a theme

There are literally hundreds of ones featuring Jesus in situations that make less than zero sense

And in the comments thousands of people say "amen" at them, even if Jesus is drawn as having four arms

Very depressing

Yes, well, those people have been living with the habit of being fooled all their lives. They WANT to be fooled. It's how they live.

But everyone is becoming more and more like them. When every story we get has 5 contradicting sides to it we end up just choosing the one we like. It's too much work to try and excavate the truth from the untruth. And AI is going to make it nearly impossible. When no one knows what to believe they're going to believe whatever they want. This has been happening for a long time. And it's already gotten bad. But it'll get even worse.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's getting close to the time for a Butlerian Jihad...

 

[Eddi]

So by this definition, if I said I've deliberately made a work of art, it's art then - even though I tell you later that I utilised AI. Or would it stop being art when I told you this?

Or my deliberately made work is not art, for some reason? But the urinal is?

Is telling a person to draw something on your behalf an act of creating art?

No

Therefore telling an AI to draw something on your behalf isn't either

Whatever AI comes up with is in no way a human artefact and art is by definition a type of human artefact

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think one of the defining features of art is that it is made by humans

So by definition a non human cannot make art

You mean on of your defining features.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anything and everything that is understood as art by someone is art.

... thereby rendering the category utterly worthless.

 

[Eddi]

You mean on of your defining features.

Well yes

I have never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself

And I think my definition is a good one

Why don't you address the substance of what I say? Instead of being continually negative?

 

[Secret Chief]

Is telling a person to draw something on your behalf an act of creating art?

No

Therefore telling an AI to draw something on your behalf isn't either

Whatever AI comes up with is in no way a human artefact and art is by definition a type of human artefact

Is telling red paint to be red paint on a canvas an act of creating art?

You've said you can be "fooled" so how will you know in the future whether, by your definition, something is a work of art?

 

[Eddi]

Is telling red paint to be red paint on a canvas an act of creating art?

You've said you can be "fooled" so how will you know in the future whether, by your definition, something is a work of art?

I don't know

But I fear AI will destroy art

It will undercut real artists with real talent

It cannot create art it can only mimic it, that's how it works

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

AI will only mimic doing it to fool and confuse people.

Something capable of malicious intent​

is incapable of creative expression.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why don't you address the substance of what I say? Instead of being continually negative?

Because the substance of what you said has no positive value.

You assert​

AI cannot produce art​

because​

art cannot be produced by AI​

because​

you said so.​

​

It's tautological nonsense that manages to (I'll bet thoughtlessly) belittle all non-human species in the process.

 

[Eddi]

Because the substance of what you said has no positive value.

You assert​

AI cannot produce art​

because​

art cannot be produced by AI​

because​

you said so.​

​

It's tautological nonsense that manages to (I'll bet thoughtlessly) belittle all non-human species in the process.

Not because I "said so"....

But because of the definition of art which I am operating

I think my definition is reasonable and grounded in reality

Can I ask, how do you define art?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can I ask, how do you define art?

Creative expression.