I hate this take. Not everyone can afford to pay for art or have the ability to draw.People need to get off AI’s back and instead of complaining, figure out how to deal with it. Because it’s not going anywhere.
Don’t talk about ability to draw as though it’s some sort of elitist trait denied to the working class. People who can draw can do so because they put the hours in.
If you can’t be bothered putting the effort in when expressing yourself, why the hell should anyone else be interested in what you have to say?
I don’t have enough time to learn I have to work to try and live the bleak few hours of life I get to myself a week. honestly with AI our bosses expect more it’s slowing down
You have my sympathies, but that still doesn’t mean you get to post complete nonsensical garbage where a glass of water is talking for no reason, that took you less effort to create than it did to read, and expect people to not tell you to jog on, when there’s a whole wealth of creative artists out there who are putting in the energy but getting their space flooded with slop.
The web has objectively become much, much worse in the past 12 months because quality is getting drowned out by quantity.
but that still doesn’t mean you get to post complete nonsensical garbage where a glass of water is talking for no reason
How dare Dali paint pictures with melting clocks! If the clocks really were hot enough to melt, they would set the tree they’re melting on ablaze!!!11
I get it. Artists are afraid of their income. But with those kinds of takes, “AI bad because surrealism” I can’t take you seriously as an artist so I guess nothing would be lost.
Surrealism is not nonsense. It has a purpose, even if that purpose is hard to tell. If you think Dali and AI slop is the same, you don’t understand either.
Fine. If it’s offending your senses too much to be tame surrealism, call it dada. If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice, you… well, haven’t seen much art.
Note that I’m not arguing for or against AI here. I’m saying that your critique of AI is slop.
If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me,
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
In order for something to be an artistic choice, it has to be a choice. It has to have meaning and intent. AI did not choose to put a glass there, it calculated that there was probably a glass there based on shitty reasoning. AI does not have the creative capacity to make art. It can only make images, and those images are shit.
You’ve thoroughly proven you can’t tell between slop and high art, so thank you for the compliment of my critique.
AI does not have the creative capacity to make art.
I agree!
And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.
The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.
Because the idea behind it is good? You’re confusing art and craft. Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal? The work is defined not by whether or not you can buy its physical representation in any random hardware store, I thought we had that one figured out.
Also there’s literally zero people who would pay someone a commission to draw this piece. You’re not looking at lost work you’re looking at additional art. Without AI (if it is AI) it might have still existed but in stick figure form and that would be better because…? The idea has better expression as a chicken scratch? I don’t think so.
AI is like a housefire. Nobody wants it. Nobody needs it. It’s just a bad thing, and if someone sees it, they’re more than justified in being upset and trying to get rid of it. Don’t defend the fire, or you’ll be the first to burn.
I hate this take. Not everyone can afford to pay for art or have the ability to draw.People need to get off AI’s back and instead of complaining, figure out how to deal with it. Because it’s not going anywhere.
You are aware that even if you make stickmans, people will appreciate it if the meme is good, right?
Don’t talk about ability to draw as though it’s some sort of elitist trait denied to the working class. People who can draw can do so because they put the hours in.
If you can’t be bothered putting the effort in when expressing yourself, why the hell should anyone else be interested in what you have to say?
I don’t have enough time to learn I have to work to try and live the bleak few hours of life I get to myself a week. honestly with AI our bosses expect more it’s slowing down
You have my sympathies, but that still doesn’t mean you get to post complete nonsensical garbage where a glass of water is talking for no reason, that took you less effort to create than it did to read, and expect people to not tell you to jog on, when there’s a whole wealth of creative artists out there who are putting in the energy but getting their space flooded with slop.
The web has objectively become much, much worse in the past 12 months because quality is getting drowned out by quantity.
How dare Dali paint pictures with melting clocks! If the clocks really were hot enough to melt, they would set the tree they’re melting on ablaze!!!11
I get it. Artists are afraid of their income. But with those kinds of takes, “AI bad because surrealism” I can’t take you seriously as an artist so I guess nothing would be lost.
Surrealism is not nonsense. It has a purpose, even if that purpose is hard to tell. If you think Dali and AI slop is the same, you don’t understand either.
Fine. If it’s offending your senses too much to be tame surrealism, call it dada. If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice, you… well, haven’t seen much art.
Note that I’m not arguing for or against AI here. I’m saying that your critique of AI is slop.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
In order for something to be an artistic choice, it has to be a choice. It has to have meaning and intent. AI did not choose to put a glass there, it calculated that there was probably a glass there based on shitty reasoning. AI does not have the creative capacity to make art. It can only make images, and those images are shit.
You’ve thoroughly proven you can’t tell between slop and high art, so thank you for the compliment of my critique.
I agree!
And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.
TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.
The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.
Because the idea behind it is good? You’re confusing art and craft. Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal? The work is defined not by whether or not you can buy its physical representation in any random hardware store, I thought we had that one figured out.
Also there’s literally zero people who would pay someone a commission to draw this piece. You’re not looking at lost work you’re looking at additional art. Without AI (if it is AI) it might have still existed but in stick figure form and that would be better because…? The idea has better expression as a chicken scratch? I don’t think so.
I’m pretty sure anyone can draw stick figures.
A lot of bad things are “not going anywhere”. We can still try to have less of them.
You’d be surprised.
AI is like a housefire. Nobody wants it. Nobody needs it. It’s just a bad thing, and if someone sees it, they’re more than justified in being upset and trying to get rid of it. Don’t defend the fire, or you’ll be the first to burn.