• Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    No need to be hostile. I know plenty about creative process, including photographic process. What I’m asking you is, if art is directly tied to the process of creating it, in the same way that photography has a different process than painting, would ai art be considered art to you if you learned that there actually is a process of refining the product?

    That is to say, you pointed out that there is a difference between clicking the shutter and taking light, composition, shutter speed etc, into account. One of those produces an ameteur product, and one produces a photo worthy of a gallery. And the difference is the artist.

    So if you were to learn that not all ai art is even close to art, that in fact the vast majority of it is akin to the amateur clicking the shutter, would you consider good ai art any more valid given a process you may not be aware of?

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, it is a tool. A camera is a tool, and yet there is a process in which it is used to create art. A paint brush is a tool, but it’s not the thing that decides what goes on the canvas. A tool does not create without an artist.

        What you’re arguing, that a computer does not create, isn’t even the point. Ultimately ai generation, like any tool, is only as good as the vision of the person piloting it.

        It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t want to hear what I’m saying anyway. You want to be angry about a tool.

        Good luck with that 👍