No, Ai "Art" is not Art.

Author's note: I do think that this is far more threatening to the freelance digital space as a whole, and agree that action may need to be taken to protect these industries and spaces. And lastly, a note on context. AI art will never be able to make conscious, thoughtful choices about composition, or paint a piece on cardboard due to a lack of canvas and wood created by nearby conflict. Until we reach singularity, AI will simply be able to make aesthetic images, devoid of the true engagement made possible by the human element

or maybe because you write overlong exclusively ornate soliloquys on a youtube videos instead of something more useful or fulfilling

@@Seagaltalk let me make it shorter so you can comprehend. I don't care about you or your opinion.

@@finnshelton3815 Art is dying.

@@Seagaltalk sharing your thoughts about something you're passionate about is not allowed now, huh

exactly, I really feel he kinda missed the point of why AI art is so bad

You nailed it!

I agree with most of what you said here, but at the same time I think this "crisis" could be seen as a wake up call for artists to look critically into their (our) own work and process. In many ways the kind of "pretty" mediocre art (as well as the forms of dampened, pointless circulation it entails - this continuous permutation of elements and techniques referenced over and over) created by AI tools was being made by people way before these tools even existed. Passion is important as it drives us to do things, but it might not matter if we don't ask ourselves why do we do the things we do the way we do.

exactly illustration is art. the best distinction you can go is ai art and human art. cause trying to categorise something so subjective as art into not art or art is very difficult to do.

@@athiefinthenight6894 Yes I agree! I enjoyed the video and the ideas presented, but you can't separate art into -as you said- into art and not art based on "meaning", it's impossible. Simply because even a urinal when presented in a certain way can have meaning. People derive meaning from modern art, that can be described as a collection of colourful splotches, or shapes. Yet it makes some people feel things. I believe that because art cannot be created mindlessly, therefore it cannot be consumed mindlessly either.

Yes, exactly. The artist's soul is expressed in the work they produce. Their LIFE is art - and their personal story enhances the art. Why did they choose a particular colour - why did they shoot that particular picture? Because of their human experience, their worldview or politics or menal illness - or whatever. The computer has no soul. There's is no reason for a computer to create the art. It's just a mathmatical quandary.

AI's also perform a "process" to make art, they have learning algorithms that generate totally new artworks, just like a human artist would do, the only difference is that AI's are faster, and they don't have biological brains.

@@tassadar1977 *"The computer has no soul. There's no reason for a computer to create the art. It's just a mathmatical quandary."* In reality, there are several reasons for computers to make art, and the most important one is time, an artist could take months or years to do what an AI can do in seconds, and these intelligences could help a person who is not an artist, to be able to make art and express himself through it, without the limitation of having to learn to draw, also companies producing entertainment through art, such as the film industry, could benefit in the future from AIs and could accelerate the production time. The average consumer isn't interested in the work behind the artwork, or the context of the artist, they just expect something pretty to look at, and that's it, this applies to all the arts such as cinema, painting, photography and others.

@@FranciscoCastillo-bx3rf you've described a commercial process here - of making a product efficiently in the least amount of time. I don't see that as art. Not for me, anyway. I guess I see art as coming out of a different process. A human process that is flawed and takes individual mastery and loads of time. The general public might not know how it's produced, but an artist will. If you want an AI produced marvel film then sure, go nuts with your AI.

@@FranciscoCastillo-bx3rf They don't create totally new artworks, they scan the code that represents the image configurations and mesh those images into a unique scrambled code based on the human users keyword inputs. It's essentially like tracing several pieces of classical art paintings, hypothetically psychically knowing exactly the type of paints and exact shading used, reapplying those colours but then every few centimetres of your tracings, you intersect other tracings at different interconnecting points so by the end of combining several traced images at interconnecting points, it looks like a new image but its all been copied from pre-existing works, not inspired by, but literally copied and pasted and manipulated to mix with one another. It is not completely new fresh artwork, it is art theft.

This is good to bring up. Especially the stories, or provenance, of a work. For example if i did a live nude study i could talk about working with a model or the tools or anything like that. Any sort of story or origin to how it was made. With an ai-generated image all i would have to say to you was “i sat in my chair and typed a prompt.” No interesting story or intention. Im not saying i require a whole lot of backstory or anything. My enjoyment of painting/drawing doesnt hinge on such things. However, it’s something extra- an extra piece of interest. I mostly enjoy art and illustration purely visually. I like to interpret whatever i see and mull it over in my head. All of Beksinski’s paintings have no title and no objective interpretation. That’s the stuff i adore because i could think about what’s going on in that moment in the work forever and have it be always interesting. That was probably s tangent. But anyway, how i see it, for how fast ai images are created its like you constantly get cool stuff in an instant. And if everything’s cool, then nothing really is. Same with the quote from the incredibles “if everyone’s super… no one will be.” Ai art takes the risk of creating a bad drawing or painting out completely. And i dunno if i would still be doing what i do if i couldnt make a bad drawing despite how much i hate doing bad drawings. Ive heard the argument of this technology being accessible to people who arent artists and can see their ideas realized without having to put in the work. As gatekeep-y as it sounds i really cant see the benefit of this. Id rather have that unskilled person make a crude drawing of a funny or silly idea they had instead of instantly generating one. The bad drawing is far more enjoyable. The world already is rife with instant gratification and i cant in good conscious feel thats good for art or illustration. Not because i myself draw or paint, but because making art or illustration is creating something… putting something into the world whether its for personal fulfillment or for profit is providing an artifact on a surface or in a file. Generation is not even close to creation as far as i see it. If i lacked the self-awareness and proudly showed people “my” ai images from prompts i typed as if i made it i should be fucking embarrassed. I wouldn’t have made anything. Not everyone is owed to be able to draw or paint well. It just isn’t. And not everyone should. Its like comparing skateboarding to riding an electric longboard. Its not the fucking same. Ai art is just a damn shortcut. Ive heard no one say this in this blunt sort of way but ai art, despite it’s “beauty,” is just so fucking lame. Great, i can draw and paint on easy mode.

@@gongorelocksmagiincommand you said it all, the saddest part that it's just happening, just like a meteor full of rare metals and diamonds going to hit us we humans.

For me, art is a human thing, it is a craft, something you create with your imagination and your hands. I can't understand how you can get anything out of letting a program do all the work for you. What really pisses me off, are people who post their Ai images on Instagram with #fineart, #contemporaryart etc.

@@janwelander4110 Programm steals from artists. It's amusing to a certain extent and very sad when promt is based on a living artist.

@@janwelander4110 exactly

See kzhead.info/sun/lM9voq1loWJthI0/bejne.html for a more in depth explanation.

exactlyy, 1 viewer can see a david friedrich landscape painting and not see any meaning in it, while one can feel solitude, sadness, adventureness, etc etc. bringing the conversation to what is art and what is not is essentially a waste of time I think. the issue is that in its core, AI image generators as they are right now (not capable of actually understanding what they're doing and only regurgitating images they take from the net) are theft inducing and will only push capitalism greed further

Which is why I find it painfully ironic he talked about Disney’s Alice in Wonderland, a mesmerizing work of art, but almost utterly "meaningless" (or, more appropriately, with little to no themes) - which is the point of the original fairy fale, as it deliberately embraces non-sense and builds its identity off of it. Of course one could argue that consciously embracing non-sense is, by itself, an already "deep" and “meaningful” endeavor, but should one really have to formally recognize such qualities to have their work seen as “worthy” ?

Absolutely agree. Emotional impact is just as valid in my opinion. Art is an experience. I don't think we can really deny the artistic value of anything. While I recognize the ethical malpractice of AI generated art, it is art to many. Your preference to it makes it art. Art is only good because you like it. It's just that we all have tastes and it's impossible to disprove a work's artistic value, if you prescribe to my aforementioned principle of art as an experience. You can pull a piece of grass out of the ground and experience it as a work of art. I'm no educated philosopher but this is how I stand on the matter.

I agree but nonetheless every one of tarkovsky’s films had started as a conceptual idea. In documentaries and even his sculpting time we hear he had a concept and idea he wanted to share. Art doesn’t exist in a vacuum and even if he has the idea that he wants several meanings derived from the audience, he still began each work with intent. And of course much like lynch and bresson he rather a person feel a film before undestanding it. But it’s important to note that these films aren’t just spontaneous with no meaning and just visual aesthetics. There is something more to them. Something an AI could never do.

If this is a 'poor translation' as you say @rbrendrel1302, then I am impressed and I wish that I could read it in the original German (sadly though I don't speak the language).

@@bobdots5974 Thank you. I'm really glad you like it.

This is a really beautiful poem! Thank you for sharing! And it does fit all kinds of artists! Or the passion of creating art!

Can you post the German version too? Would love to read it!

@@tasu5391 of course 🙂 Ich wollte niemals Tänzer werden - nur tanzen wollte ich. Pulsierend Leben Formen geben - wonnevoll und ewig bunt. Voll Schönheit strahlen, Glück verteilen, Freude zeugen, sähen, blühen. Ich wollte niemals Tänzer werden - nur tanzen wollte ich. Tiefgläubig Göttern Kraft entziehen - mächtig und Äonen alt. Von Herzen jubeln, Trist vertreiben, Hoffnung geben, haben, sein. Doch wollt ich niemals Tänzer werden - nur tanzen musste ich.

Art in it's purest form is self expression. Therefore, just doing whatever the hell you want is what makes it the most artistic. And it absolutely doesn't matter if that happens to be something that is considered "popular" or "mainstream" or "generic". The point is that you didn't make these choices because you thought they'd be popular with the consumers, but because you yourself wanted to. And that is the difference that the video tried to highlight, but "illustration" was a poor choice of words in my opinion. I would draw the (heavily blurred) line between *ART,* that is made to express oneself in whatever way one pleases, and *MEDIA,* that is carefully curated to appeal to consumers, to be commodified as a product. So draw whatever YOU want, in the knowledge that that in and of itself is what makes your work Art.

Based on what The Canvas was saying, I think they would consider your newer work to be art and your comics to be closer to illustration. They didn’t say cartoons are not art, only that creations that are only to look pretty are illustrations. So it sounds like your newer artwork has more meaning than your older artwork.

I agree with what you are saying, but I also believe that in the video he wasn’t devaluing cartoon art, he was saying as soon as an “illustration” is made with the intention of a deeper meaning or a story it becomes Art. At least that’s my interpretation of what he was saying

I agree whit your points. If you ask 100 people what art means, you will get 100 different answers. Therefore we fall into the misunderstanding of using a common language to describe a different phenomenon. what is art? For someone a "drawing" is art, for you something that conveys a "deep" emotion (what is deep, how is it measured?), etc, etc. Among other things you have to separate the creator from the observer. I mean, if AI creates an image with a very deep and personal meaning for the public, would it be art in that case? the speech is very long and complex.

1. I suppose an "artwork" commissioned for a patron/customer, which goal/purpose is to satisfy said patron/customer, will generally be more restrictive. Thus the artist/creator of that "artwork" wouldn't want to put such work in the same category with their other works which he's much more passionate about. So IMO calling some of their own "artworks" as a mere "illustration" could be a deliberate move too. 2. AI is an artform in itself. One of the greatest we ever made. An image of our own selves, made not with marble or paints on canvas, but by millions line of code. The programmers who toiled day and night breathing life into inanimate silicon wavers, granting them ability to perceive our thought process, are truly masters of their art. 3. In Socialist/Collectivist society, there will be just one AI, no other AI (with same/similar role/functions) could be permitted to exist. Furthermore, the AI will not be permitted to challenge the established social and political order. The multitude of competing AIs in Capitalist society will grow faster and smarter, vast superior to the Collectivist AI. Such is the fate of totalitarian collectivist society: *Stagnation.* Google "Computer industry in USSR" or "Consumer electronic industry in USSR" for more info.

A soul that even monkeys can form. If it could only write a few words

there is a lot of souls that can be done through thinking and meditating about giving the AI the right command to give you the shape of your perfect idea and vision. then you can redraw, and rework on this generation after fine tuning and looking into 100' of results if not more. you're now an art director, if you prefer. is the director in a movie .. not an artist because he wasn't putting his face in front of the camera .. ? like a photographer who pick the right photo, and one who create the prompt that will work with the tool ( AI ) to produce the right vision. if you AI art is bad, again like every tool, that's cause you use it badly. tons of bad art is done in AI art, but not all of it is so "bad". sure I did this in one day, but so .. what ? I'll maybe be able to create ENTIRE VISIONARY WORLD from AI, the argument that it is reducing is because of a reductionistic thinking. if you get space to expand, then .. EXPAND ? is my AI art so .. bad ? twitter xxx end link : VahnAeris/status/1600295529157574658

@@VahnAeris the difference is the art director has polished his vision through practice, theory, and critical study, and works with people that are doing all the same and this forms a development path for their minds The ai art director is just receiving free commissions, aka being a consumer Do you feel like a professional chef manager after ordering a dish?

@@VahnAeris hmm yes... I'm a artist because i wrote something in a prompt

@@theace228 i m artist "cause I put black color on a paper with a pen I never made and a paper I never produced"

I think your illustrations are art, I don't think he meant that illustrations are art but rather redefining the words to be separate concepts. Like you described, your art has humanity, emotion, purpose etc. which a machine never will; hence it is art

Yeah I’m not a fan of the way he distinguishes illustration, if anything I’d say he’s got it backwards. Illustration is by definition a visual representation OF something, whether that something is an object (like a technical diagram) or an idea (like your avatar). An illustration may be beautiful, but it’s purpose and value as such is in communicating a specific concept, regardless of beauty, and, in fact, ugliness may be to its credit, if the concept is an ugly one. There are artists who create strikingly beautiful works, but they couldn’t tell you what the meaning was, they were just putting colors on the canvas in a way that looked pretty. And that’s fine-but it’s not illustration.

I think you missed the argument. You, by the standards of the video, create art because you engage with the audience. By the definition given first at 12:10 that makes our output art. What tripped you up, was the usage of the word illustration in opposition to art. The video would therefore argue, you create art not illustration but illustration could be substituted by other words. Illustration in this context does not refer to illustration as you understand it but to the negation of art. Just substitute the word illustration through any other word (I would maybe suggest image creation) and the argument will become more clear. The video isn't attacking your form of art but rather actually defending it.

You are literally agreeing with him. He literally said if your art is creating deep and social conversation woth your audience beyond the mere visual novelty, then it is Art. From what you explained about the ideas and emotions behind your drawings, they obviously fall under this category and are thus art. They dont merely look cool or beautiful - aka an illustration - your images are a away to express and communicate woth the audience - aka art.

You are getting caught in the semantics of his usage of the term "illustration". He's not referring to a 'style' but the function of the works he's referring to as illustration. Illustration here refers to images that are not made for a deeper purpose, but to merely illustrate, like say, a hoarding of the newest iPhone.

I truly believe all forms of Art is good for the world. A few weeks ago I had a dream that I confirmed was based on a piece of AI Art that I had seen and was intrigued by, and to a lucid dreamer like me, it was one of the most beautiful dreams I've ever dreamt. I see nothing wrong with expanding our sphere of beauty and meaning, whether they come before the piece is drawn, or after it is generated.

I agree! It's not easy to distinguish what "has meaning". Meaning is subjective. And the distinction of art or illustration could make some of what we call art not art anymore. Would I as an artist have to explain the meaning and symbolism of my piece for it to count as art? And who would judge if it counts? Your words capture perfectly what I had in mind even if I wouldn't be able to put it to words as well.

art is an expression from within ones consciousness. art is an extension of life itself. while the ai algorithm itself may constitute as art, what it produces does not. to arrogantly state that, "beauty has meaning because artistic purpose itself has always been a flawed concept," is beyond childish. your blanket statement is saying nothing at all, it is as empty as you are uninspired. you do not determine such things, you do not speak for beauty, nor do you speak for humankind, society, nor anyone but yourself. "art has been made absentmindedly," is yet another ignorant statement. everything we do is an expression from our own consciousness, whether you ignorantly call it absent-minded or not. art is a form of communication from one consciousness to others, whether the intention or process is presented or not. AI generated images are simply that, ai generated images. to even call it artwork is literally an insult to life itself. if you want to know about REAL digital art, go play some video games. video games are the most immersive form of art humankind has created to date. fuck off with your arrogant ignorance, its clear you know nothing about art or even life itself.

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

That doesn't explain what makes AI MEANINGFUL.

Neither would anything made by humans by that logic

@@ga5518false comparison.

@@ga5518 Humans have the ability to create something new by their own intuition and thought, computers do not.

@@thetukars You are also on the wrong train as @canesvenatici4259 lol. If you don't understand that all intuition and thought are calculations made by the nervous system, and also fail to see the increase in frequency in AI systems to fool humans into thinking they are human, you're just not seeing the forest for trees. We are computers, albeit biological sophisticated system, all living organisms are computers. Maybe not strictly electronic, or binary, but organisms "[...] store and process data [...] according to instructions [DNA]." You can't imagine just how technologically revolutionary this is. In the realm of literature, visual, and acoustic art, I can think of thousands of applications. In medicine in science - it is already making waves and revolutionize everything because AI can sort through and interpret data we don't have the capacity to without AI. We'll be able to predict carcinogens, mutagens, and things we couldn't even have discovered....the list is absolutely endless if you have any imagination - and I'm not a programmer!! I also don't know/buy AGI/sentience and all that stuff (unconvinced if it's a reality), but just as a technology it is absolutely earth shattering to how our future way of life will proceed. If you think it's some consciousness or spirituality or something, we have nothing left to discuss.

False. Creation ex nihilo is a myth. Human are NOT a separate force from the rest of Universe and don't create things from nothing. They recombine things they see and experience . Just like an algorithm would do.@@thetukars

Thanks for the video!

Happy 2023 to u 2

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

I just want to say, this is an incredibly incisive evaluation of the root problems instead of the symptoms. Thank you.

And it was a valiant effort from the devil. Unfortunately for him I still choose to live in a world of art

Doesn't have to necessarily be political, though I do agree it probably will emphasize that type of art. Artists make and show stories that can be related to or show a certain perspective or thought process. creating appealing work is just the surface in my opinion. Marvel movies are fun to watch in the beginning but it will eventually become boring if it doesn't have a thought provoking substance. AI might be able to overcome our contradictive thinking but my human ego isn't ready yet. Young thing is better than me and I don't like it. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord."Matthew 10:24 "The student has become the master?"- Maybe the Plate guy. Important to be humble for growth though

Why would it be only social or political? It could be psychological. It could communicate any idea or human experience.

Everything is political; even the choice (or lack thereof) to engage in politics. One's art may not be explicitly political, but there's a certain political stance involved in so deciding.

@@nelsonth this basically refutes the videos claim. Nothing (drawn by a human) is ever devoid of meaning

There are important aspects and levels of human experience other than the social or political. Most great art hasn't been either social or political.

agree 100%

I agree. That was the only part of the video that I disagreed with and you explained why even better than I could have. It just seems, like you said, kinda elitist to decide what is and isn't art based on such arbitrary guidelines. Like the example in the video where homie was saying Marvel movies weren't art. A lot of those movies deal with complex human issue like grief, family trauma, colonialism, etc. Like just because you dislike something or something doesn't resonate with you personally doesn't make it not art.

thank you, i was fully with him until he brought up this pretty elitist view on illustration, to say art has to have a purpose to be considered real art is a very capitalist way of looking at things whether people realize it or not, its basing something's value in the purpose it serves. (even then, i strongly disagree with this description of illustration) This way of thinking creates a box, something very anti-art.

Agreed!!!

Agreed fully. Art is, fundamentally, communication; and it can be used to communicate a wide range of concepts, including beauty, interest, or identity. Elitism kills artistic expression just as thoroughly as capitalist commodification.

Exactly, I see Art as an expression of oneself. So as long as your work is what you yourself want it to be, it is Art no matter how Avantgarde or generic it may be. Where it stops being Art, is when you sacrifice your personal vision for a different purpose (appeal, functionality, ect.), though that line is obviously extremely blurred, and it is technically also possible to satisfy these secondary requirements while keeping your vision intact. If we are to draw a line, instead of "illustration" I would use MEDIA, which is made to be consumed, as the counterpoint to ART, which is made for the sake of expression. (Another aspect is DESIGN, which is made to function, but that one isn't really relevant in this discourse)

There’s an actual definition of art though, so I don’t really know why you’re trying to come up with one

the expression or application of HUMAN creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

@@void-creature it literally already has a definition

@@Duhbaby2348h I'm not "trying to come up with" one, I have come up with one, and one that is far more useful than your extremely limited definition. "it literally already has a definition" No, Art has *many* definitions, nearly as many definitions as there are people. Some definitions are useful, some are not. Your definition excludes music and the performing arts, and is too narrow in its purpose. The best definition I have found (and it's not one I proposed, but one that has been used for a very long time), is this: "Art is the attempt to communicate abstract concepts in a concrete medium". This covers *all* of the arts -- visual, plastic, performance, musical, and literary -- and covers the full range of artistic expression, not just limiting art to easily commodifiable properties.

It's art, but those using it aren't artists. Or at least not skilled artists.

@@kyledoherty9678 some undoubtedly are. I've been an artist for a very long time and I have used it. It doesn't suddenly cancel that out. Similar to using any other tool an artist might use. A pencil for example, just because you use one doesn't make you an artist and just because you use one doesn't mean you're not. Tools can be used to make things easier. No doubt, however, a skilled artist with the knowledge and creativity to use what they know and a.i. will likely surpass a.i. artists and stand alone artists, at least in the digital world.

@@luckythirteen9353 I meant using it doesn't make you a good artist.

@@kyledoherty9678 ok Kyle 😂

@@kyledoherty9678 anyone with a vivid power of imagination is an artist in their own rights.

untrue, pure graphical rappresentation alone aren't artistic. art need to have something from the artist, a particular style, trait, composition, something that isn't just graphical at all, or i can make a photo of a nice girl, and is art, is not true, it will be art only if the photo has been made with artistic ideas behind.

@@dagan8659 🤯

I don't see AI illustrations replacing anything but the most rudimentary visuals. I don't think many people would buy a children's book with "pictures by Nvidia". And AI most definitely doesn't produce art. You'd have to live a human life to do that.

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

In the long run, AI Art will benefit global creativity, perhaps in preparation for the time when visual thought may be able to be shown on a screen or printed out, as the ultimate means of getting ones creative ideas out of their own head.

@@ramus9555 ai art stifles creativity. It cannot create. It can source and copy only

@@toons8744 One word. Inspiration. AI is an immeasurably valuable idea generator, both consciously and unconsciously. As a lucid dreamer, I know this for a fact. It does not stifle. In the combination of art, some very intriguing things can happen.

Apparently he is saying it's not enough art

Watch the video again, even in a hypothetical case where this was fully ethical and fully legal, we would still have problems…

@@biomuseum6645 I watched it. And I agree. I was specifically speaking about what's happening right now.

@@TheLily97232 Yes, and I agree because of the reasons I stated above. AI generated will never be art on its own.

Depends. I think if you choose a piece the choosing of it gives it artistic value. How much? Hard to say but there is a reason you chose the 11th attempt instead of the other 10 the ai gave you. The fact you didn't create it directly doesn't change the fact that it exists by your will.

It's clearly art.

Yep, I studied illustration at an art school (which already establishes it a subcategory of art, imo) and the conceptual artists often said we weren't actual artists. It's been ongoing for forever.

Illustration is just a skill like any other. I myself am an illustrator. Art is communication, that communication can be done through illustration, or narrative, or cinema etc etc but the visuals without the communicative intent there is just the medium. There has to be the communication and also the medium in which it is transported to create "art"

ai images - not art

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

yeah. personally, the joy of human-made art is thinking about the process the artist went through to make it

I think the fact that there is no artist makes the Ai images interesting

@@sithlord5149 Meaningless.

This was not a video about capitalism and commodification of art. It was a bitterly put together rant about why AI isnt as “talented” as humans. He barely even scratched the surface on why commodification is a negative.

@Lilith .J ??? i didn’t say I could, its just weird that people are acting like this is a dedicated video on these intersections. Thats my entire point. Theres tons of comments like this. Its a short form surface level analysis of AI and art. This video itself is a form of commodified art. Not some profound analysis and critique of capital. Its a well narrated, consumable video but really not as deep or complex as some are trying to make it out to be. If you have 2 active synapses in your brain, its pretty easy to see. Trying to defend your fav parasocial relationship doesnt work unless you actually engage with the points being made.

I would also like to see such a video, this guy seems like the right one to do it. I appreciated what George Lucas said about the Hollywood system very much!!!

@@lilithdoesstuff4870 nah fr dude really be raging on the internet of all places its ok here but if some troll comes in i bet it will turn into an 500 comment long argumetn lol

Ah yes another loser who believes that capitalism is the worst thing ever. This video doesn't even have anything to do with capitalism

You lost me when you talked about your art as part of a "newly refreshed and reborn art MARKET..." You are part of the problem when you talk about marking art into a commodity and I fear that you just don't get the point. Your argument actually contradicts itself from the start to the end of its first sentence...

@@bobdots5974 actually no, what i mean is that i would like a MARKET where any art can be viable to make a living off in a way that the process of intent of it will not be hindered by the needs of making art with the intent of making money

@@bobdots5974 Same. Daniele: If you're going to be authentic about your art, and maybe eventually make some money from it, you really have to forget about the market and just go straight towards finding your "voice," which is what you want to say and how you want to say it, without compromise.

@@psterud I agree. Just like that quote from the 3 idiots: "Don't chase success. Be a Good engineer and success will chase you", but instead its about being a good artist.

Hi @@danielebraccio2474 , I do appreciate where you are coming from as your point of view is not uncommon. In my opinion the purpose of art is not to make money (a living) it is a means to communicate with other people. I'll put that aside for a moment though and discuss your dilemma as a young person starting out as an artist. As an artist in the 'capitalist system' discussed in this video, you can try finding a patron, or a gallery that will support you - but these are vanishingly rare. You will also inevitably be required to produce 'what somebody else wants', which is the antithesis of art. If you can't find a patron or sell your art to make a living, then you must do like everybody else and get a day job. If you still make art in your own time, then congratulations - you really are an artist and have something important to say. I truly do wish you well in the future, art is a struggle for most artists but it is always worthwhile.

If someone had intent to express an emotion or an internal landscape, and used AI as a tool (as a painter would use a brush) via specified prompts to express said thing, wouldn’t that then be considered art?

Hand made things had always been more valuable

@@ivy4360 no depends of the person

@@ivy4360 Value is subjective and always subject to change. A handcrafted shirt may be nice, but the machine manufactured version is faster, cheaper, and likely better quality.

@@BombalurinaAI Indeed its more that the ones that still exist regardless exist because they hold more value even if only sentimental. All the ones made just to be shirts good enough to wear have stopped being made.

Art has so much more meaning beyond Visual appeal. The beauty of art is seeing what or why an artists makes the choices that they do in art. Why did they choose to color something this way, why did they choose this line thickness, they put an incredible effort and focus into how they drew this character's shoulders for example. What does that say about the artist and what is the artist trying to say. The fun part about art is what is the artist trying to say and how are they choosing to convey that.

yeah but it just reproduces patterns of human ways of creating meaning, it is never itself an agent, a subject expressing some part the existence as a living human being

Ai isn't trying to achieve anything.

Art criticism and social commentary are two different things.

@lunayen no, but nor is the paintbrush, but you don't hear people criticising the existence of them.

Um? Self check-out?

@Federico Lerzo has AI built a house?

Yes, thanks to algorithm

Photography did that before AI but people still create hyper-realism art

Knew a local band that had an artist paint while they played; the one show I saw he painted a mural.... Cant even remember watch the picture was he painted, but the experience was what I loved.... I guess if you wanna pretty picture hire AI, if you want an experience watch an artist

@@Arbby2003 no it didn't. The photographer had to understand composition, lighting, camera operation and dark room processes. They didn't press a button and get an instant artwork.

@@Arbby2003 photography is taking pictures of REALITY and one still needs an understanding of technique to master it, an ai generated image has no origin its just an amalgamation of real human ones, except with all the decisiveness and meaning of a real piece. tired of these half ass analogies comparing photography to ai; they arent even cousins

like what is art to begin with?

@@sithlord5149 A chemical reaction that happens in our brain. People will have a rude awakening soon lol.

@@foxdoe7540that doesn't explain anything

@@sithlord5149 Art isn't really a thing. It's just things we find beautiful and assign meaning to. A.I. are proving that the "art" is inside the human brain, not in their creation. There is no difference between finding a sunset beautiful or a painting beautiful. The meaning you associate to stuff is up to you based on your memories.

@@foxdoe7540 That's true but that applies to every word it has no concrete definition and it can change the problem I have with your definition of the word "art" is that it is far to broad to mean much .Your definition is something I like .

Implying that art is needed for society to thrive, artists have the most worthless jobs

But not everyone can make art. While ai art may or may not be considered “art” it does allow those without natural talent to create the images in their head they never had the ability to recreate before.

@@zackie8172 There are needs we should fulfill before art in order to have a functional society, but if you think art jobs are worthless you are deluded. I'm assuming you watch no movies or TV and play no video games given this stance.

@@gvd72 There is no natural talent, we all learn it. If a person wants to make art they should endeavor to do so with what tools and abilities they have; even if they can't perfectly transcribe their imagination, it's an enriching experience, and there are meaningful things you can create without thousands of hours of practice. If people want to use AI to workshop ideas or see what a computer's interpretation of some words are, that's fine. I just despise the idea of this encroaching on human art (both by way of using images without consent, and in passing AI art off as human, entering it in human art competitions, etc.) AI art in a vacuum is morally neutral, but as it exists now it's exploitative and will negatively affect certain art jobs.

An artist once said something like, all it takes is one person to believe it's art and it's art.

@@luckythirteen9353 you are repeating yourself in other comments

@@secretname2670 it happens.

@@secretname2670 besides, it's not always directed at the same person

I agree, this runs down the problems with a.i. really well. It addresses the actual problems is, not the constant debate over "real" art etc

THANK YOU. So tired of these AI "artists" going on wishy-washy tangents about "what is real art? 🤔" when the real problem is the theft and profit being made off that theft right in front of their faces.

THANK YOU! "Is it art" shouldn't be the question when it's all stolen! Only when there's an AI that's 100% made from art that was granted informed consent to be scraped should that question be entertained.

Being inspired by is not stealing. End of. Artists are not remotely as special as they've pretended for the last while. This just underscores it.

Anyone who says AI art is stolen doesn't understand how AI works.

YOU NOTICED THAT TOO??

@@eliescobis9922 sure

they treat AI like a skynet or other glados XDXDXD

I don't, AI art is art, there's just no such thing as an AI artist.

@@wilforddraper1894 AI art exists But AI artists is a made up term

It's never been subjective, there has always been rules, but like humanity evolves so does our cultural perspectives

@@rubiestrada3789 Gotcha. Art has rules. Sounds very openminded.

imagine calling yourself "Artists" when you commisioned a machine to make images for you oh sure i am as good as Gordon Ramsay i put a food in the microwave XDXDXDXD

Some of these AIs have you pay them monthly costs for copyrights (if I've understood it correctly) so you are not only training them to eventually go autopilot but you are also paying for it. Granted, you'll get some sort of light claim on copyrights but what happens if current legal vacuum turns out not to favor you as "prompt engineer" or your AI company overlords? What happens if those AI company overlords as they say pull the rug under you and you no more can pay them to have copyrights or there's some small text that they can revoke your claim to copyright at any point in time, no questions asked? People are so fucking stupidly naive with this whole thing it's really killing my interest in doing art... I think I'll wait how this whole shitshow turns out before I post online anything.

@@RedRocksies its questionable whether artists should be posting artwork online at all. artistic work is constantly being stolen, altered to claim ownership, displayed, marketed by and sold to others on the internet. The advent of AI aggravated this issue for artists exponentially. Artists of every shape and color. Myself included. As a writer, I've had some accept some harsh realities about what AI will take from creative writers. 😒 I don't mind the loss of profit, but being accused of using an AI tool for my own creative work is going to be pretty awful.

Democratization of art is teaching it at school as a mandatory curriculum ; this is DEFINITELY not that lol

@@TheLily97232 if anything its De-democratization of art. The ai users are robbing themselves of actually experiencing art. youll only truly appreciate it after youve put in the effort to learn and know how hard it really is.

I’d also recommend the video of “Cosmic Spectrum Art”, the best for me The one of Steven Zapata and Vaush are nice ones too

AI art, or art created using artificial intelligence, is a relatively new phenomenon that has sparked a great deal of debate in the art world. Some critics argue that AI art is not truly "art" because it is created by a machine rather than a human. However, this argument is misguided and fails to take into account the complexity and creativity that goes into creating AI art. First and foremost, it is important to understand that AI art is not simply the product of a computer algorithm. The process of creating AI art involves a great deal of human input and decision-making. For example, a human artist may train a machine learning model on a dataset of images, and then use that model to generate new images. The artist must choose which images to include in the dataset, and must also decide how to tweak the parameters of the model to achieve a certain aesthetic. Additionally, AI art often requires a great deal of technical skill and knowledge. Creating a machine learning model that can generate images that are indistinguishable from those created by a human artist is no easy task. It requires a deep understanding of both the technical aspects of machine learning and the creative process of art-making. Another important point is that AI art is not a replacement for human art, but an addition to it. AI art can be seen as a new medium for human artist to explore, and that in many cases, AI art is not meant to replace human artist but to expand their work. Finally, it is worth noting that many of the objections to AI art are rooted in a narrow and outdated understanding of what art is. Art has always been a reflection of the technology and society of its time, and AI art is no different. To reject it outright is to reject the evolution of art itself. In conclusion, AI art is indeed art. It is a form of art that involves human input, technical skill, and creativity. It is not a replacement for human art but an addition to it. Those who whine about why it isn't are simply clinging to a narrow and outdated understanding of what art is. AI art is a new medium for artists to explore, and it is an exciting development in the world of art. (This comment has been generated by ChatGPT)

@@theliar4558 chat gta or whatever belongs to the same company that made dalle 2, are you excepting it won’t defend it for the sake of both products's profit? Also, at least the pro ai people write their own comments, but in your case you can’t even do that, you rely on ai even for having your own thoughts…

@@biomuseum6645 It's not that I don't have my own thoughts. It's that this subject is not worth the time or effort for forming them into words. So, I asked for help from something that can do it better and quicker. Artists aren't the first, nor are they the last to be pushed aside because of the growth of technology. They're just the best at whining about it.

@@theliar4558 you know what else got pushed aside by technology? Your critical thinking, this thing didn’t help, it straight out made a f advertisement for you, both belong to the same company so it won’t attack ai images What’s next in this endless trend of “I don’t have time I need help”? An ai that wipes your 🍑 and gives you your pap in your mouth?

"Art has been commodified for a long time and Ai Art is the end destination of that road." AI art is quite literally the opposite of that. It's open source and everyone can use it to express themselves regardless of resources. It doesn't get less capitalistic than that.

@@Edheldui I don't think anyone really believes they can use ai generators to make something that actually expresses what they want to express. And if they do then the expression in question must be of the lowest form, something like expressing that you're just generally unwell or that you're like literally just hungry or something. The capitalist dream is one of AIs generating endless feeds where everything is so optimized that it doesn't even matter what you actually show the user, they'll still like it.

@@redtro8678 Give it time and you will absolutely be able to express yourself with AI art. The issue with AI art atm is only that its hard to control what the AI does. Once its more precise you will be able to create the images you see in your head and carve them from the AI's chaos. That sounds like expression to me. You can already achieve it to some extent, its just much harder to get the important details right. That magic still exists in AI art because its not the AI who says its good or done, its you.

@@Merilirem Even if it becomes more precise I think most of the art done by AIs will still be really boring. I mean for a lot of artists its not just about the endproduct either.

@@redtro8678 Think of all the terms you enter in your AI generators as brushes of paint. Once the technique is refined enough, it will become a tool for Joe Schmo to make the piece of art that he never could due to having to feed his family and a lack of skill.

To hire an artist and describing what they should make is exactly the same as "hiring" AI to make an image. Prompts can never fully control the output. It can only be suggestions. So yeah, you can let the machine make something for you, but it is really no different than to ask a human to do the same. I would argue the AI becomes the artist, and can therefor in no way compare to a camera or another digital tool. It is just something totally different, a tool has never before been an "artist".

@@svanemy No, it's not comparable to that at all. No artist would put up with hours of a client directly fine-tuning and tweaking every little aspect over and over till they created exactly what the client had in their imagination, vs the artist's imagined version in that case. In the vast majority of real cases, the goal is to have the artist create the work in their own style, and ideally from 1 initial description, leaving adjustments to a minimum. Most artists don't wanna deal with much further nitpicking over what they're making, to anywhere near the level we're talking about with AI. And yes, prompts CAN fully control the output. Good AI artists right now have very precise control over what final images they consider done, and know how to describe things in ways that the AI produces the results they want. And their process can take hundreds of tweaks, over the course of hours, till they they get what they want. Just as can any creative endeavor. That's what the guy who won that competition said it took him. If you actually look into prompt-engineering guides, there's quite a lot to learn and manipulate. Plus they often make post-processing touchups in photoshop to improve the images as any digital artist does. Finally, if you haven't heard about it yet, look up the latest videos about "Google Muse" that was just announced. It shows these things will soon enable prompt writers even more control over the exact details of scenes, arrangements and numbers, even accurate text exactly how and where described. This going to be the year of AI doing all the things people claimed AI couldn't do. lol

You work in the art industry? I work in entertainment and have for years now. Calling client feedback “nitpicking” is how you stay unemployed and poor as an artist. Respect the clients vision and your own integrity, they arnt exclusive. AI sucks, but so did this above take.

@@poe1554 So you clearly didn't understand the level of nitpicking I was referring to? There's an obvious difference between the 100s of prompt tweaks someone using an AI art generator can go through until they get what they were imagining, and the level of client feedback an artist doing a commission would consider reasonable. Not even close, and it has nothing to do with keeping clients or not. You're just dodging the points at hand, with that nonsense. Sounds to me like you don't have any real arguments to address any of my previous points.

@@GrumpDog in that case, I’d call these people software skilled not art skilled You’re just sitting there and watching the ai do everything artistically, it’s like watching a chef and feel you have cooking skills Or more like google, you can use very well the engine but never claim knowledge of what it shows you

One glimmer of hope in this debate is that it could cause some sort of renaissance for artists, in that it could potentially inspire aspiring artists to strive to make more meaningful art to distinguish it as best they can from it's AI competition. I dislike this cope though lol, since it's still essentially still an admission of defeat. I don't see any actual artists promoting AI art for the most part. AI art's biggest defenders seem to be money hungry people or nihilists who revel in an opportunity to take meaning away from the lives of artists so that we'll be just as miserable as they are.

@@dylanwalsh2574 I think I suggested something similar before; an AI-free Art platform that only admits very good artists. Free of theft, visual pollution and (sorry to say) amateurs. Amateurs are better off learning from Masters and striving to be admitted on this platform rather than being in the same place as them when they aren't ready yet. Some limits/standards need to be set. This would truly benefit everyone except Ai fans. But they can stay on Artstation or other platforms. I would be happy with the possibility of a renaissance as I think Art is already hard to find in an ocean of images. I think money sucked away the joy from artists since the beginning of time.. Rather than dealing with this, more and more artists will choose to separate the two. Now that "art " is so easily accessible cheap and fast real artists may just say; ok I'm creating solely because my whole being tells me to create. No one can take that impulse away from them and to me, that is Art; a way to release emotions and thoughts in order to make life bearable, enjoyable, or simply more interesting. Artists have no trouble imagining what they want to create. Yet, I hear many people argue that Ai is a useful tool for visualization.. so then what are the brain and imagination for...? Are we becoming completely invalid unable to even think/imagine for ourselves?

@@dylanwalsh2574 Or maybe it’s so that finally anybody can make drawings and not be separated from those whose innate talents allow them to create what is in their head. It doesn’t have to be considered “art” to matter.

@@gvd72 You do not need innate talent to make art. Poorly executed concepts aren't dismissed as works of art for being bad, they're just seen as inferior works of art. The argument that AI "allows anyone to make art" is nonsense to me because my entire line of argumentation is that human passion, emotion and opinion is what defines art, not some innate talent or the skill level of the artist. Your argument that AI allows you to make art is evidence that your interest is not in making art out of passion (as you could do that right now without AI regardless of natural talent or level of skill), but out of a desire to be perceived as a good artist without putting the work in. It's purely egotistical and has nothing to do with who's "allowed" to make art. It's nobody else's problem if some beginner artists have an inferiority complexes.

@@__Liza__ I definitely don't see AI art going away. As unfortunate as it is, I think you're right that art has been overly commercialised. Not that anything is wrong with artists wanting to make money of course, just that it's now a nearly impossible feat to balance creative integrity with sustainable income as an artist.

if the AI generators used a watermark or something like that maybe it would cause less issues, right now there's a lot of people trying to pass it as human made art tho. I think there should be caution with what can be fed to the generator, as some people take sketches or wips artists have done, and make the AI finish it for them, then try to claim it as their own work, which is dangerous. ethically there should be a lot of limitations regarding the database and what can and cannot be used.

@@michemicalromance I agree, disclosure of the fact that it's AI art is important. But the same happens with plagiarism of other artists work - people posting it and claiming it's their own. I know you're not saying this, but the fact that people can pass it off as their own isn't a good enough reason to remove it from the category of 'art.'

@@polyrhythmike stolen art is art, but it's done by somebody else, the same with AI (although I particularlly do not consider AI generated images art because it doesn't actually have a consciousness of what it's creating, it can't consent to doing it, and it depends on stealing other's work for the algorithm to generate something OKish). maybe some people can pass it off as their own work, but their knowledge will be limited, since they couldn't learn anything they would have by drawing it themselves, they won't be able to show their process because they don't have one, etc. and at that point, a lot of artists nowadays are valuable because they share a lot of how they work and teach other people aswell. so idk about that.

something important aswell is that theft in art, although it's common, doesn't go unnoticed for so long. i see a lot of drawings daily and i can sometimes pinpoint references used in a drawing and outright stealing done by other people. idk how but it just happens, and i think most people who draw can do that too

As far as I can tell it’s the established artists that are attacking the legitimacy of new ai artists using these tools, not the other way around.

Also having to deal with countless copy pasted comments about “democratizing art”, “you’re an elitist”, “the machine uses references like u”, “you’re a luddite” etc…

@@smaspa8627 @smAsPa there's no such thing as "ai artists," you're not making art. Watch the video again. Also, you're not being "attacked" by "established artists," you're being called on the ethical problems with the ai "art" movement and how it negatively impacts artists.

@@sophiegoose This video is just an opinion piece and is not the authority on what constitutes art.

@@smaspa8627 "ai artists" ah yes and i am "microwave cook" oh i am also "car runner" and a "boat swimmer"

No it doesn’t because it doesn’t mean anything. When you know a person made soemthing, that adds a depth to it. Ai art is an amalgamation of other piec sof art or images based on a algorithm, it’s not art.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think the AI generated image existing and provoking deep thoughts is necessarily a problem. different people will have different perceptions and feelings regarding the same thing. it's like if you and your friends baked a cake and decorated it, and some like your cake better, others like other cakes (note here that I don't think AI images are art because the generator depends on stealing and doesn't have a counsciousness of what it's doing, doesn't consent to doing it). SOME AI images are actually interesting, the problem is the theft and unethical usage of works these generators are doing, and how it could possibly be used for profit and against artists existence, cause if they have to exist and their job is replaced, there's no other option than taking another job, not the one you love to do, right? most artists are mad but not because the AI can do the same thing they can (maybe how fast it works is a problem, but only because of capitalism pressure to work fast), since essentially that would be the same thing as being mad because other artists can communicate through their art better than you can, that ain't it. the problem is not having the opportunity to work with the one thing that brings them joy, and is tolerable despite the intense pressure.

I don't agree that the capabilities of AI Art generation is a problem. Sure, it hurts some types of artists, but that is both predictable and inevitable with the progress in AI.

@@ramus9555 the AI as it is right now hurts all artists, because it depends on stealing. it should definitely be regulated and use a watermark that makes it clear that it's AI generated.

@@michemicalromance No, it doesn't hurt all artists. Only a subset of them. I wouldn't call it stealing. It's more like using images that are available on the web, and then making new ones out of them. It is pretty much inevitable online. This is something people will have to get used to. Directly copying and stealing is illegal, but this is a different, grey area.

Sometimes I find myself thinking about how collage works in that sense too. We take images that weren't made by us, even drawings, and make it something new, gave it another meaning. I think using AI for creating images for your own collages is a wonderful idea! You are not expecting the AI for do all the work, it's just another tool :)

Considering that you will have to print AI images instead of actually painting them, they will never be able to go on the auction block. To say that art is art nly because it reaches Sotheby's discredits millions of people whose works aren't considered high value. AI is just cheapening the brand even more.

@@lunayen a lot of specific art types could merely be transported over from their digital means. Wouldn't be a complete burden to take any number of AI produced images that are, say, flat art illustration types and paint them onto canvas with acrylics. You could take the AI produced image, turn it into a stencil then print/paint an analog work from that. This is probably what a lot of people using AI art that want some form of authenticity will end up doing. At that point, is this seen as forbidden still? People musing over the AI art argument are stuck with this idea that people are just typing in prompts and that's the end of it. When that's far from the case.

I understand why someone would say this, but I also think that people who disregard the importance of art often forget that their favourite music, movies, shows, video games and clothes are all designed by artists. People love art, even those who don't realise it because they themselves are not the ones making it, whereas religion often actively persecutes those who disregard it.

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

And yet you consume art voluntarily all the time.

Keep coping, AI will become just a useless fad.

yes

100% agreed

AI art, or art created using artificial intelligence, is a relatively new phenomenon that has sparked a great deal of debate in the art world. Some critics argue that AI art is not truly "art" because it is created by a machine rather than a human. However, this argument is misguided and fails to take into account the complexity and creativity that goes into creating AI art. First and foremost, it is important to understand that AI art is not simply the product of a computer algorithm. The process of creating AI art involves a great deal of human input and decision-making. For example, a human artist may train a machine learning model on a dataset of images, and then use that model to generate new images. The artist must choose which images to include in the dataset, and must also decide how to tweak the parameters of the model to achieve a certain aesthetic. Additionally, AI art often requires a great deal of technical skill and knowledge. Creating a machine learning model that can generate images that are indistinguishable from those created by a human artist is no easy task. It requires a deep understanding of both the technical aspects of machine learning and the creative process of art-making. Another important point is that AI art is not a replacement for human art, but an addition to it. AI art can be seen as a new medium for human artist to explore, and that in many cases, AI art is not meant to replace human artist but to expand their work. Finally, it is worth noting that many of the objections to AI art are rooted in a narrow and outdated understanding of what art is. Art has always been a reflection of the technology and society of its time, and AI art is no different. To reject it outright is to reject the evolution of art itself. In conclusion, AI art is indeed art. It is a form of art that involves human input, technical skill, and creativity. It is not a replacement for human art but an addition to it. Those who whine about why it isn't are simply clinging to a narrow and outdated understanding of what art is. AI art is a new medium for artists to explore, and it is an exciting development in the world of art. (This comment has been generated by ChatGPT)

I am calling bullshit on that. I am sure it was made just to see if we could.

And yet, we often encounter art that was created anonymously, or the creator has simply been lost to time. And that can be a functionally similar thing. Whatever meaning the artist poured into it themselves is unknown and unknowable, all there is is what the viewer imparts. We can encounter a scene of suffering and imagine the hardships of its anonymous creator, when in reality their life was completely unlike our guess. And yet the feelings you got from imagining that were real all the same. Imagine coming across a random bit of AI art on some webpage, with no indication that's what it is. Is the meaning you read into it not knowing that any less real than how you engage with the work of an anonymous human?

This comment is beautiful and the answer is really interesting. I'm taking screenshots to remember and think about what you two said :)

@@felonyx5123 Not a functionally similar thing.

Quite right. All humans share a common humanity. Or they used to do. A commenter below may already half machine himself, so please ignore him. The threat of AI is real. Just one more step away from contact with the human, and knowledge of ourselves. We see the human best, and learn about the human in ourselves, from others of our kind. This is the essence of art.

@@felonyx5123 Huh, I never thought of it lile that.

and yet this is not an expression of a human - and has 0 hand of an artist in it. it will never be art.

Well said. Love this channel, but he's reiterating every MFA programs demonization of Illustration as having merit as "art". I disagree with his notion of art/image must be a tool of communication, not merely as entertainment. By that logic, stop signs are the greatest form of objective art. The idea that entertainment is devoid of visual communication comes off as naive. And if art is defined as having an intention, then really it is as simple as anything and every form of conscious human action can be considered an expression of "art".

Foll-E Unstable Shitfussion Mediocre Journey I never learned their names…

also, on a pretty picture there can be a lot of information and emotions even though it's not completely clear to one viewer or another. theres pretty art with a lot of personality coming through it

Wait, if commissions count for that reason, wouldn't that mean that AI art counts as well because the prompters are using an AI to assist in expressing themselves? Note that I don't support AI "art", I just wanted think more on this.

Wouldn't AI art be a form of expression then? Someone expressing themselves through the AI's interpretation of prompts. What makes photography art if AI isn't? It's a really interesting debate on the meaning of art.

@@digitab4446 That is exactly it. The AI art is at its most basic level just a commission. Only instead of a specific artist you are dealing with an amalgamation of what humanity knows as art. The end result came from the one who wished for it to exist and accepted the result. This is at the very least an expression of something within the one who "commissioned" the art from the AI. Once a person starts fiddling with it it goes beyond that base level though.

@@digitab4446 hmm that’s an interesting thought… I honestly don’t know the answer, but I see your point 😅