420
An Excellent Analogy (pawb.social)
submitted 1 year ago by [M] to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Source (Via Xcancel)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Which is obvious because they call AI images "art." They're not. AI images are patterns to fit a mathematical probability. It's the difference between calling a Jackson Pollock and a QR code art.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I honestly don't know which one you are calling art. My first thought was the Pollock, but maybe the art in this case is the QR code, because there is something it is intended to convey whereas the Jackson Pollock is random splatters?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Pollock's art is splatters and swirls and whatnot, but his process wasn't just random splatters. He knew when his art was done because it felt done to him.

    Likewise, a QR code isn't random splatters, either. Both are intentionally created to have meaning. One as a work of art that should make the viewer feel something at an emotional level, and one to tell you that the restaurant you're in hasn't updated their menu since COVID.

    AI art isn't art because gen AI is trained on art without the ability to feel or sense the emotions it's trying to convey. If I take a picture of an artwork and try and copy it at home, I haven't created art. I've copied someone else's art. I've made a picture, a copy of the original. If the AI hasn't been trained on, let's say, cubism, I can't show it ONE image of cubism and hope it can go from there and be creative and reach the same point. I can't describe cubism and expect it to achieve the same thing. The best it can ever manage is to copy an original work it was trained with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Funny you mention Jackson Pollock, I recently read an article about how art traditionally delivered very political anti establishment messages; modern abstract art was heavily funded and supported by the US establishment because it didn't contain left or progressive ideologies.

    https://www.historicly.net/p/the-jazz-beats-of-a-coup

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Which is funny to me, in the "if we don't laugh we'll cry" sense.

    Because whenever I go to a museum and look at modern art, abstract art, and so on, I see all sorts of curators notes explaining how this mix of shapes and colors and designs actually has some sort of profound, inspirational, generally leftist or anti-establishment, message.

    But people don't see the message or understand the message right away. From a casual look, it's just pleasing colors and shapes. You have to believe it matters and put in the effort to understand it in order to get those inspirational messages.

    In other words: if you oppose the establishment, and you are looking for modern art that opposes the establishment, you will find it. But if you're an average person that anti-establishment message will mean nothing to you. You won't even think to look for it.

    So it's not that modern art doesn't contain left or progressive ideologies. It's worse. Because it does contain left and progressive ideologies in a self censored form. All the power and energy of these left and progressive artists has been captured by the establishment and harmlessly redirected into pursuits that "support" left and progressive causes but pose no threat to the powers that be.

    And I'm thinking more and more this makes it bad art.

    Think about advertisements. If someone in a car looks out and sees a billboard passing, they should understand, in the few seconds they see that billboard, what product it's advertising and why they should buy that product. A billboard that doesn't get those two points across in a matter of seconds has failed at being a billboard.

    And a piece of visual art that doesn't get those same two messages across in a matter of seconds - what message it's sending and why you should care - has failed at being visual art.

    Edit: whether you agree with the message or not, this is art with an incredibly clear message - and the attempt at government censorship made it even clearer -https://slrpnk.net/post/27304084

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •