AI ART: Art or Not?

Art without consciousness isn't art.

 

Yes, because we all cling to Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, Anthony Kleidis, etc... stories as people and don't shut our minds to the garbage they got up to. It's the rape that makes it interesting! Ooookay.

Maybe in some circles, you get the obsessive art history major who know what Michelangelo was like on a personal level but that isn't the norm. Modern day pop music isn't about the art at all, it's a personality cult, so I won't even count that as "master artist" and thus, preempt a Taylor Swift rebuttal. Who out there, knows the story of Mazzie Star? And, frankly, who cares?

 

You just proved my point. lol. Why do you even know the name Michelangelo? The fact that you listed a bunch of "artists" as proof that people can make things that aren't very good perfectly illustrates my point.

You need to separate the idea of what you think is "good art" from this conversation. There is a long history of artists that bucked the trend so what you feel is good or bad art isn't relevant in this discussion. Maybe better questions are: Will people buy it? Will it stand the test of time?

I could have selected better words than "master artist". Fair point. But what I am saying is Taylor Swift can pump out pure trash and people will buy it BECAUSE it's Taylor Swift ...not because it's good. In the context of this conversation, AI literally can make 100 songs before the end of the day that are just as "good" as any Taylor Swift song but people won't buy it. Why?

Yes, the art is important ...but the artist is just as important ...and that is why AI art will never compete with human artists.

The story behind the art and why people connect with it is just as important as the art itself.

 

My point is, I don't know anything about Michelangelo, who he was as a person. What he did in his spare time. I have zero connection to him as a person. I don't care one bit about his lived experience. His art is what survives. His lived experience surely made his art easier, but if it were not possible to create something without having the lived experience that connects.... then male writers couldn't write good female characters. A lawyer couldn't write a detective novel, It certainly helps, but i say it is not required at all. The story behind the art angle is silly... Generally speaking, no one knows any of that, like, at all. Many singers don't write their own music, best selling novels are written under pseudonyms rather frequently.... Acting, as a form of art, is largely not a lived experience but an imagined one.

Why people connect with art is another topic entirely, and I say that is accessible without a person on the creative side. What is missing is an actual understanding of meaning from A.I. because once you have that, you can build the inside jokes that are meant only for the reader, or a pseudo personal reflection that is likely to resonate with the reader, or a song that properly conveys loss or joy, fear.... whatever.

I agree, LLM's will not get there and don't claim they will. (greatness, genius works) The next Taylor Swift can be manufactured by llm's and a marketing budget/media blitz/constant social bombardment, but that's not what anyone really cares about in the context this thread. That is what i mean by not a master artist, not that she doesn't meet my personal guidelines. Her followers are barking dogs, completely reassured by the sound of other dogs barking that Taylor Swift is the best thing ever. And just like everything else that is made that way, if you ask for the meaning behind it, you will be met by... this persons belief system like they're holding up a mirror. Taylor Swift herself, doesn't matter very much. And you could point this viewpoint to the political and it becomes even more obvious, but we'll keep it hangout.

 

You proved my point (again). If people rip something up once they realize it's AI, that is exactly my point. Maybe someone will be amused with something for a while ...until they learn it's AI. At that point, it's status as "art" ends.

So maybe I'll revise my statement.

AI can be entertaining ...but AI can't be art. Art requires soul, intentionality, and a story/narrative about the artist.

Can a kangaroo create "art"? Maybe an animal can do something amusing ...but it can't make art.

Not a single person in this thread has convinced me AI can make art. In fact, every time one of ya'll try to make the argument, you end up providing more evidence supporting my argument.

 

You don't need to know anything about Michaelangelo. Collectively, as a human society, he was deemed important as an artist, which is precisely why you know who he is and chose to use him as an example as a quintessential "artists". At this point, that's about all you really need to know. His reputation as an artist precedes him. That's the point. The story of Michaelangelo is timeless.
They even named a turtle after him.

If AI art ever goes mainstream (or when), pay attention and mark my words. It will be about the story behind the LLM and/or the creator of the LLM or the curator of AI art that just uses the LLM as a paintbrush. It will be just as much about the story behind the AI that elevates it. It's not gonna be some rando thing that goes viral. Or if something does go viral, it'll disappear just as fast. Art is enduring.

If that doesn't happen, people genuinely just love the AI and zero credit it given to any human involved, it's time to move to the woods.

 

Yes, that is why Beowulf endures centuries later. Everyone loved the author. Who was that again?

That the art is enduring is the salient point. It's the statue that does the heavy lifting, not the lore. Also, it's going to happen and it'll be a whole different kind of horror show. Every show/image/song will be in the realm of great works, reducing the great works by comparison (over time) or drowning them out, in the same way Louis CK's bit "everything is amazing, no one is happy" hits, but applied to the arts and not technology. "Time to go live in the woods" is.... apt, because it'll be everywhere and up to the individual to shut it out... and I think we have a pretty good feel for how that's going as a society.

 

First, it doesn't require that you personally know the artist. The question is how did the art raise to fame and endured?

So on that, thanks again for proving my point using Beowulf as an example. It's actually a very interesting story ...and that story has nothing to do with the text itself. It was a forgotten manuscript and largely just viewed as a historical document, not considered a literally work of art. It was JR Tolkien that resurrected it and advocated it as a work of art. Tolkien, a massively important artist, is the one that brought it to light. The story behind Beowulf is super interesting ...which in itself has nothing to do with the actual text itself. Go look it up. Thanks for bringing that to light for me.

So more often than not, there is context surrounding the art/artist ...but like anything, I'm sure you can dig up some exceptions. Keep trying to find that exception if you like but you keep cementing my point.

 

Can a paintbrush make art?

 

How something was brought into the public consciousness is a different point, not requiring anything to do with the artist. or human artist. How about this to illustrate my point. Lets say we make first contact with aliens, and in the process of establishing communication we exchange math, music, art.... rather like the gold record on Voyager. We get a huge data file filled with wild math, sounds, images and it goes viral around the world. That it came from outer space is obviously the first bit that sticks with people, digging through that data for nuggets to tell the story of who sent it and why. (I'm making your point, exactly). This is the most "I care more about the artist than the art" story I can even imagine..... and the authors could still be A.I.

 

My position, which I'm sure will upset a ton of people, is that a bunch of low level human "art" out there basically is 100% as soulless and derivative as AI art.

The average random user's Deviantart page is has light years more in common with ChatGPT slop than it does (for instance) Brughel the Younger.

AI slop is real, but there is a lot of human slop art, too.

 

I don't think it's weird, but it is a bias. It is a very natural bias, especially if one co-mingles the ghouls running the A.I. firms, bull dozing citizens rights water, power, noise... The purposes of which seem to be to lower wages on a global scale or manipulate people on social media. Not to mention the absurdities LLM's can bring people to who "date" A.I. or draw up an Escher dream house and don't understand why rocketsjudoka can't build it.

None of that, though, says anything about whether or not A.I. can produce art. Or, if we're being real about where we are now, LLM's obviously can produce art, and the question is really, can A.I. produce works that impact and endure like the great artists through history... I don't think LLM's will. It *is* missing things that matter, but it's not the only way to build A.I.

 

ive gotten into those as well over the last few months. theres some really good ones and also some really bad ones. i was watching one showing the aztec city of tenochtitlan and they very clearly had the mayan pyramid at chichen itza in there.

for those who havent seen, theyre basically feeding old photos, paintings and drawings into AI and it spits out a video or animation. its my favorite use of AI by far. theres several houston ones. its cool to take a tour through 1800's houston or 1400's london.

 

i was listening to a podcast or radioshow a couple months ago and they did an exercise where they played two songs. one AI and the other by a real band or artist. they did 5 or 6 comparisons and you were supposed to guess which one was AI and which wasnt. i think i only got one right.

on a non-art note, i used AI a couple nights ago to help me with some investment stuff and also advice on moving my roth IRA to a new account. its was pretty incredible how detailed and good it was. better financial advice than ive ever gotten my from financial advisor!

 

Yes. No doubt.

But also, art is massively based on personal opinions. So just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad. It just makes it "not your cup of tea". It's ok that you don't like something. But your opinion is not a fact. Newsflash.