Hahah! I'm sure it is, but it is far less interesting to us. To know that someone is creating fantastic works of art using something you've made is much more rewarding :).
Exactly my point. Just because someone else is doing the work (or, in this case, something else) doesn't mean that the work isn't the first person's art. And yes, I suppose, anything can be technically art. But this is veritably the same kind of art we've already come to accept.
If I showed you a generated piece, and don't tell you what prompt generated it, you will find it just as meaningful as any other piece of art made by hand.
This is why we are blown away by some pieces of text generated by GPT-3 as if it has its own mind. Even most abstract art has meaning for anyone who is looking for it.
What I am saying is if a generated artwork is indistinguishable from what a human can make than that's all that was needed.
I think at its core the difference is in that the art is not created and polished by the author, it was just chosen and possibly tuned, that is, it's not the product of the author's imagination and emotions, it's only about taste and skills.
This definitely needs its own competition but I'm not in a position to suggest it's not fair or how to regulate it.
I am going to go ahead and say it, some of you people are so far up your own ass that you don't realize it is the exact same thing. All of you are saying it's unique because you code but you don't understand art and can't pick out the things that are clearly copied from artists because it isn't exactly the same.
No, it's not. Art created by humans is not just looking at other art and trying to copy it. It's a culmination of a whole life of experiences and the personality of the artist. Looking at other peoples art is inspiration and useful for learning technique, but only a very small part of the bigger picture.
Not the same thing. You're comparing the relationship between a fake version of an artwork and the artwork itself to that between two digital objects both of which are derivative of a third thing. The third thing is the analog to the artwork, making the metaphor unusable
Can you explain how this is a whole different ballgame?
It seems to me that making art that people like is a combination of pattern matching, luck, the zeitgeist, and other factors. However it doesn't seem like there's some kind of unknowable gap between "making similar art" and "making innovations in art that people like". I'm of the opinion that all art is in some sense derivative in that the human mind integrates everything it has seen and produces something based on those inputs.
If these images were painted by hand, they would also be derivative.
But technologists insist that since one step in the chain of creation was algorithmic, the technologist gets all the credit and the original artist gets none.
totally agree, but what i’m getting at is the creative core of an expression. there’s an aspect of a piece that impresses and i’m claiming that exists as something the viewer appreciates and imitates in their mind’s eye.
as a programmer, i create many things that impress people, but when i show them the methods of that creation, i can palpably feel their excitement wane as they lose interest in the nuance of my execution.
beyond the surface, there’s an aspect of being impressed that is also the desire to take part in the recreation of it all.
my claim in the first person, “i’m visually impressed by many image generators, but i’m not interested in fiddling with knobs, buttons, and strings to recreate the image in my mind’s eye”
"create" doesn't necessarily imply "creativity" so I'm not sure why this is brought up. Of course generated images right now don't have any creativity attached to them and that's not the purpose of this article. All the images shown seem to mimic the generic "anime" art style and seems close enough to what a human draws which seems to have been the goal
Since both are undoubtedly created by hoaxes and frauds, that's an interesting observation. I guess all artwork really is derivative.
It would be neat to trace that artistic lineage back to its sources.
Then again, there is a commenter on here claiming they look like circuit diagrams (whereas I look at schematics on a daily basis and see no resemblance). So stupid.
This creation is art to me, and much more interesting than your comparison.
reply