630
Rule
(ani.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
630 points (100.0% liked)
196
17446 readers
681 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
In all those cases you are reheating someone's else creation.
Let's be precise here.
In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.
None of these apply here. All of these are transformative.
You know what's interesting?
A collage made by a person? Yeah, that's art.
A collage made by my apple photo album? Nah, that's stupid. Don't really want to see it. I think it'd be weird if someone insisted I look at the collage their phone made.
You people never seem to grasp the personality and intimacy that makes art what it is. Yes, even when you flick your brush at a canvas like pollack.
Same as you don't know what generative art is. You don't know how AI art is made.
And sorry but I don't have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.
But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me. Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.
And please, just please, don't give yourself vibes of "knowing the grasp of art" when you clearly don't know much about art. Once again you didn't know what generative art was, and you didn't even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was "AI" because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.
The only reason you care about the wikipedia article you linked me is because it is a technical defense of the modern thing people are obviously pissed about.
So you're right, I don't really care; it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
I've been into generative art since before generative AI was a thing. And for the record I do like generative art much more than I like AI art. I don't actually even specially like AI art as a form of artistic expression. But the fact that I don't like an art style or more specifically a way of doing art is just my particular taste. Generative art have great differences with AI art. As generative algorithms are hand made by the artist, while in AI art the algorithms are made as a generic tool and artists change the initial inputs but don't really change the algorithm that much, specially on a deeper level. Also AI art is "based" on other art, while generative art is it's own thing, is not "pre-trained".
But it's an interesting point of discussion, as it's also computer made with great randomisation, and once the algorithm is made an almost infinite works can be made with little effort without an human "opera".
So, you agree they're different.
I feel compelled to ask this, as if I am pulled into it by the sheer gravity of this question: why did you bring it up, then?
They are different but they share characteristics.
I brought it up because some guy said that art made without direct human input and knowledge of the end result is not art. And while different in many other things both AI art and generative art share that characteristic.
Imagine the next example, some people may want to say that pixel art is not real art because it does not allow for complex detailing. The. i may ask if they think that watercolor is also "not art" because it also doesn't allow for great detailing .
Oh, would you look at that, intentionality. Maybe they don't share that characteristic.