645

Crowd intelligence (sub.wetshaving.social)

submitted 15 hours ago by weird@sub.wetshaving.social to c/memes@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] notarobot@lemm.ee 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

People: "omg why are you using AI to make a picture of a frog. Just grab a pen and paper and whatever you do will be better than what AI can generate" Also people: "lol. This pen and paper drawing is awful. I can't believe it won Against this high quality obviously better detailed drawing of a frog"

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

This is older than AI.

[-] skye@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago

"better detailed" doesn't necessarily mean "better art" ...

Art being fidel to reality is it's own subset of art movement, called realism. Many people appreciate it as "wow this is so close to real life/so much effort", but then if you ask people what they think the greatest artworks are they might bring any artist. Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Dalí, Picasso, Pollock, etc.

So no, just because something is closer to real life does not make it "objectively the best art" in the broader sense of art. Maybe you can measure that when pit against other realism pieces, which sre not as faithful to real life.

[-] notarobot@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm know that. I'm not arguing that detailed is better. It's the post that is arguing that, with it's implied "I can't believe that thing got the first place".

My point is that better is better no matter how it's made. It could be pretty or ugly, made with paint or digital, AI or no AI