Comment on ghibli posting

• Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Is it ableist to not define AI art as art, when handicapped people can’t perform the same actions?

  Please reconsider this like of argument in the future, it just comes across as cynical using the disabled for arguments sake. There are plenty of blind/deaf/handicapped/motor impaired/etc people making art of various forms. Deaf musicians. Blind painters. Non-verbal writers.

  What makes art, “art” is the human creativity of original thought and intrinsic meaning, even if it is derivative. A jazz beat sampled on a rap track is art because it has social/familial meaning - beat makers often unwittingly share their childhood memories listening to their parent’s music at home. A painter may be influenced by their surreal visions, or the war and horrors they witnessed.

  source
• Demdaru@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Art has soul in it. Ai has no soul.

  The end. ^^

  source
• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Is digital art itself bad, because its not the human doing all of it?

  It is bad primarily because it plagiarizes historical art in order to undermine the professional trade for future artists.

  It forecloses art as a career, thereby depriving future generations of evolution in style and professional craft.

  Gate keeping art is silly regardless

  The gate being constructed fences off professional artists from the revenue their work produced. And in doing so, it defunds the schools and studios where professionals pass their craft from master to apprentice.

  source

  • NMSGalacticHub@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It forecloses art as a career, thereby depriving future generations of evolution in style and professional craft.

    I hate AI art too, but I don’t think it’s so bad as that. It’s terrible because it uses obscene energy and steals art. But that doesn’t mean anyone actually likes AI art (except people who make it and wish other people would like it).

    If you tell me your “art” is AI, then I instantly lose interest (with very rare exceptions that generally use older types of AI, like MGMT’s “When You Die” music video"). Momentarily disregarding economic considerations, AI “art” is to real art as over-processed food is to whole-food, made-with-love meals. Will some people eat it, for whatever reason? Sure. But are Twinkies competing with fine dining? No. I’m interested in art for the relatable human element. If that’s emulated, then you can only hold my interest until that fact is revealed. AI artists can only be disinteresting or deceitful, there’s no third option.

    source

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      But that doesn’t mean anyone actually likes AI art

      Anyone in the business of churning out media slop at high rates and low quality loves it.

      Low budget advertisers, propagandists, and click bait influencers are its primary user base.

      source

      • NMSGalacticHub@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        …Right, which is why the rest of that quote which you truncated for some reason was, “(except people who make it and wish other people would like it)”

        source
  • turnip@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    With tablets and software its easier than ever to produce and share art, it doesn’t have to be a job any more because its so easy to produce and share, so it becomes a leisure activity. Why protect jobs that don’t need to exist?

    source

    • boonhet@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yes but the question is whether it’s imagined newly by a human, or it comes from an algorithm that only works because it’s combining other people’s existing works.

      Tablets and software made things easier for humans, AI just… Makes artists obsolete and if you do create something new, it’ll be ingested too.

      I agree with you in the core principle that less work for more productivity is good, but I feel creative work is the one notable exception. We remember a bunch of paintings from centuries ago not because they’re beautiful to look at even, but because these particular artists have found interesting new ways to convey their view of the world or their feelings. AI generating a new version of a Van Gogh painting isn’t as impressive.

      Ghibli movies, similarly, have a distinctive art style that reminds you of how these movies have been lovingly made by dedicated artists who poured their souls into it. Using AI to shit out random content with the same style is just blatant disrespect for everything they’ve done. You can use AI to clone paw patrol or something if you want. That’s a merch seller, not art.

      source
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      its easier than ever to produce and share art

      Anyone who believes the transition from pencils and paper to high end computers and software has made art creation easier… Go compare the staff and budget required for the original Disney’s Snow White relative to the latest Pixar film.

      And as to sharing, that’s where AI is extra obnoxious. On the one hand, you’re trying to make yourself heard in a wholly artificial cacophony of procedural generated spam. And the current iteration of The Algorithm favors AI, so even your hack favorites like Ben Garrison and Jon McNaughton have to compete with Shrimp Jesus.

      It’s not a bad thing, we can create whatever art we want with ease

      You cannot. You can make requests to a computer and it can approximate a result that you accept or reject. But you’re not making art, any more than walking up to a sketch artist, slapping down a $20, and saying “Draw a picture of me looking silly” is making art.

      Let’s not paint that positive reality like a bad thing.

      When the future of art is just a computer pumping out caricatures, because its cheaper than commissioning anyone with talent and experience to employ perspective or creativity or even just something beyond the sixteen pre-defined style choices, that’s pretty bleak.

      source