Comment

The difference here is that an artist has control over the medium. Every letter was put there with intent, every stroke carries meaning. Deciding not to do these things can also carry weight, and even the decision to let chaos decide is a choice.

GenAI isn’t that, it removes the creative process entirely. Sure, you can get creative with prompt engineering, but the resulting art is the prompt not the AI generation.

It doesn’t matter how much work you put into micromanaging an artist, a commission is not your art. Similarly, it doesn’t matter how intricate and elegant your prompt is, you did not generate the result.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

The difference here is that an artist has control over the medium. Every letter was put there with intent, every stroke carries meaning. Deciding not to do these things can also carry weight, and even the decision to let chaos decide is a choice.

no they don’t. That’s my whole point that there’s artworks where the artist doesn’t have complete control over the end result, and it’s the point.

It’s been done by Cage, people using radios in musical performances, introducing animals into artworks, using the brush like an idiot (Pollock) to achieve these things; in more modern mediums, the entire genre of rougelikes rely on chance to have certain things not be completely fixed, and emergent behaviour is a valuable aspect of creating interactive worlds that contain automatons.

And I would gladly take pollock out of the artistic cannon if I could.

source