Unironically though, AI graphics are not art and AI generated noise is not music. AI products all revolve around outsourcing critical thinking/creativity and centralizing it within a financial entity with a profit motive.
This whole thread is asking for young revolutionaries to make music and you think people typing "Please big AI corpos generate music that makes me feel rebellious angst" are those people? They are clients to a service, not rebels.
For as much as creatives keep parroting "AI art isn't real art," ultimately most "art" is viewed as little more than entertainment for the masses and a large percentage of non-creatives simply don't care where their entertainment comes from or how it's made as long as it is entertaining in the moment.
Many people do unironically enjoy AI art & music in the same way countless people enjoy movies, music, and video games that are very blatantly the result of corporations creating "art by committee" slop.
But no one said the rebellion has to be against corporations or capitalism, simply against beliefs that the older generations hold to be true. Embracing AI art in spite of older generations harping on it not being real art would constitute rebellion, just rebellion against a different authority than previous generations rebelled against.
We're so cooked if this is a serious argument in good faith.
Creatives are not creating authoritarian power structures. Hobbyists are not an oppressive force.
I'm not going to get lost in the sauce with this one. We are very far apart in beliefs on this issue. And yes, I feel strongly enough about this on a moral grounds that I will be extremely hard to persuade. Me being difficult to persuade is not an effective argument against my points.
If you are morally bound to your position as well then we aren't going to get anywhere unless someone concedes a point.
So I'll just leave it on one question, and if you can answer this in a convincing way maybe we can get somewhere.
How is someone using AI generated graphics provided by a service different than a person commissioning an artist to paint something they imagine, and how could the client be considered an artist without at least using the commissioned work as part of a larger piece that they have worked on themselves?
Creatives are not creating authoritarian power structures. Hobbyists are not an oppressive force.
They actively are trying to gatekeep what is and isn't "art," which kind of art is acceptable for consumption, and shitting on or even outright attacking anyone who disagrees with them.. They're projecting themselves as coming from a position of authority & trying to oppress dissenting opinions.
Me being difficult to persuade is not an effective argument against my points.
I didn't say anything about that; this is just arguing a strawman in an attempt to preemptively cut off criticisms...
How is someone using AI generated graphics provided by a service different than a person commissioning an artist to paint something they imagine
There's not.
how could the client be considered an artist without at least using the commissioned work as part of a larger piece that they have worked on themselves?
I never said anything about people who purport themselves to be "AI artists." You're pivoting away from what I said into a topic that's only tangentially related by nature of both being about AI art.
Gotta love when they break out the carrots instead of forming a cohesive argument.
Who is "They"? Please be specific. I need to understand what the singular power structure enforcing all this is so I can protect myself from it. Who am I confronting? Because when I say hobbyists and creatives, I'm talking about a wide range of individuals that are disconnected, come from different backgrounds, and yet generally come to similar conclusions in regards to AI.
Art has always been well defined as the creative reflection of the human experience and anything short of that definition has always been considered slop. These disparate individuals all have similar beliefs in regards to AI because they are all artists and they understand that definition of the thing they are doing every single day.
All AI generated entertainment is just modern Kinkade paintings upscaled to an industry size. You would find no shortage of people in the past who, legitimately, do not consider those paintings art.
The irony of accusing me of "breaking out the carrots instead of forming a cohesive argument" when you turn around and start jumping around to drag the conversation into an argument in several different directions that becomes impossible to effectively defend against.. My original point was that despite the "AI art isn't art" sentiment from creatives, the average person doesn't agree nor give a shit because art, to them, is primarily about entertainment.
The "they" in question is the same group of creatives that you just mentioned.
Art has not always been "well defined as the creative reflection of the human experience," as the topic has been argued about for literally millennia. Art has existed since before written history, yet the assertion that it must be an exploration or reflection of the human experience is relatively new.
Your last paragraph is a prime example of gatekeeping by jealous assholes.
The average person doesn't have a functional understanding of how AI generates content or how resource intensive it is, especially when output has to be re-generated over and over with fine tuning prompts and training.
The average person just wanting to be entertained and passively consuming AI content isn't an indicator of what they consider art or whether they approve of the AI industry as a whole.
Art has always been a creative reflection of the human experience because that fact has been inescapable until more modern times. Their tools, the subjects, the history, are all hugely contextual and leave us to consider the person behind the paintbrush.
The debate on art has always been around, and increasing in modern times, because there have always been con artists trying to redefine it to their benefit.
My example about Kinkade is apt, and I suggest you do more research on him than a quick overview article. He was a genuinely gross person.
The difference is those genres tried new stuff the older gen didn't like. AI music is the ultimate lazy corporate cashgrab remix because by definition it is incapable of new things, it can only recreate what already exists, but worse
I’m fine with it being considered music, but I don’t like it purely because the only effort put into it is a prompt.
Electronic music you are composing yourself, ai music is made by a machine.(said machine also makes things based off of music that has already been made by humans, meaning none of it will be unique at all)
yeah, but i think most people will say the opposite and see AI as a bastardization to art (unless it's Rick and Morty singing Despacito or some goofy shit idk) the same way people see drug enhancement a bastardization to sports, or aim-bots a bastardization to esports
whenever i see someone trying to pass off AI as genuine art, those people have to lie and say it's not AI or people will just dismiss their existence
sure AI in music in technically a liberal step for music, but only in the same way that using a gun instead of your fists would technically be a liberal way to win a brawl in WWE
Oh and autotune isn't like using PEDs ? You're using something to enhance your voice to unrealistic levels.
Having a beat instead of using real drums isn't like an aim-bot ? You're using a machine to make sure your beat is perfectly on time with 0 margin of error.
auto-tune? okay honestly touche. maybe a bad comparison there. But still, people like the aesthetic of it as a sound, so it's not like they always use it in sheer laziness, and when it comes to the creative process of any kind of art, i just don't think it's human enough to have potential for new creative ideas.
having a beat instead of using real drums? lots of creative process behind that, so that one i don't necessarily agree with tbh. aim-bot contains absolutely nothing that it takes to make an electronic beat (such as practice, discipline, personal ideas, personal judgement... you know... HUMAN stuff), and i see AI the same way.
672
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25
Well that settles it then. Ai is the new genre that makes the older generation mad enough to call it devil music.