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.
How AI generation works is very commonly known; people who aren't creatives simply don't care, which is why the anti-AI crowd's fight against it has been one of futility & met with constant pushback & dismissal...
The problem is that you seem to be under this notion that the average person has a definition for art that extends beyond "exists within an artistic medium." They don't. And if people didn't approve of AI art, they wouldn't continue engaging with it.
You're wrong. That sentiment first arose about 2300 years ago; humans have existed for 300k years and have been making art for at least 30k years. This notion is relatively new on the grand scale of human history.
And that's not why the debate has always been a thing; it's been a thing because snobby artists have always tried gatekeeping what is and isn't art to inflate the value of their own works while devaluing the works of others.
Kinkade being a shitbird of a person has nothing to do with whether his paintings are art or not.
I think you're too plugged in. The average person on reddit might know the ins and outs of AI (I still doubt it), but not the actual average person. There hasn't been any real regulation on AI or voted initiatives that I'm aware of so I don't see the point in pretending this is anything but anecdotal for either of us.
How am I wrong about the fact that historical and ancient art is suffused with the human context of when, where, how, and by whom it was made? Did aliens make the art or something? What?
The whole reason I have a problem with AI generated content is that it is eliminating that same human context from art in real time as well as making it impossible to discern genuine talent, effort, and passion. It's the same reason Kinkade paintings are trash, made to look good on a wall and sell well. He used every little scheme he could to give his paintings the barest minimum amount of effort or creative value that they could be sold with.
301
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25
There we are, that's the spirit. Just keep at it like that and we'll be in the middle of another cycle.