experimenting with the AI, trying to break it as a technique for meta commentary

[Moe_Syzlak]

This seems to be a troublesome issue of how we use the word 'art'. That's a language issue more than anything. Gaudi wasn't an artist, he was an architect. Certainly, architecture can have artistic flair in a big way, but there is an exclusive definition of 'art' that describes the types of works that serve a singular purpose, by people like Damien Hirst, Andy Warhol, Banksy, etc. these works serve one purpose and that is to make the receiver think in different ways about society, It doesn't serve any other purpose, such as shelter from weather, or advertising a product, or telling a story, or as a backdrop for dance, etc. We call those other things, architecture, design, comics, music, etc. They are of course 'arts' and considered under that umbrella term and can be thought of as artistic, but they aren't 'art' in the singular sense. I think this is a discussion that continually happens though, so I'm just conveying how I've come to understand it and what makes logical sense to me.

I think your prompt 'create art' would be an interesting exercise. would you like to present any images?

Aha! Glad you seized on that. I used a composer and an architect on purpose rather than a painter or sculptor or something. That’s really the crux in my opinion. You say the art doesn’t serve any other purpose. But it does. In a very basic sense it can said it is decoration. Again, I think by imposing limits you do a disservice to the creative process. It becomes exclusionary and elitist (not accusing you of that) rather than inclusive. And the art “scene” too often is that. I’d much rather have a large definition and encourage people to create using whatever tools and mediums they choose and then decide what moves me.

 

[unfair]

That's a language issue more than anything. Gaudi wasn't an artist, he was an architect. Certainly, architecture can have artistic flair in a big way, but there is an exclusive definition of 'art' that describes the types of works that serve a singular purpose, by people like Damien Hirst, Andy Warhol, Banksy, etc. these works serve one purpose and that is to make the receiver think in different ways about society, It doesn't serve any other purpose, such as shelter from weather, or advertising a product, or telling a story, or as a backdrop for dance, etc.

I think it's more a matter of scale - to liken it to a job it might be a project manager versus a programmer. Just because the programmer is writing the code doesn't mean he's solely responsible for the design of the project, much like a bricklayer isn't responsible for the overall composition of a Frank Lloyd Wright house. And maybe it's just because I went to school for architecture, but I'd take issue with not calling it art - perhaps you'd have to take classes or really study it to truly appreciate the artistry of building design, but crafting the impression of space is really a cool thing.

FLW was really good at it, the Eames house was a really cool study of light space and color/geometry, and Mies van der Rohe had some beautiful modern designs that you could argue were less than functional due to their emphasis on art or style over practical needs. I don't know if that means prompting an AI can be called art at a certain level of curation/detail, but I definitely think higher level roles in an artistic/creative endeavor entail the same artistry as painting even though they're less hands-on.


Also one related thing I meant to mention before that kind of sheds a light on the nature of AI recognition/behavior is a recent breakthrough in cancer, where AI spotted breast cancer in 11 out of 10,000 patients that doctors had missed. It speaks to the way AI works - you feed it a data set of "not cancer" and a data set of "cancer", and it has no idea what those two things are, but is able to recognize the pattern that is different between the two data sets and reliably identify and even recreate something similar to each data set based on this pattern it has recognized. In short, just another instance demonstrating that what AI is doing with images isn't just blindly copy and pasting elements, but rather analyzing a pattern and building something new off of it.

 

[tremault]

I mean one could view it as eliteist, saying this is art and these other things can't be, but that's not what I am personally getting at, I'm describing a method of work. If we were talking about architecture, one could be equally eliteist and say "my work is not merely art, it's ARCHITETCTURE" so in that vein, anybody can be eliteist about anything...
But I was trying to be clear that I firmly believe anyone can do art, IF that is indeed what they are doing. I'm not going to read off a musical notation and play a guitar and claim that it is composition. It's just a matter of what a thing is. I believe it's correct to say that if a person is making something to serve a purpose but also includes artistic flourishes, then they are certainly adding art into their process, but let's call it what it is. When I make a cover for my fanedit, I'm not making art, I'm making design, but using artistic methods as part of my process. All I was trying to say in this topic though is that the intent here is to explore the concept of AI. Anyone can do that, so long as that is what they are doing XD

 

[addiesin]

It's a tricky topic because people feel very personally about these things. I do agree more with Moe. Generative AI in concept is simply a new tool, things made with or by AI can be art. It's all subjective and philosophical and this post is just my opinion.

I define art as anything you perceive that makes you feel emotion. This is the best definition I can come up with, that includes everything I think "counts" as art, and doesn't exclude any of it. As such, I believe art does not require an artist, only an audience. For example, a beautiful sunrise/sunset, or the concept of "found art", or a selfie a monkey accidentally took with a stolen camera, or a plain canvas on the wall in a gallery with no paint on it hanging as a statement. These examples might make you feel something emotionally, but the artist in each case would be difficult to attribute, if not impossible.

I think most creative fields have tools that qualify as shortcuts and whether you feel using them is ethical is entirely subjective and conditional. Using premade assets for a video game doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make that game. Using premade instrument sounds when you record a song doesn't mean you didn't make that music. And tracing your own reference photo or sketch digitally until your linework is perfect doesn't mean you didn't "really" draw it.

What it comes down to for me is not the objective "is it art, or is it not art?", but the subjective, "is it a good choice for your art, or is it not a good choice?". To me, those questions can have opposing answers.

 

[tremault]

I'm not sure how we could consider a sunrise as art, it's a natural phenomena and nobody made it, but it fits with your definition and is thought provoking.

 

[addiesin]

I'm not sure how we could consider a sunrise as art, it's a natural phenomena and nobody made it, but it fits with your definition and is thought provoking.

I understand it's a somewhat radical take, so I don't ask anyone else to agree with that opinion. It helps me when I see art I have an extremely adverse reaction to. I don't have to like it for it to be art, and I don't have to like that it counts as art for it to count as art. Sometimes art is bad and that's ok.

 

[tremault]

I think it's a good thought exercise. I spent some time on it and my response is this. The art you perceive when you look at a sunset is the art that is created within you. without you, the sunset has no beauty or emotion. The process of creating art is communicating that emotion to somebody else. Through the process of creating our art work, we are allowing our emotions to flow through our medium of choice. that resulting work that contains our essence, can then be received in it's entirety by the viewer and then interpreted. The mastery of our medium helps us to convey our feelings better. I think this is where I see the issue with AI, in that our emotions that we may try to communicate, is getting mixed up and diffused into the emotions and feelings of billions of existing artworks, torn apart and mixed into a soup. How does the individual artist account for all those mixed feelings coming from nearly random lives and experiences? I suppose i consider it similar to making a meal from a store bought kit and calling it cooking? I mean the act of doing that takes some effort, and some creativity is afforded, but it's not the same as cooking from scratch.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

I think it's a good thought exercise. I spent some time on it and my response is this. The art you perceive when you look at a sunset is the art that is created within you. without you, the sunset has no beauty or emotion. The process of creating art is communicating that emotion to somebody else. Through the process of creating our art work, we are allowing our emotions to flow through our medium of choice. that resulting work that contains our essence, can then be received in it's entirety by the viewer and then interpreted. The mastery of our medium helps us to convey our feelings better. I think this is where I see the issue with AI, in that our emotions that we may try to communicate, is getting mixed up and diffused into the emotions and feelings of billions of existing artworks, torn apart and mixed into a soup. How does the individual artist account for all those mixed feelings coming from nearly random lives and experiences? I suppose i consider it similar to making a meal from a store bought kit and calling it cooking? I mean the act of doing that takes some effort, and some creativity is afforded, but it's not the same as cooking from scratch.

I agree with everything you say here. But also is it so wrong to make meals from store-bought kits to learn how it cook? Is paint-by-numbers destroying art or fostering a new generation of artists? And where do we draw the line for influence? Ultimately isn’t it up to the individual to decide what matters to them; what moves them?

If a sunset isn’t art, is a photograph of sunset art? I know there are people that consider nature photography—and indeed photography itself—not art. I think I’ve made my position pretty clear by now. I think art is personal. And I struggle with the perspective of anyone who deny anyone else their personal perspective on what is art.

 

[unfair]

I think this is where I see the issue with AI, in that our emotions that we may try to communicate, is getting mixed up and diffused into the emotions and feelings of billions of existing artworks, torn apart and mixed into a soup. How does the individual artist account for all those mixed feelings coming from nearly random lives and experiences? I suppose i consider it similar to making a meal from a store bought kit and calling it cooking?

I think this is where you differ from some of the other takes here - you seem to think art has to have a soul or some experiential component to be legitimate. I've tried to convey it a couple times but I'm not sure if you picked up on it - but I think it's the other way around - the viewer applies meaning to the art in many cases. Some art that people create could be interpreted as mechanical or devoid of emotion - does that mean it isn't art just because the viewer finds it "cold". And by the opposite token, is some abstract pattern with no meaning considered art if a viewer can find their own internal meaning or emotion to apply to it - or simply find the arrangement pleasant and "artistic"?

That's why I'm tempted to call what AI creates "art", because if I can take it, and post it on some person's Deviant Art page, and have it interpreted as their art, have meaning applied to it and seen as art, then how is it suddenly not art when that illusion is shattered and we know a machine made it? The generated image is unchanged, only our perception of it has changed because we aren't comfortable with imbuing a "soul" to a machine, but we're perfectly fine assuming that the image was some grand emotive design or experience when we assumed a person made it. Seems to me that looking at art through that lens is similar to anthropomorphizing animals or inanimate objects - imbuing a deeper meaning where there may be none even though a human made the object.

 

[tremault]

Do people really think I'm trying to take something away from them here? Maybe I'm misinterpreting but I feel like people are upset with me. I've tried to be really clear that I'm personally here to explore ideas and concepts and that's what I feel art is. And if other people are sharing different takes on what art is, then that's wholly in the nature of what I've presented as my own belief.

@Moe_Syzlak I never said there's anything wrong, I buy store made kits and meals all the time and they can be good. I don't think it's fair to present it to people as home-cooked though.

 

[addiesin]

I think it's a good thought exercise. I spent some time on it and my response is this. The art you perceive when you look at a sunset is the art that is created within you. without you, the sunset has no beauty or emotion.

Personally, I would consider the person you're describing to be the audience, and their interpretation of the art, rather than the artist responsible for creating the art. To me the emotions are not the art, they come from it. "Death of the artist" is supposed to be literary analysis theory but I believe it applies elsewhere, to the extent that not only is the artist's intent not required for a valid audience interpretation, there need not even be any intent or person behind it at all. (I realize now reading this again, I'm repeating myself, sorry)

The process of creating art is communicating that emotion to somebody else. Through the process of creating our art work, we are allowing our emotions to flow through our medium of choice. that resulting work that contains our essence, can then be received in it's entirety by the viewer and then interpreted. The mastery of our medium helps us to convey our feelings better.

I would mostly agree with this.

I think this is where I see the issue with AI, in that our emotions that we may try to communicate, is getting mixed up and diffused into the emotions and feelings of billions of existing artworks, torn apart and mixed into a soup. How does the individual artist account for all those mixed feelings coming from nearly random lives and experiences? I suppose i consider it similar to making a meal from a store bought kit and calling it cooking? I mean the act of doing that takes some effort, and some creativity is afforded, but it's not the same as cooking from scratch.

Here I would just say it may not be 'cooking', but the end result is still food, similar to my stated take on art, you can have food without cooking or even without a cook at all. Of course food made with love and care and knowledge and experience would be subjectively better food than something premade and frozen that you thaw out. But objectively, both are food.


Consider this. Anything you make as an artist is influenced by things you've felt, experienced, etc. Because of this, as an audience member for art, I see little difference between "your" memories and experiences, and an AI training model composed of a collection of other peoples' art. Similarly, you could say a novelist never writes anything new, because all the words they use were already in a dictionary.

 

[addiesin]

Do people really think I'm trying to take something away from them here? Maybe I'm misinterpreting but I feel like people are upset with me. I've tried to be really clear that I'm personally here to explore ideas and concepts and that's what I feel art is. And if other people are sharing different takes on what art is, then that's wholly in the nature of what I've presented as my own belief.

@Moe_Syzlak I never said there's anything wrong, I buy store made kits and meals all the time and they can be good. I don't think it's fair to present it to people as home-cooked though.

Sorry if it seems like a dog pile, I personally am just trying to explain my position and offer (hopefully) intriguing thought exercises on the topic.

 

[tremault]

Personally, I would consider the person you're describing to be the audience, and their interpretation of the art, rather than the artist responsible for creating the art. To me the emotions are not the art, they come from it. "Death of the artist" is supposed to be literary analysis theory but I believe it applies elsewhere, to the extent that not only is the artist's intent not required for a valid audience interpretation, there need not even be any intent or person behind it at all.

I would mostly agree with this.

Here I would just say it may not be 'cooking', but the end result is still food, similar to my stated take on art, you can have food without cooking or even without a cook at all. Of course food made with love and care and knowledge and experience would be subjectively better food than something premade and frozen that you thaw out. But objectively, both are food.

Consider this. Anything you make as an artist is influenced by things you've felt, experienced, etc. Because of this, as an audience member for art, I see little difference between "your" memories and experiences, and an AI training model composed of a collection of other peoples' art. Similarly, you could say a novelist never writes anything new, because all the words they use were already in a dictionary.

I love what you're saying here. It really drives deep into the whole subject of perception. What is it that we feel and why do we feel it. is our world simply a hallucination inside our minds, using our senses as instructions. yes. when I see a piece by a well known artist, is my interpretation the same as what they intended? Are we in our own reality or do we inhabit a shared experience through consensus of ideas? I've been playing Talos Principle 2 lately so these questions are floating round in my head lately.

 

[addiesin]

I love what you're saying here. It really drives deep into the whole subject of perception. What is it that we feel and why do we feel it. is our world simply a hallucination inside our minds, using our senses as instructions. yes. when I see a piece by a well known artist, is my interpretation the same as what they intended? Are we in our own reality or do we inhabit a shared experience through consensus of ideas? I've been playing Talos Principle 2 lately so these questions are floating round in my head lately.

This is exactly what I meant when I said it's philosophical. These abstract concepts are hard to pin down and really define appropriately.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

Do people really think I'm trying to take something away from them here? Maybe I'm misinterpreting but I feel like people are upset with me. I've tried to be really clear that I'm personally here to explore ideas and concepts and that's what I feel art is. And if other people are sharing different takes on what art is, then that's wholly in the nature of what I've presented as my own belief.

@Moe_Syzlak I never said there's anything wrong, I buy store made kits and meals all the time and they can be good. I don't think it's fair to present it to people as home-cooked though.

I’m sorry if you’re feeling attacked. That was not my intention. My point with the meals was simple: many people who become artists start with imitation. I had a teacher when I was in 6th grade that chastised me for writing a story that was very similar to Indiana Jones. Raiders had just come out and I admit I was smitten. I wrote an Indiana Jones fanfic. But I poured my preteen soul into that fanfic and she ripped it apart as derivative rather than looking at the story of Indiana Jones though me. That was defeating. It made me not want to pursue creative writing. And no matter how much she may have been right that the concept was not my own, I was definitely working my little ass off to be creative in my own way as much as I knew how at that point.

I think all of this is a great conversation. And I’m not sure there’s a “right” answer as to what constitutes art. And maybe there shouldn’t be. I know what it is to me (in that infamous pornography “I know it when I see it” kind of way). But art should be personal and if you don’t see it my way, well then I’m happy to live in a world with innumerable takes on what is art.

 

[tremault]

This is exactly what I meant when I said it's philosophical. These abstract concepts are hard to pin down and really define appropriately.

hmm.... yeah.
I felt the need to input a new prompt for this.

prompt: why do people have different definitions for art?

Is it something intrinsic to our core? Our sense of creativity? Is it something close to religion?

 

[tremault]

But I poured my preteen soul into that fanfic and she ripped it apart as derivative rather than looking at the story of Indiana Jones though me. That was defeating. It made me not want to pursue creative writing. And no matter how much she may have been right that the concept was not my own, I was definitely working my little ass off to be creative in my own way as much as I knew how at that point.

That's really sad and I'm sorry that happened to you. This is part of human nature, to convey things through our own lens. I feel like AI could take that away from us. It has potential to empower us but it also has the power to take away our own lens.

 

[tremault]

I tried to really describe this one thoroughly.

a robot head against a plain gradient backdrop. The head is shaped like an upside down egg with the face carved out of the front. The blue eyes appear like goggles and two nostrils are jutting out like tubes. The style is simple and smooth.

I was pretty descriptive, Is this my art or not?

Edit:
This is actually my art, not sure what exactly I was trying to achieve with this post. I'd gotten mixed up by something.

 

[addiesin]

I tried to really describe this one thoroughly.

a robot head against a plain gradient backdrop. The head is shaped like an upside down egg with the face carved out of the front. The blue eyes appear like goggles and two nostrils are jutting out like tubes. The style is simple and smooth.

I was pretty descriptive, Is this my art or not?

I would say mostly yes, with a catch. It's yours in the same way that art you may commission is yours. As is, you have contributed to it by providing concept, but haven't participated in execution.

Edit: however, if you were to take this character, use the simple gradient as an easy guide to remove the background, and created some other composition utilizing this head, then you have participated. And it's more yours in the intended way. The more you transform it the more yours it is.

 

[tremault]

I would say mostly yes, with a catch. It's yours in the same way that art you may commission is yours. As is, you have contributed to it by providing concept, but haven't participated in execution.

okay well I have to own up to a little lie of omission here... ^^
This was the one time I felt I could misrepresent in order to continue the experimentation.
I didn't say that was an AI generated image. I actually made that image from scratch myself in photoshop.

The next step is to put my description into a prompt and see what comes out. I used dreamStudio for the following image as Bing create is not currently working for some reason.

I'm sorry I deceived you for the experiment without your permission and I promise I won't deceive you again.