If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person.
If you are in the camp that you don't care whether or not art was made by a human, this isn't even a little problem. If, however, you are in the camp that cares a lot about that, then this is a very, very serious problem.
Either way, this means that this isn't "just a tool" like a printing press. It's something completely different, and more than a tool.
For those who are afraid of AI being content generators that puts artist out of work will most likely be disappointed. However the technical gatekeeping some artist do goes away, and it makes room for more people being able to express them self creatively.
Art is about the why. We as humans will always ask that question, and we will produce answers, no matter the tools.
We've gone through multiple iterations of technology questioning if you are really an "artist" for using it, but the new creations and the new generation of artist puts that to shame in my opinion.
Digital pixels are not paint brushes. So if you do not move your mouse/brush to generate a stroke? What does it matter?
AI-tools speeds up the creative process which for some will let them go places we currently are having a hard time to imagine.
If you are literally explaining every stroke, then it doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about describing something in pretty general terms and allowing a computer to make the creative decisions (what "brush strokes" to make).
Here's a stupid personal and anecdotal example:
I've been trying to teach myself to do watercolor paintings of my photography.
That's been going OK, but with the help of img2img, I can "quickly" generate thousands of variations of Watercolor paintings of my OWN work, then choose the various elements I like, then I paint them into one painting. Which have led my freehand painting skills to improve at a much higher rate.
If however I just put up a feed of the generated watercolors from Sdiff, it would be immediate obvious. Of course, that's right now and doesn't speak to the vast improvements that are on the horizon.
This is what I'm personally seeing in my own circles of overlapping art creators trying to experiment with AI.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that: Artist will find ways to make their intentions stand out, whatever the tools we all have access to.
I completely disagree with this. According to this, no code can be art. For instance, videogames.
It has been enough time since ready-made (Duchamps urinal) and found objects, djing and sampling, and concept art. Art is not only drawing beautiful illustrations since at least the 2 world wars.
> If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story.
This is exactly how many artists work today, with a small army of workers, even interns, to execute the plan of the artist. Even Rembrandt had people painting to produce more pictures. Another example would be architects: does the star architect execute everything, or do they have the vision and instruct their very large teams?
IMO it is all about the intent and interpretation of a human.
I feel like this is probably a pretty bad example, generally the "art" in video games comes from things like dialogue, storytelling, level design, graphical art, not the physics engine or the renderer. There is simply not art there, it's more engineering.
There's little more art in the code portion of video games than there is in a jet engine.
Art can be anything, and I definitely consider some videogames art. The same can be said about architecture.
It's a matter of how much control you have over the end product, with AI it's very little. At best, if you want to be charitable, you could describe the role of the person using AI as an art director, but not an artist.
They would if they could. Your premise seems to be based on you only getting to interact with the AI "art"generator once.
What makes you finish the quote with "and call it a day."?
What about a writer that uses a recorder to record themselfs speaking out a book and never actually "writes"? Would they be a singer instead?
Ever heard of radio plays? Audio dramas?
Compare generative art tools to other generative art tools.
Unfortunately, short of more behind-the-scenes material and interviews, the only way to really get a feel for it is looking at their body of work as a whole. The great ones always have a specific style that they refine or evolve over time. It's unmistakably x.
I have to say, I've yet to see any AI artist hit a signature style, and I've yet to have an AI generated piece of art move me emotionally or conceptually.
Are they interesting? Sure. So's glitch art, but there's not much substance to any of it, and I remember none of it. Intent and self-expression is such a huge part of art.
Can you imagine what Hitchcock would say about AI anything? He wanted it 100% his way.
Tell that to music producers and digital artists. They don’t know what detailed instructions are run by the cpu of the device they use, and yet it is still art and they are still artists.
To go back to my ghost writer analogy, the reason that nobody would say I was the author is because I wasn't the one who made the creative decisions. I just described what I wanted to another person who made the creative decisions. Therefore, the other person is the author, not me.
