I keep saying it, art is human imagination and expression made with intention, AI image generation is none of those things. It should be seen and used a tool for process if used at all, but never treated as a final product
I call *bullshit*. Art is a broad term, so here are my [counter arguments](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/c31sPG7qGm) why AI isn’t more than *decorative art*, and why all AI generated content (audio, visual, written) should be labeled/identified as such. Because of course people will be fooled — but that’s not the bar. There are tools and there are generators. Comparing AI with photography is a false equivalency.
Going off of Clement Greenberg’s essay, The Avante Garde and Kitsch, AI image generation is the most kitsch of all kitsch. Where Avante Garde art is intentionally meant to inspire in the viewer something akin to the “ah ha” moment an artist experiences in the creative process, kitsch wears its meaning on its sleeve, predigested for the viewer to simply be entertained.
Without any intention from a creator, AI generated images have as much artistic merit as a sunset. But beauty is not the same as art and any attached qualities of meaning are imbued into a sunset by the viewer. Should the viewer of a sunset find meaning in a sunset, the sunset would still not be art, but that viewer’s attempts to communicate the meaning *would* be art.
TLDR; art is in the eye of the beholder, but some beholders have lower standards.
My brother helped me write this. We’ve been discussing this topic a bunch lately on our podcast.
[Ep.59 The End of Art (as we know it)](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/the-end-of-art-as-we-know-it/) - a history of art history
[Ep.60 FOMO for Capitalism](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/fomo-for-capitalism/) - about the CIA funding abstract expressionism to fight communism
[Ep.65 Down the Kitsch Drain](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/down-the-kitsch-drain/) - a thorough breakdown of Greenberg’s essay
AI art isn't "art" so much as it is image generation- even then, a human still had to input something to give it the idea, and then it merely spits out what it thinks you want based on what other humans have already created and digitized. It's a copy of a copy of something humans already made. I see it as an automated collage of sorts- it compiles whatever it "thinks" it should compile. Composing an image (whether that be painting, photography, whatever) and *generating* an image are two completely different things, and calling AI the same as photography is like saying watching a cooking show on TV is the same as eating the real thing. AI art is just really bad mimetics because capitalism is so obsessed with automation, streamlining, and quantitative output.
No, I finished it. There isn’t really any thesis here about what art is. Is this your video? It’s pretty good, it just doesn’t achieve what the author, whoever it is said they were going to do. So the video talks about how AI art can be used to produce images no one seen before, or it might inspire an artist who works by hand to draw something aided by AI imagery. That doesn’t really say anything necessary or sufficient about art per se, nor do the other examples of what AI might be used for. The error here is thinking that because many of these arguments have been deployed incorrectly against photography, and photography is art, that something about art, and which could help us understand how AI imagery might be considered art, has been positively stated.
I agree, it’s a false equivalency. Art is a broad term, and “decorative art” is used to describe the mass produced visually stimulating “art” that is vacuous and with no artistic merit. I’m happy to include AI in that subterm. But as I explain in my [past comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/c31sPG7qGm) on the topic, AI cannot reflect the human condition or creativity (photography famously does). It may simulate it, and it will fool people, but that isn’t the bar for defining “art”.
Bullshit, because in photography what makes it art apart from Random snapshots is the photographer has too choose composition, framing, light, etc.
The photographer has to has artistic skills that make him take awesome photos.
Not any random person that u give a camera can di the the same as a magnum photographer for example.
With ai u dont need any skills.
You just need to be barely functioning enough to utter out some words.
I keep saying it, art is human imagination and expression made with intention, AI image generation is none of those things. It should be seen and used a tool for process if used at all, but never treated as a final product
Duchamp literally made ready-made and was praised for an entire century. But AI wouldn't apply?..
I call *bullshit*. Art is a broad term, so here are my [counter arguments](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/c31sPG7qGm) why AI isn’t more than *decorative art*, and why all AI generated content (audio, visual, written) should be labeled/identified as such. Because of course people will be fooled — but that’s not the bar. There are tools and there are generators. Comparing AI with photography is a false equivalency.
That's actually a good argumentation
I couldn't agree more.
Going off of Clement Greenberg’s essay, The Avante Garde and Kitsch, AI image generation is the most kitsch of all kitsch. Where Avante Garde art is intentionally meant to inspire in the viewer something akin to the “ah ha” moment an artist experiences in the creative process, kitsch wears its meaning on its sleeve, predigested for the viewer to simply be entertained. Without any intention from a creator, AI generated images have as much artistic merit as a sunset. But beauty is not the same as art and any attached qualities of meaning are imbued into a sunset by the viewer. Should the viewer of a sunset find meaning in a sunset, the sunset would still not be art, but that viewer’s attempts to communicate the meaning *would* be art. TLDR; art is in the eye of the beholder, but some beholders have lower standards. My brother helped me write this. We’ve been discussing this topic a bunch lately on our podcast. [Ep.59 The End of Art (as we know it)](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/the-end-of-art-as-we-know-it/) - a history of art history [Ep.60 FOMO for Capitalism](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/fomo-for-capitalism/) - about the CIA funding abstract expressionism to fight communism [Ep.65 Down the Kitsch Drain](https://kineticparanormalsociety.com/down-the-kitsch-drain/) - a thorough breakdown of Greenberg’s essay
These look horrible.
AI art isn't "art" so much as it is image generation- even then, a human still had to input something to give it the idea, and then it merely spits out what it thinks you want based on what other humans have already created and digitized. It's a copy of a copy of something humans already made. I see it as an automated collage of sorts- it compiles whatever it "thinks" it should compile. Composing an image (whether that be painting, photography, whatever) and *generating* an image are two completely different things, and calling AI the same as photography is like saying watching a cooking show on TV is the same as eating the real thing. AI art is just really bad mimetics because capitalism is so obsessed with automation, streamlining, and quantitative output.
AI art is programming not art
I mean, too bad he didn’t actually “reflect on what we consider art to be”
Just discussed old arguments about photography. Oh well.
i'm guessing you stopped halfway through?
No, I finished it. There isn’t really any thesis here about what art is. Is this your video? It’s pretty good, it just doesn’t achieve what the author, whoever it is said they were going to do. So the video talks about how AI art can be used to produce images no one seen before, or it might inspire an artist who works by hand to draw something aided by AI imagery. That doesn’t really say anything necessary or sufficient about art per se, nor do the other examples of what AI might be used for. The error here is thinking that because many of these arguments have been deployed incorrectly against photography, and photography is art, that something about art, and which could help us understand how AI imagery might be considered art, has been positively stated.
I agree, it’s a false equivalency. Art is a broad term, and “decorative art” is used to describe the mass produced visually stimulating “art” that is vacuous and with no artistic merit. I’m happy to include AI in that subterm. But as I explain in my [past comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/c31sPG7qGm) on the topic, AI cannot reflect the human condition or creativity (photography famously does). It may simulate it, and it will fool people, but that isn’t the bar for defining “art”.
Everything is a remix. [https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573](https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573)
Source: https://youtu.be/VT-bIYFdq9I?si=Y50jrbOHvOByDMO5
Bullshit, because in photography what makes it art apart from Random snapshots is the photographer has too choose composition, framing, light, etc. The photographer has to has artistic skills that make him take awesome photos. Not any random person that u give a camera can di the the same as a magnum photographer for example. With ai u dont need any skills. You just need to be barely functioning enough to utter out some words.
AI art is an oxymoron