> Raines added local artists would have been "very willing to help" create a temporary mural, had they been asked.
For free? I find these arguments completely unconvincing and they completely ignore the extra work that would entail.
Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so. Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being. There is still good code and bad code but that exists separately from "was it AI generated". Judge things based on their merits, not their origins.
I look forward to a future where artists embrace AI tooling to further their work. I reject completely the idea that art must be 100% human created. For starters because it's absurd on the face of it, you might as well say no technology at all can be used and it still be called "art", and yes that includes your brushes and paints. You can see how this is an absurd idea. It's my understanding that often artists use other people to assemble their art pieces and/or fill-in painting on something like a mural. Since the artist didn't actually make it with their own hands is it no longer art?
There is just simply no logical place to draw the line on this and I'll be glad when we've moved past this distraction from progress. AI is another tool in the toolbox, avoiding it for the sake of avoiding it is silly and self-defeating.
My favourite commentary of specific art pieces comes from Patrick MacGoohan who said (of a piece of modern art) "it means what it is."
Were John Berger here, I'm sure he would remind us all that art does not exist in a vacuum, but lives in a social context.
The most meaningful (to me) critique of AI generated works are that they deprive the artist of the benefit of the investigation. As media become more disconnected (intermediated), the reasoning path between urge and resolution is obscured for the artist.
Generative models are highly intermediated.
The purpose of art may be thought of as the effort to produce artifacts. But at a societal level it is a process to reveal "truths" embedded in commonly held "lies."
I like this specific piece in the same way I liked Duchamp's urinal. It makes a statement about art more than being art. And in concretizing that statement raises itself to the status of "art."
But if Duchamp (or anyone else) tried to pass off a second urinal as a second fountain, the impact would not be there and it would not be art.
Which is to say... I think the Bedminster piece IS art because of its context. But subsequent AI generated pieces would need to be judged on different merits.
If the Bedminster piece is indicative of the quality of output of generative AI, human artists have nothing new to fear.
There has always been the danger of art patrons subsidizing substandard public art because of budget concerns. This is just the next chapter in that story.
Bedminster is not known for its patronage, and it's unlikely that will change anytime soon.
Though yes, to the degree that generative models rip off existing artists, whirl it around in a convolutional neural network and barf up something... Yes, this is a prime example of what Massimo Vignelli called "visual pollution."
Art isn't supposed to be comfortable and it's uncomfortable for a good reason, what if this became a trend? Would it endanger the organic art scene? Can these coexist?
That we are discussing it shows that the mural, even though it's AI generated is performing as art should. Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line? That's for me the most uncomfortable question.
I never made this assessment, that's not an interpretation you can derive from my comment in good faith. I just commented that art isn't supposed to be comfortable, nowhere I said that all art is uncomfortable. The mural is however performing just like art. What if this was an original confirmed banksy?
It's a good question. I just don't personally believe it's a challenging one. I'm comfortable drawing the line at simple AI art ("simple" as in nothing beyond some hours spent prompting - for somebody who finds a creative way to take it beyond that, I'd come back to the question).
We are not uncomfortable with what the art is saying but with what the meta-narrative around the art is saying, and I think that's an important distinction. Sometimes context is an important part of artistic interpretation and expression, but this time around I think the discomfort is that human intention is being replaced by a machine.
> If not, where do we draw the line?
I don't find this question uncomfortable at all: art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end. Human thought informing human action resulting in a human-created work. If you involved an AI, it is not art; it is a facsimile of art. If you agree that conveying emotion and meaning is an important part of art, and I think you do since you highlighted that art can and sometimes should be uncomfortable, then I posit that AI "art" cannot be art because there is no feeling, emotion, or creativity involved in its creation. An AI can only attempt to mimic human expression based on its training while the AI itself is incapable of these things.
> art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end
I disagree with your definition of art. One can use AI as a reference and the end result will still be art because it'll carry execution technique and the subjective perception of the artist. Saying otherwise would be like saying that electronic music isn't music because it's a computer producing the sound waves.
A better candidate would be "an object can be a work of art if and only if it wasn't made by machines end to end".
Ha, that is a fair critique. Now, I do consider electronic music to be art; in that case, I consider the computer or synthesizer to be an instrument, and thus the creative output of a DAW is still the artist's creative output. There is definitely some sloppiness in how I defined my terms; unfortunately, I'm just not going to commit my afternoon to an iron-clad definition of art for an internet comment.
I understand, and we need to have good faith to navigate wonky definitions, because impeccable definitions aren't a prerequisite for productive conversation.
I think it's a spectrum. DJing can go from hitting play with someone else's recorded live set to sampling live from vynil and midi controllers and mixing with voice, doing loops and the likes.
I think there is room for art in anything, including AI. Just like musicians like DJ Shadow managed to show it's perfectly possible to make great pieces using only sampling, I think we can go very far with AI generated art and still be able to call it art in good faith.
Maybe the art is the letter and the resulting media outrage rather than the mural itself, like the Leeds 13 “Going Places” degree show.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jun/08/martinwainwright
> Raines added local artists would have been "very willing to help" create a temporary mural, had they been asked.
For free? I find these arguments completely unconvincing and they completely ignore the extra work that would entail.
Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so. Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being. There is still good code and bad code but that exists separately from "was it AI generated". Judge things based on their merits, not their origins.
I look forward to a future where artists embrace AI tooling to further their work. I reject completely the idea that art must be 100% human created. For starters because it's absurd on the face of it, you might as well say no technology at all can be used and it still be called "art", and yes that includes your brushes and paints. You can see how this is an absurd idea. It's my understanding that often artists use other people to assemble their art pieces and/or fill-in painting on something like a mural. Since the artist didn't actually make it with their own hands is it no longer art?
There is just simply no logical place to draw the line on this and I'll be glad when we've moved past this distraction from progress. AI is another tool in the toolbox, avoiding it for the sake of avoiding it is silly and self-defeating.
> Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so.
Yes it does. Art is a form of expression, and clankers don't have sentience or intelligence to express themselves.
> Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being.
Code is a functional thing, not a form of expression. Though LLMs aren't good at that, either.
it's not pornography, but art is a subjective thing, so you really can't argue that AI art is valid, because Art is subjective.
You can, however, argue that you like the art I guess.
https://archive.ph/AV4LA
My favourite commentary of specific art pieces comes from Patrick MacGoohan who said (of a piece of modern art) "it means what it is."
Were John Berger here, I'm sure he would remind us all that art does not exist in a vacuum, but lives in a social context.
The most meaningful (to me) critique of AI generated works are that they deprive the artist of the benefit of the investigation. As media become more disconnected (intermediated), the reasoning path between urge and resolution is obscured for the artist.
Generative models are highly intermediated.
The purpose of art may be thought of as the effort to produce artifacts. But at a societal level it is a process to reveal "truths" embedded in commonly held "lies."
I like this specific piece in the same way I liked Duchamp's urinal. It makes a statement about art more than being art. And in concretizing that statement raises itself to the status of "art."
But if Duchamp (or anyone else) tried to pass off a second urinal as a second fountain, the impact would not be there and it would not be art.
Which is to say... I think the Bedminster piece IS art because of its context. But subsequent AI generated pieces would need to be judged on different merits.
If the Bedminster piece is indicative of the quality of output of generative AI, human artists have nothing new to fear.
There has always been the danger of art patrons subsidizing substandard public art because of budget concerns. This is just the next chapter in that story.
Bedminster is not known for its patronage, and it's unlikely that will change anytime soon.
Though yes, to the degree that generative models rip off existing artists, whirl it around in a convolutional neural network and barf up something... Yes, this is a prime example of what Massimo Vignelli called "visual pollution."
Bonus points for wedging a Vignelli quote in your response.
Artists unhappy the money train is ending, News at 11.
"The money train". Very good. If AI ever takes your job, might I suggest a second career as a comedian.
Where's the money train in painting murals?
I think artists are unhappy that something that does not fit all the criteria for "art" is being described as "art."
Was that an N scale train?
Smaller than N.
Hideous.
Art isn't supposed to be comfortable and it's uncomfortable for a good reason, what if this became a trend? Would it endanger the organic art scene? Can these coexist?
That we are discussing it shows that the mural, even though it's AI generated is performing as art should. Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line? That's for me the most uncomfortable question.
"Comfort implies art" is different from "art implies comfort."
Which is to say, not all art is comfortable, but not all things that are not comfortable are art.
It's perfectly fine for art to be comfortable. Stop gate-keeping.
I never made this assessment, that's not an interpretation you can derive from my comment in good faith. I just commented that art isn't supposed to be comfortable, nowhere I said that all art is uncomfortable. The mural is however performing just like art. What if this was an original confirmed banksy?
It's a good question. I just don't personally believe it's a challenging one. I'm comfortable drawing the line at simple AI art ("simple" as in nothing beyond some hours spent prompting - for somebody who finds a creative way to take it beyond that, I'd come back to the question).
So art with AI is only art if it took effort from the artist?
We are not uncomfortable with what the art is saying but with what the meta-narrative around the art is saying, and I think that's an important distinction. Sometimes context is an important part of artistic interpretation and expression, but this time around I think the discomfort is that human intention is being replaced by a machine.
> If not, where do we draw the line?
I don't find this question uncomfortable at all: art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end. Human thought informing human action resulting in a human-created work. If you involved an AI, it is not art; it is a facsimile of art. If you agree that conveying emotion and meaning is an important part of art, and I think you do since you highlighted that art can and sometimes should be uncomfortable, then I posit that AI "art" cannot be art because there is no feeling, emotion, or creativity involved in its creation. An AI can only attempt to mimic human expression based on its training while the AI itself is incapable of these things.
> art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end
I disagree with your definition of art. One can use AI as a reference and the end result will still be art because it'll carry execution technique and the subjective perception of the artist. Saying otherwise would be like saying that electronic music isn't music because it's a computer producing the sound waves.
A better candidate would be "an object can be a work of art if and only if it wasn't made by machines end to end".
Ha, that is a fair critique. Now, I do consider electronic music to be art; in that case, I consider the computer or synthesizer to be an instrument, and thus the creative output of a DAW is still the artist's creative output. There is definitely some sloppiness in how I defined my terms; unfortunately, I'm just not going to commit my afternoon to an iron-clad definition of art for an internet comment.
I understand, and we need to have good faith to navigate wonky definitions, because impeccable definitions aren't a prerequisite for productive conversation.
I think it's a spectrum. DJing can go from hitting play with someone else's recorded live set to sampling live from vynil and midi controllers and mixing with voice, doing loops and the likes.
I think there is room for art in anything, including AI. Just like musicians like DJ Shadow managed to show it's perfectly possible to make great pieces using only sampling, I think we can go very far with AI generated art and still be able to call it art in good faith.