This is just aesthetic, not "soul", nothing there has a purpose or meaning, there's no story being told, nothing being expressed, its just "wow beautiful"
Even that art won against human artists. No matter how shit it is, someone who was chosen to judge art judged it as the best
This is just aesthetic, not "soul", nothing there has a purpose or meaning, there's no story being told, nothing being expressed, its just "wow beautiful"
What ever happened to death of the author? Liberal art types were screaming about that one just a couple of years back as they razzed the classical literature section. But now you're telling me that it no longer applies? Help me out here. I'm trying to figure out how this works.
Yes, although this is valid, the problem is that this isn't merely an option in AI art, its mandatory, its not that you can interpret it, you HAVE to interpret it, its mone akin to reading runes (attributing meaning to something that doesn't have any) than what we do when we interpret art.
You could argue its more interesting to draw your own conclusion for the meaning of a picture than having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.
>having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.
You don't have to, art appreciation is about how it resonates with you, not much about author's intention, the thing with AI is that it amounts to something like looking at the sunset or a landscape, yeah its beautiful but no one made that
But there's human intervention in selecting which image is used and how the prompt is refined on the way to getting the final image selected. So there is a human story behind it. The guy who made it wasn't just like "computur mek pickchure" and then went with the first output he got. You're either completely ignorant or being deliberately obtuse and I feel sick to my stomach for even wasting this much of my life on you
The bulk of the result is still AI, I'm fairly sure he didn't choose the lighting, color palette, subjects and a bunch of other things, yes he intervened, but its still more close to the other algorithmically generated stuff (like fractals) than a painting/drawing, (but there are people doing AI stuff but taking the driver's seat and contributing a lot more to the final result than just going with whatever comes out)
8 months ago
Anonymous
So the only real difference here is intention? Then we can make them two genres of art, different but still art with the capacity to be beautiful. Just like there's fiction and non-fiction.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>So the only real difference here is intention?
Yes, that's what differentiates a piece of art from any random thing, someone made it with purpose, a random rock in a river is a random rock in a river, but if someone put it there its art. >Then we can make them two genres of art
I never claimed it wasn't art, I was talking more about the "soul" part, as I said, its more close to something like making fractal art then a drawing or painting, you can sorta shape the final result but it isn't something you crafted, its a spectrum, one side you have stuff like hand-made sculptures and paintings, in the other you have fractals, dadaism and AI, it isn't like one is better than the other, they are different, and most people are more drawn to those things that require more human input, more craftsmanship, not to say that they are better, but when people talk about art they are actually more likely than not talking about craftsmanship, they just don't realize it.
>its more interesting to hear what i want to hear instead of trying to figure out what is being communicated
i know this seems deep when youre new to art in general but “drawing your own conclusion” is not that deep once youre older than 27 years old and have been around art more than barely. the whole “death of the author” purism thing is fine while you’re building your tastes but then once you actually have a decent sensibility you can let the contexts back into consideration.
But there's human intervention in selecting which image is used and how the prompt is refined on the way to getting the final image selected. So there is a human story behind it. The guy who made it wasn't just like "computur mek pickchure" and then went with the first output he got. You're either completely ignorant or being deliberately obtuse and I feel sick to my stomach for even wasting this much of my life on you
What ever happened to death of the author? Liberal art types were screaming about that one just a couple of years back as they razzed the classical literature section. But now you're telling me that it no longer applies? Help me out here. I'm trying to figure out how this works.
Death of the author is the principle that you can't say "this work is shit b-but the context of the author's life so it's actually good!", instead it must stand on its own and if people fail to interpret it like the author intended, it's because the author fucking sucks.
There is no way to use death of the author to kill classical anything, only newfangled modernist garbage.
Regarding AI-generated images, they're just way off and there are only two reasons they win: most artists are incapable of even the basics because of the modernist garbage they're corrupted with, and the judges are just as bad. For example,
https://i.imgur.com/ly2zjD8.jpg
Can we admit that AI has as much 'soul' at this point than any human 'artist'?
only looks good at a far distance. Compare with early impressionist paintings (because later impressionism is also modernist trash): if you look closely, the whole disappears, but what you see is still aesthetically pleasing. It's like a poem that you can read both top to bottom or bottom to top such that it still makes sense but the meaning becomes inverted. Same deal with
it doesn't look anything like a photograph of the time, the lighting pattern is just wrong as is the blur effect, for example. There is also nothing interesting about the subject, but that's another topic.
Also you claim that "AI has soul" but neither image were generated de novo, the 'author' guided both, even modified them using editing tools. Would you say that photographers are also merely using nature so it's nature and not the artist that has soul? Or that it's paint that has soul, not the painter who made the picture?
Liberal art fags have no awareness that they are pawns to elites.
Elites use shitty art as a medium of exchange to avoid taxes and as a black market currency.
Corporations and countries buy Hunter Biden's "art" for millions of dollars. Is it really worth millions? Not to anyone who doesn't want to buy power from the current US administration. But if you need a bill passed or a permit, then it's worth far more than a couple of million.
A politician buys some piece of shit painting for $2000. A rich fuck buys it from the politician for $2,000,000 and then throws it in the garbage. The politician does his part "for free".
It was the hooman proompt that had soul, it just happened that he didn't have the skill to draw to express it which AI helped him with to compete against a bunch of postmodern soulless NPCs.
I feel no emotion in this pic. There is literally no visible flow or pattern. When I look at the details, I'm instantly repulsed.
It has no natural rhythm. Whoever judged these pictures as being good at all is a fucking moron.
I can see AI as being good for conceptual or framework ideas, but it's absolutely 100% worthless elsewhere.
You tell him, sister! Now do the thing where you really mog on him by posting your own work that is superior! You got this!
[...]
Even that art won against human artists. No matter how shit it is, someone who was chosen to judge art judged it as the best
It was the hooman proompt that had soul, it just happened that he didn't have the skill to draw to express it which AI helped him with to compete against a bunch of postmodern soulless NPCs.
Death of the author is the principle that you can't say "this work is shit b-but the context of the author's life so it's actually good!", instead it must stand on its own and if people fail to interpret it like the author intended, it's because the author fucking sucks.
There is no way to use death of the author to kill classical anything, only newfangled modernist garbage.
Regarding AI-generated images, they're just way off and there are only two reasons they win: most artists are incapable of even the basics because of the modernist garbage they're corrupted with, and the judges are just as bad. For example, [...] only looks good at a far distance. Compare with early impressionist paintings (because later impressionism is also modernist trash): if you look closely, the whole disappears, but what you see is still aesthetically pleasing. It's like a poem that you can read both top to bottom or bottom to top such that it still makes sense but the meaning becomes inverted. Same deal with [...] it doesn't look anything like a photograph of the time, the lighting pattern is just wrong as is the blur effect, for example. There is also nothing interesting about the subject, but that's another topic.
Also you claim that "AI has soul" but neither image were generated de novo, the 'author' guided both, even modified them using editing tools. Would you say that photographers are also merely using nature so it's nature and not the artist that has soul? Or that it's paint that has soul, not the painter who made the picture?
It didn't win against paintings. It was in the "digitally manipulated image" category. So it was up against a bunch of meme photoshoops not actual art.
I like watching art trannies shitting and pissing on themselves as much as the next anon, but that looks like shit to me. I am barely artistic enough to sign my name and it still looks fucked to my eyes. I would imagine someone who actually knows what they are looking at can see that it's not right immediately. Arms are coming from weird directions, the right hand is a big bony man hand and the left is a feminine hand but with the wrist twisted around backwards, the left eye is all fucked up, there is a river running through the left cheek, and the right arm never stops being cloth. It doesn't look like anything special.
That's a very nice composition, too bad the image is so bad.
>So the only real difference here is intention?
Yes, that's what differentiates a piece of art from any random thing, someone made it with purpose, a random rock in a river is a random rock in a river, but if someone put it there its art. >Then we can make them two genres of art
I never claimed it wasn't art, I was talking more about the "soul" part, as I said, its more close to something like making fractal art then a drawing or painting, you can sorta shape the final result but it isn't something you crafted, its a spectrum, one side you have stuff like hand-made sculptures and paintings, in the other you have fractals, dadaism and AI, it isn't like one is better than the other, they are different, and most people are more drawn to those things that require more human input, more craftsmanship, not to say that they are better, but when people talk about art they are actually more likely than not talking about craftsmanship, they just don't realize it.
That's modernist troonery logic. The difference between art and not art is if it's deliberately made and looks good, period. An architectural building made for habitation and not for art purposes, can be art. A status can be not-art.
>and looks good
According to whom? The intergalactic art committee? Popular vote of the current living humans and their standards? >A status can be not-art
what?
statue* >According to whom?
People with working brains. >the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance >the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings:
If anything, all this shit has proved is that the so called judges don't actually look at the work, or at least haven't been briefed on tell tale signs (as of now)
>those creepy fucked up hands >body blurred the fuck out of it
haha yeah AIbros. Winning was totally and I mean TOTALLY accidental. No way $10,000,000,000 (10 billion) of dollars from Microsoft and billions of dollars from other companies are mixed up in this. No way money played any role here at all, it was just coincidental that exactly OpenAI picture won the award out of thousands from Midjourney and Stable Diffusion (which are way better looking).
I REPEAT MONEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. THERE IS NO FRAUD. AGAIN, THERE IS NO FRAUD. YOU ARE JUST ARTFAGS SEETHING AT AI SUPERIORITY. And don't forget to get your 8th vaccine booster that is also totally not a fraud, because there is surely no way a huge company would commit to a fraud.
nobody will ever convince me that contemporary art (1800s onwards) can match the classical style that actually looks impressive and aesthetic. AI can win these contests because the bar for art form is so incredible low thanks for incels like van gough and pablo basedcasso whose art pieces look like that are drawn by children. it's one of few things in like that unironically makes me seethe seeing the course in history that art has taken
I genuinely cannot fathom how low one's IQ would need to be to see this image and not immediately know that it was doctored so I'm going to assume that this is another publicity stunt and everyone involved knew it was an AI image the whole time.
from that article: >The work SWPA has chosen is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge.
it's not 100% AI. they still fell for it.
hope they don't sue the guy for fraud or something.
It's just creepy looking.
Par for the course really.
>The so-called judges couldn't tell it was an AI pic just by its fucked up fingers.
What a joke. I can bet it was picked just to cause controvesy.
This
>Sony World Photography Awards
lol
https://www.ai.sony/
>it's fake because sony has an AI blog
lmao artfag cope is HARD
those hands are fucked
>blue checkmark
Tourist on this board really let the algorithm decide what they need to think.
Can we admit that AI has as much 'soul' at this point than any human 'artist'?
That looks like dogshit
You tell him, sister! Now do the thing where you really mog on him by posting your own work that is superior! You got this!
Even that art won against human artists. No matter how shit it is, someone who was chosen to judge art judged it as the best
This is just aesthetic, not "soul", nothing there has a purpose or meaning, there's no story being told, nothing being expressed, its just "wow beautiful"
Who says it has no meaning? Why can't the artist tell a story with it?
Yes, although this is valid, the problem is that this isn't merely an option in AI art, its mandatory, its not that you can interpret it, you HAVE to interpret it, its mone akin to reading runes (attributing meaning to something that doesn't have any) than what we do when we interpret art.
You could argue its more interesting to draw your own conclusion for the meaning of a picture than having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.
>having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.
You don't have to, art appreciation is about how it resonates with you, not much about author's intention, the thing with AI is that it amounts to something like looking at the sunset or a landscape, yeah its beautiful but no one made that
The bulk of the result is still AI, I'm fairly sure he didn't choose the lighting, color palette, subjects and a bunch of other things, yes he intervened, but its still more close to the other algorithmically generated stuff (like fractals) than a painting/drawing, (but there are people doing AI stuff but taking the driver's seat and contributing a lot more to the final result than just going with whatever comes out)
So the only real difference here is intention? Then we can make them two genres of art, different but still art with the capacity to be beautiful. Just like there's fiction and non-fiction.
>So the only real difference here is intention?
Yes, that's what differentiates a piece of art from any random thing, someone made it with purpose, a random rock in a river is a random rock in a river, but if someone put it there its art.
>Then we can make them two genres of art
I never claimed it wasn't art, I was talking more about the "soul" part, as I said, its more close to something like making fractal art then a drawing or painting, you can sorta shape the final result but it isn't something you crafted, its a spectrum, one side you have stuff like hand-made sculptures and paintings, in the other you have fractals, dadaism and AI, it isn't like one is better than the other, they are different, and most people are more drawn to those things that require more human input, more craftsmanship, not to say that they are better, but when people talk about art they are actually more likely than not talking about craftsmanship, they just don't realize it.
>its more interesting to hear what i want to hear instead of trying to figure out what is being communicated
i know this seems deep when youre new to art in general but “drawing your own conclusion” is not that deep once youre older than 27 years old and have been around art more than barely. the whole “death of the author” purism thing is fine while you’re building your tastes but then once you actually have a decent sensibility you can let the contexts back into consideration.
But there's human intervention in selecting which image is used and how the prompt is refined on the way to getting the final image selected. So there is a human story behind it. The guy who made it wasn't just like "computur mek pickchure" and then went with the first output he got. You're either completely ignorant or being deliberately obtuse and I feel sick to my stomach for even wasting this much of my life on you
What ever happened to death of the author? Liberal art types were screaming about that one just a couple of years back as they razzed the classical literature section. But now you're telling me that it no longer applies? Help me out here. I'm trying to figure out how this works.
Death of the author is the principle that you can't say "this work is shit b-but the context of the author's life so it's actually good!", instead it must stand on its own and if people fail to interpret it like the author intended, it's because the author fucking sucks.
There is no way to use death of the author to kill classical anything, only newfangled modernist garbage.
Regarding AI-generated images, they're just way off and there are only two reasons they win: most artists are incapable of even the basics because of the modernist garbage they're corrupted with, and the judges are just as bad. For example,
only looks good at a far distance. Compare with early impressionist paintings (because later impressionism is also modernist trash): if you look closely, the whole disappears, but what you see is still aesthetically pleasing. It's like a poem that you can read both top to bottom or bottom to top such that it still makes sense but the meaning becomes inverted. Same deal with
it doesn't look anything like a photograph of the time, the lighting pattern is just wrong as is the blur effect, for example. There is also nothing interesting about the subject, but that's another topic.
Also you claim that "AI has soul" but neither image were generated de novo, the 'author' guided both, even modified them using editing tools. Would you say that photographers are also merely using nature so it's nature and not the artist that has soul? Or that it's paint that has soul, not the painter who made the picture?
Liberal art fags have no awareness that they are pawns to elites.
Elites use shitty art as a medium of exchange to avoid taxes and as a black market currency.
Corporations and countries buy Hunter Biden's "art" for millions of dollars. Is it really worth millions? Not to anyone who doesn't want to buy power from the current US administration. But if you need a bill passed or a permit, then it's worth far more than a couple of million.
A politician buys some piece of shit painting for $2000. A rich fuck buys it from the politician for $2,000,000 and then throws it in the garbage. The politician does his part "for free".
It was the hooman proompt that had soul, it just happened that he didn't have the skill to draw to express it which AI helped him with to compete against a bunch of postmodern soulless NPCs.
I feel no emotion in this pic. There is literally no visible flow or pattern. When I look at the details, I'm instantly repulsed.
It has no natural rhythm. Whoever judged these pictures as being good at all is a fucking moron.
I can see AI as being good for conceptual or framework ideas, but it's absolutely 100% worthless elsewhere.
That reaction is purely because you already knew it to be an AI painting.
Hitler's uncanny paintings are guaranteed better than this AI shit.
That reaction is purely because you already knew it to be an AI painting.
No it doesn't. I'm just not impressed.
The world can never know
you're the kind of guy that knows everything was obvious after it already happened. it was obvious to you
It didn't win against paintings. It was in the "digitally manipulated image" category. So it was up against a bunch of meme photoshoops not actual art.
It's always the case with those AI images that win, but that's not the point either.
You can tell an art is AI instantly so wtf are those judges smoking?
there is nothing in the circle, the shapes are deformed. the ai is not thinking it's 1 step above a random noise generator
>any
No. At the VERY best I'll give you more soul than any artist on /ic/.
Cope AI chud.
You will never be a real artist.
>generic Magic: the Gathering pic
Is that the best you can aspire to?
Funny because being an artist for magic the gathering is what many artists dream of
And many dream of working at anime studios but that doesn't mean all the seasonal moe garbage is art.
Cope
i dont know of any artists for whom that would be remotely true
I like watching art trannies shitting and pissing on themselves as much as the next anon, but that looks like shit to me. I am barely artistic enough to sign my name and it still looks fucked to my eyes. I would imagine someone who actually knows what they are looking at can see that it's not right immediately. Arms are coming from weird directions, the right hand is a big bony man hand and the left is a feminine hand but with the wrist twisted around backwards, the left eye is all fucked up, there is a river running through the left cheek, and the right arm never stops being cloth. It doesn't look like anything special.
Ai is so bad at generating realistic images that people are giving it awards for making pictures that look eerie. Sad.
agreed this is pretty sad.
Why are humans so crazy?
that looks like garbage what the fuck
>lie that you took a photo
Rules are simple, show photo taken with a camera
underrated post
attention whoring on the ai hype
There is no way the didn't know it was an AI image. The hand is glitching out for fuck's sake
I submitted some things to art comps before this all took off as being well known.
That's a very nice composition, too bad the image is so bad.
That's modernist troonery logic. The difference between art and not art is if it's deliberately made and looks good, period. An architectural building made for habitation and not for art purposes, can be art. A status can be not-art.
>and looks good
According to whom? The intergalactic art committee? Popular vote of the current living humans and their standards?
>A status can be not-art
what?
statue*
>According to whom?
People with working brains.
>the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance
>the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings:
wow its look like dogshit
If anything, all this shit has proved is that the so called judges don't actually look at the work, or at least haven't been briefed on tell tale signs (as of now)
They shouldn't need to check if it's AI or not at all, they should judge based purely on if it's good or not. They don't do that, though.
>those creepy fucked up hands
>body blurred the fuck out of it
haha yeah AIbros. Winning was totally and I mean TOTALLY accidental. No way $10,000,000,000 (10 billion) of dollars from Microsoft and billions of dollars from other companies are mixed up in this. No way money played any role here at all, it was just coincidental that exactly OpenAI picture won the award out of thousands from Midjourney and Stable Diffusion (which are way better looking).
I REPEAT MONEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. THERE IS NO FRAUD. AGAIN, THERE IS NO FRAUD. YOU ARE JUST ARTFAGS SEETHING AT AI SUPERIORITY. And don't forget to get your 8th vaccine booster that is also totally not a fraud, because there is surely no way a huge company would commit to a fraud.
#TrustThePlan #2moreWeeksUntilAGI
how could they not tell?
this looks fake as fuck
This.
There's something more behind things like this (as always).
art is whatever was made by an artist. is the chatgpt an artist? no its just matrix algebra.
nobody will ever convince me that contemporary art (1800s onwards) can match the classical style that actually looks impressive and aesthetic. AI can win these contests because the bar for art form is so incredible low thanks for incels like van gough and pablo basedcasso whose art pieces look like that are drawn by children. it's one of few things in like that unironically makes me seethe seeing the course in history that art has taken
this looks as shit
this more your style? homosexual
>pre-1799 art enjoyer
>strawman arguer
checks out
post some art then bitch before I fuck u up
Every argument on Bot.info
>i have A opinion
>oh, so you have X, Y, Z opinion?
Pollock is great, you can like both.
There is no way they couldn't tell this was AI generated. Maybe they thought it was shopped, but that wouldn't fool an amateur.
I can tell it's ai, but maybe a boomer couldn't. Also I notice it's a lesbian theme, possibly incest, and there's semen at the top of the picture
So they gave the award because it's an image with two assumed lesbians
Then got scammed because it's obviously AI but politics
Fucking kek
this looks like garbage the hands are fucked up and the dude in the back looks like a melting paul mccartney
AI always fucks up the hands and feet
>that fucked up lightning on the face in the back
>judges fall for this
I genuinely cannot fathom how low one's IQ would need to be to see this image and not immediately know that it was doctored so I'm going to assume that this is another publicity stunt and everyone involved knew it was an AI image the whole time.
from that article:
>The work SWPA has chosen is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge.
it's not 100% AI. they still fell for it.
hope they don't sue the guy for fraud or something.
its clearly AI generated wtf are they smoking, look at the hands, all the details are shit