r/changemyview • u/lobaway0001 • 1d ago
CMV: There is no fundamental difference between photography and AI generated images that allows one to be considered art and not the other.
There is no fundamental difference between photography and AI-generated images that makes one inherently art and the other not. Both rely on technology to translate human choices into an image: photographers choose subjects, framing, lighting, lenses, and editing, while AI artists choose prompts, references, composition, and iterations. Neither requires the creator to physically construct every detail. If artistic value comes from intention, expression, and creative decision-making, both can qualify as art.
12
u/Superbooper24 42∆ 1d ago
There's really no reason to think that subjects, framing, lighting, lenses, and editing is the same as prompts, references, composition, and iterations. Sure, they both use technology, but I think that people would still consider animators as artists even though they are using technology. The use of technology is not the difference marker, but the difference really is whether or not there is some tangible skill being produced. You are not a writer using AI to write an essay for you, and just because you typed a couple prompts in means very little because the skill has been negated.
7
u/theflighttest 1d ago
A good way to consider this is reproducability. An artist can reproduce virtually any work the same as the first time given the same supplies and conditions. A person using AI will never get the same result twice, even with the same supplies and conditions.
A better consideration: Is the artist the person who says what they want a photo of, or the person who takes the photo?
3
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
A person using AI will never get the same result twice, even with the same supplies and conditions.
This is true if you use the widely available consumer cloud models. But this is only because they do not allow the end user to configure certain parameters.
If you used a local model, you can absolutely fix the seed and use identical settings to get the same result twice.
•
u/Ok-Paint-5241 12h ago
That's not really true. Take a photo of some clouds, wait a day and then try to take exactly the same photo.
10
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
Using AI like you describe is not much different than someone telling an artist what to create then the actual artist creates it. If we go by your logic then the person commissioning art from an artist is just as much an artist as the actual person creating the art.
2
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 1d ago
artist is just as much an artist as the actual person creating the art
when two people work together to make art, its possible for one of them to do 99% of the work.
to hold with OP's analogy, supposed i describe a shot in great detail. I describe the lighting, the angle, the foreground the background, the framing etc. like the director of a movie i describe every little detail, but i never touch the camera.
In the case of commissioning a piece of art, you are almost certainly relying on the artist to be more then an AI. I might just have a goal in mind. The artist might ask me questions or give suggestions. they're not simply a painter, they are more then the user of a paintbrush, they are thinking and talking.
what people are missing in this debate is that artists can use AI to create art. Its not a replacement for artist, it is a tool artists can use.
if you give a terrible prompt to AI, you'll get AI slope. If you tell it exactly what you want and learn to write good prompts, you're an artist using a tool to create art.
-1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I'm not making the claim that AI generated images are or are not art. I am making the claim that if photography is considered art, then there is no difference that disallows AI generated images to be not considered the same. If photography is not considered art, I would also say AI generated images are not considered art.
3
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ 1d ago
A photographer can predict what changes will appear in a photograph when they make changes in camera settings, lighting, framing, etc. Can somebody generating an AI image predict subtle changes in the output based on a change in their prompt?
Photography is imbued with much greater intentionality than AI images, where prompts generate big picture elements and then a user's taste has them select an image.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
People can definitely predict changes in the output based on their prompt. That's the whole point of the prompt.
I accept that your point was subtle changes.
You noted a photographer can predict what kind of changes will appear in a photograph. I would argue they also cannot predict subtle changes.
Photography has many cases where it has greater intentionality than AI images. But also happens to have cases where it has less intentionality than AI images.
2
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ 1d ago
People can definitely predict changes in the output based on their prompt. That's the whole point of the prompt.
I accept that your point was subtle changes.
This is important. With a prompt you can say "I want there to be an eagle in the corner" and it'll be there. But you cannot confidently create a subtle change in lighting to adjust how the piece feels, except by trying it and seeing if it works.
Somebody using an AI image generation tool is a curator. They can generate a bunch of different images and choose one that they like. That is different.
There are art pieces that lean into this unpredictability. A lot of the interest in a work by Agnes Martin is in the micro variations in her lines, which occur by chance. But this is an intentional part of the art rather than something that we shouldn't notice.
There are also art pieces that lean into the gap between instruction and the created object. Sol LeWitt has pieces where he just gives instructions to another person to follow so that each installation is different. But again, this is part of the art. I could imagine an art piece that explores this relationship between prompt and image, but that's not happening in most cases.
You noted a photographer can predict what kind of changes will appear in a photograph. I would argue they also cannot predict subtle changes.
Why would you argue this? My understanding is that this is straightforwardly incorrect.
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
But this is an intentional part of the art rather than something that we shouldn't notice.
If an artist intentionally used an AI model to intentionally generate something unintentional, is the result disqualified from being considerable as art?
I could imagine an art piece that explores this relationship between prompt and image, but that's not happening in most cases.
I think that's a subtle part of the overall point. That individual examples, even if they are the majority, do not necessarily disqualify (or qualify) an entire medium.
Why would you argue this? My understanding is that this is straightforwardly incorrect.
On my side, my understanding is that it is straightforwardly correct.
Firstly, there may be a semantic misunderstanding between us. It is unclear to me at what point of taking the photograph you meant for this prediction to happen. If you realize what our misunderstanding is after my attempt at an explanation, feel free to point it out. My attempt at an explanation:
In order for a photographer to be able to (accurately) predict "subtle changes" in their photograph, they would also need to be able to predict any potential "subtle changes" in the universe. Because the latter is not possible, I contend that the former is also not possible.
I appreciate your discourse so far.
1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ 1d ago
If an artist intentionally used an AI model to intentionally generate something unintentional, is the result disqualified from being considerable as art?
No. If the art is about the relationship between prompt and its output (like the Sol LeWitt example) then it can be novel and interesting. But if there is no acknowledgement of the relationship between the prompt and its output then... yeah I think it is difficult for an AI generated piece to achieve the elements of artistic expression. It can be a functional object but not an expressive object.
I have never found a person who is defending AI image generation as an artistic medium talking about the relationship between prompt and image. They want the standalone output to be considered art.
In order for a photographer to be able to (accurately) predict "subtle changes" in their photograph, they would also need to be able to predict any potential "subtle changes" in the universe. Because the latter is not possible, I contend that the former is also not possible.
In action photography where you are capturing a fleeting moment, perhaps. But it is not the case that photography just involves pointing at something interesting and shooting, even in something like landscape photography where the photographer does not have direct control over the lighting conditions.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago edited 1d ago
No. If the art is about the relationship between prompt and its output (like the Sol LeWitt example) then it can be novel and interesting.
So, you believe there are cases where AI generated images can be considered art. I assume you also believe there are photographs that can considered art.
I also assume you believe there are cases where AI generated images are not considered art. And I assume you believe there are photographs that are not considered art.
The core question my view poses is whether or not it's the same fundamental basis that is compelling you to have those views.
I have never found a person who is defending AI image generation as an artistic medium talking about the relationship between prompt and image. They want the standalone output to be considered art.
I am not defending AI image generation as an artistic medium and I personally don't have a strong opinion on if some arbitrarily standalone output of an AI model is considered art or not (though I lean "no").
I am saying that either both AI images and photographs are eligible to be considered art or neither are eligible to be considered art.
Just to be clear, I am also not saying all AI images have to be considered the same and I am not trying to say all photographs have to be considered the same.
In action photography where you are capturing a fleeting moment, perhaps. But it is not the case that photography just involves pointing at something interesting and shooting, even in something like landscape photography where the photographer does not have direct control over the lighting conditions.
I accept that not all of photography involves unpredictability, "randomness", or "uncontrollability". I am simply saying that, even in areas of photography that do involve those traits, people accept that those traits do not automatically qualify or disqualify those areas of photography as being art and yet people use those same traits to try to qualify or disqualify AI generated images as being art. My view is that to do this is inconsistent. Either a trait is able to qualify or disqualify a medium as art or it is not able to do it.
1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ 1d ago
So, you believe there are cases where AI generated images can be considered art.
No. I believe that there are cases where an AI generated image presented alongside the prompt can be considered art. The art is the interaction between prompt and image.
I am saying that either both AI images and photographs are eligible to be considered art or neither are eligible to be considered art.
These styles of CMVs are banned here, and for good reason. They typically exist to hide some sort of detailed view. This should be about your view, not other people's views. What do you believe about AI images and photography? Surely you believe something.
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
If you are referring to "posts cannot express a neutral stance", I am decidedly not expressing a neutral stance.
I am taking the stance that the eligibility of photography to be considered art is the same as the eligibility of AI generated images to be considered art. Not that photography is or is not art, and not that AI generated images are or are not art.
It is similar to if I said, "I consider white people and Asian people equally deserving of rights". I am not trying to argue that they should both have rights. I am not trying to argue they both shouldn't have rights. My view is just for consistency in how they are treated.
Everyone is trying to drag me into a conversation about "are AI images art" or "is photography art". It is like asking "do white people deserve rights" or "do Asian people not deserve rights." The answer is, I have completely no idea if they deserve rights. What kind of rights are we talking about? How many rights are we talking about? Who decides these rights?
What I do believe, and what I know not everyone agrees with, is that regardless of what rights Asian people have or white people have, they are equally deserving of the same rights.
To get into the actual minutia of the quantity or quality of rights is ultimately just an insane deviation off of the fundamental scope of what I am trying to express. I feel it is not only irrelevant to what I am actually interested in having my view changed in but also an incredibly large distraction from actually discussing it.
Very frankly, I have no idea why you find it that hard to believe that I legitimately just want to discuss the actual logical consistency in the consideration between photography and AI generated images. You, and apparently many others, very much want to discuss what is art and what isn't art. I am not as interested. In fact, I feel if you actually want my personal view on the matter, I feel like discussing if something is or isn't art is largely pointless. This isn't some malicious attempt to "hide some sort of detailed view." As I mentioned, I just feel it is both irrelevant, and a distraction.
With that said, I have discovered that people are borderline incapable of discussing what I actually want to discuss without traversing at least somewhat into some concrete position on "is this art or not", so I have humored slight deviations.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
So your view is photography and AI art are exactly the same?
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
No, I also don't have the view that they have no difference at all.
My view is they lack a fundamental difference that allows for a different interpretation on their eligibility to be considered art.
2
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
My first comment pointed out how they are fundamentally different...
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
You've pointed out a difference, I'll even say it is a fundamental difference, but you haven't tied together how this difference allows for a different interpretation on the two mediums in regards to their consideration of being "art".
I'll address your original comment directly:
You said AI images is like commissioning an artist. Fine. You are implying in this statement that you consider AI images to be art (not even a view I necessarily have or am trying to argue for), unless you want to say that the result of a commission is never art.
I am assuming just from the context of what you have said in your other comments you believe the results of photography are considered art.
How does this address what I am saying if you are just saying the two are both art? I am literally saying, either both are considered art, or neither are considered art.
2
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
My point is how they are created is fundamentally different and that is the key difference that makes one considered art and the other not.
Do you consider someone who commissions a painter to create a specific painting an artist?
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
My view doesn't cover the scope of who is an artist and who isn't an artist.
It doesn't even cover the scope of what is art and what isn't art.
As I've said in another comment, it's as if I said "there is no fundamental difference between white people and Asian people that allows one to have rights and disallows the other to have rights".
Someone could say "white people and Asian people look different". And that is a difference between them. And even a difference that people use to actually justify racism and bigotry. But it doesn't actually explain why you think that difference is actually rationally or logically relevant in regards to treating them differently.
You can point out differences all day, but you haven't actually explained how the difference you've pointed out is actually relevant to their eligibility as art.
1
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
You are just tip toeing around actually answering anything...
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
... My whole comment chain with you is because I feel like you are not answering my actual view.
And for what it's worth, you asked if I view photography and AI images as being exactly the same, and I answered you very explicitly with a "no" and an explanation.
You've then asked
Do you consider someone who commissions a painter to create a specific painting an artist?
which is fair enough if you say I didn't answer directly, but my entire point is, that question is not even really relevant to what I am talking about. My premise does not hinge upon whether or not the painter is an artist. It doesn't hinge upon whether or not the commissioner is an artist. We can assume the answer is whatever you want it to be.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 1d ago
You are genuinely suggesting that there's no fundamental difference between photography and AI art?
2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
The view isn't that there isn't a fundamental difference. The view is that there isn't a fundamental difference that allows one to be considered art and not the other.
6
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 1d ago
Art is subjective. What do you think does allow something to be considered art or not?
3
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I'm not making an assertion that photographs are art or aren't art, or that AI generated images are or are not art.
I am making an assertion that whichever one is, whether it is art or is not art, there is no fundamental difference in the other one that would allow for it to be considered differently.
5
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 1d ago
So you're being vague enough that your view can't be defined. Lame.
2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I mean, the view is that the "eligibility to be considered art" is the same for photography and AI generated images.
2
u/themcos 442∆ 1d ago
I don't know if OP made the best case for it, but I think there is an interesting parallel between photography and AI images.
If you're a painter, unless it's just painting walls flat colors, almost anyone would consider you creating art just by virtue of painting an image, even if the resulting image isn't very interesting.
But with photography, nobody automatically considers any photo snapped on your phone art, nor does taking photos make you an artist. Most photographs aren't art, and most people taking photographs aren't artists. But if you give an artist a camera, they might take a stunning picture that we all agree is a work of art.
With AI, I think we should have pretty similar thinking. Most AI generated images shouldn't really be considered art, and merely putting in a prompt certainly doesn't make you an artist. But if you give an artist an AI tool, and let them create and refine the prompt, I think they can create interesting images that most people would consider art!
In both cases, they are tools that an artist can use to create a work of art, but merely using the tool is nowhere near enough to make you an artist.
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I definitely didn't make the best case for it, considering I feel like 95% of people here don't even understand what I'm even saying.
Honestly asking, how do you think I could have made a better case for it?
3
u/themcos 442∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not sure. It's always hard to have a view like "there's no fundamental difference that X", because as you see, people are just (rightfully) pointing out that there are fundamental differences, but then it's kind of a fuzzy debate over whether those differences matter in this case, and it seems like you're getting a lot of people just sort of asserting "yeah, this difference is important", and it's not entirely clear to either of us why.
I feel like the way I'd approach this is that on the one hand, you can meet the "AI is not art crowd" part of the way by acknowledging that a LOT of "AI artists" are really not doing art in any meaningful sense, just as me snapping a random photo of something also isn't doing art, even though it's mechanically the same task as a photographer. So for a LOT of "AI art" that people are like "hey this isn't art", I would actually agree with them. It's not art and they're not artists. They're just operating a tool that could generate art.
But then on the other side, just as photographers can really capture something interesting, I feel like it just seems obvious to me that if you give AI tools to an already established artist, they can use that tool to create something unique and interesting. And this is going to be different than what some random person putting in a prompt or two would generate.
In other words, not all generated images are art, and generating an image from a prompt doesn't make you an artist, but an artist can generate art using AI. And as I tried to argue above, this feels to me very similar to how people interact with cameras. Not all photographs are art, and taking a photo doesn't make you an artist, but an artist can generate art using a camera.
2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I agree with everything you said.
Another big, unfortunate factor is how much apparent emotional baggage people have over this topic.
Thank you for your comment!
9
u/Whytebrian 1d ago
Assuming this isn’t rage bait:
very often, photographers find their subjects. They walk around with a keen eye, and when they notice something beautiful, they try to capture it in the moment. Photography isn’t always “I have an idea in my mind of a picture, now I’ll go out and set it up.” AI has no equivalent process of being inspired to capture the spontaneous and unexpected
3
u/Charlea1776 3∆ 1d ago
This is fundamentally inaccurate.
A computer program designed to to to give you what you want to read or see with no vision of its own is just a search result.
A person taking the time to wonder and look and see various perspectives to photograph moments/angles/lighting/scenery, whatever that they think is special to share with fellow.l humans is an art form. Most photographers doing art, also develop their own photos and sometimes even have unique steps to alter the way their photos develop.
Even business photographers still put on artistic touches based off of human senses. Something computers simply cannot create because they have no senses to rely on experiences from.
A person requesting something from a program is no different than someone requesting a meal with alterations at a restaurant. Sure, they have a request to change it to their taste, but that doesn't make them a chef. Requesting from AI doesn't require effort. Art is very subjective, but 1 common denominator is an original idea and effort to execute it. A couple mins on a keyboard is not effort. The computer program is doing all the work. An artist has to make their own work. Period.
The same is true for people who make one pot or mug for example. Then they outsource hundred from cheap labor somewhere. They aren't allowed in juried art fairs (well reputable ones anyway). Having an idea and someone else does the execution is not art. It's factory production and you can get that machine made crud anywhere and it is not considered art.
You can get stoned and debate philosophy, but humans have set standards for these things. There is always some leeway, but outsourcing is always a cutoff. If someone is lying and making claims they are making work they're just ordering up amd gets caught, their reputation is trashed and their career is over. That's it.
3
u/iamintheforest 364∆ 1d ago
I think the difference is that AI can generate art without human chocies. A prompt of "generate art" will produce a thing we'd regard as art.
That's the difference. I do not think there is a different between the produced goods in terms of what is and isn't art. I do think is the human the artist or an artist in the creation of the thing that is art is a very complicated question.
So...then the question is can you have art without an artist? Well...there are lots of things that create beautiful stuff - the tree isn't an artist for making itself beautiful or for pumping out a flower. Why? Well...because it's not human, mostly. It can't not do it, or do it willfully - maybe that's it. But...if things that we recognize as visually appealing (or sounding great), etc. - invoking what art invokes - are often not art because they don't have an artist, then why is AI art art ? That seems to collapse pretty quickly to "what is AI"?
3
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I think the difference is that AI can generate art without human chocies. A prompt of "generate art" will produce a thing we'd regard as art.
That's actually a very interesting take. It definitely made me pause and think for a bit.
The second half of your comment is very rambling but the actual ideas are interesting.
And if I really think about it, I don't think AI can generate art without human choices. If you have to prompt it with "generate art", you've already made made a human choice.
Thanks for your comment. I'll think about what you said more.
4
u/iamintheforest 364∆ 1d ago edited 23h ago
You have? Imagine I create a black box and inside it i put either an artist or an AI. We don't know outside which one. Someone says "make me some art" to the box.
If the inside of the box is an artist is the person who said "make me some art" the artist in that scenario, or is it the person inside the box? I think that if you asked that question before AI everyone would say "no way" (in this way we don't call those who commission art "the artist", we don't even call a muse the artist).
Why then is the prompter the artist when the inside of the box is an AI? Why isn't the box always what holds the artist?
It seems to me that you have to be consistent with what is the artist and whether something is art in the face of the ignorance. OR...you have to say that unless you know there is a human involved then something just isn't art and there is no artist - my inability to determine whats inside just means I can't determine if there is an artist or not and whether it's art or not.
8
u/DearCareer2531 1∆ 1d ago
If you say artistic value comes from “expression”, it is impossible for a human to truly express themselves through AI image generation. AI images are a computer expressing the closest approximation to a prompt. AI imagery can never be accurate to what we want to express, because it is not human.
-1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
What method can a human use to truly express themselves?
1
u/DearCareer2531 1∆ 1d ago
Any way that uses your imagination and doesn’t rely on a robot to tell you what your end result “should” be.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
What criteria are you using to decide what is or is not "true" expression?
doesn’t rely on a robot to tell you what your end result “should” be.
Just because you can defer decision making in generating an AI image, doesn't mean you have to.
1
u/mooncritter_returns 1d ago
You spend the time to develop a skill. The medium you choose means something. The choices you make within that medium means something. The work you’re inspired from means something.
There is a lie being sold that it’s possible for life to be as clean and straightforward as corporate tech bros want it to be. It’s not. Great communicators of history spent their whole lives trying to get closer to expressing themselves more fully.
Also - it’s absolute hubris to think you know yourself fully. Make the work, and be surprised what comes out of your own hand. People can perceive honest, expressive work. You can’t micromanage an idea into being something great.
-1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I mean, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it really feels like you're arguing more against the person I replied to than to me.
My entire retort to the OC was an implication that it is notably impossible to "truly express yourself" or to "know yourself fully".
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ 1d ago
But that's like trying to say your definitive proof that time travel is impossible is that time isn't a literal traversable medium (when that wouldn't necessarily mean something couldn't exist that was capable of what we colloquially call time travel) at least if you're trying to say that means AI art is valid because if you can't truly express yourself humans lose that edge
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago edited 1d ago
What?
The OC was saying "it is impossible for a human to truly express themselves through AI image generation".
Their implication, as I understand it, is that if "it is impossible for a human to truly express themselves" through a medium, then this disqualifies the medium from being capable of making "art".
This is what they said. Not even me. In response to their assertion, I asked them what medium is there where a human can truly express themselves, because I don't think there even is one. OC hasn't responded, so I don't even know what they think on the matter.
I'm not trying to say anything (in this comment thread) other than OC's statement doesn't properly address my actual view.
My view is not that photography is or isn't art. My view is not that AI images are or are not art. My view is that there is no difference between the two that disqualifies or qualifies one as being art that doesn't also apply to the other one.
If OC actually wanted to address my view with the statement, "it is impossible for a human to truly express themselves through AI image generation", they would also have to say they believe that humans are able to fully express themselves through photography. Which they haven't said, so I can't assume that's what they think.
5
u/Jedigamer1977 1∆ 1d ago
Translating and capturing are nowhere close to the same
One is stealing others work and using it to make something new that represents at best the idea of something
The other is preserving a real life moment and place
3
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/JusAxinQuestuns 1d ago
Interesting. Does a 3-D printed copy of Michelangelo's David hold all the same merit as the original? Photocopies of pictures? Where do you draw the line?
2
u/Buck_Da_Duck 1d ago
Is the person who commissions an art piece an artist? Or is it the person who actually made it that’s the artist?
In the case of AI art there isn’t a single artist. The artist is the collection of artists that were stolen from.
It’s not that it isn’t art. It’s that it is worthless. You wouldn’t pay someone for stolen goods. A brand wouldn’t risk their reputation by using a stolen design.
Now there are cases where something copied or stolen is transformed by an artist in an original way. Then that art gains value. So using AI can be a step in the process. But it can’t be THE process. Otherwise it is slop.
2
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ 1d ago
Art requires the hand of an artist. It requires intention. It's created by a mind. Art is defined through that act of creation. And the creator is defined as such through the same.
The reason why people hate AI "art" is that it does none of this, while stealing both the physical and conceptual patrimony of a hundred centuries of human brilliance. By creating nothing, representing nothing, meaning nothing, and defining no one through its creation, AI "art" is not simply a soulless homunculus. It is a profane reflection forever separate from its real counterpart.
By its deepest fundamental nature, art cannot be AI, and AI cannot be art. How can you not see this?
2
u/anotherhumantoo 2∆ 1d ago
Let’s take this from a wildly different angle. I’m going to argue that AI generated images using Stable Diffusion and a purely text-based original prompt can be art; but I’m going to argue that the vast majority of it isn’t because the human effort and input isn’t appreciable, and so the scale matters deeply and the vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of AI generated imagery does not meet the bar.
There was an article about the process of tricking an AI agent through several intermediate steps to get it to break its own rules and not know it’s doing it. It was a picture that was ultimately 2 muscle-bound gym bros injecting steroids. It started as a simple stock image of a doctor and patient.
I would say that sequence of manipulation was art and the resulting image was the product of art, if not art itself.
HOWEVER, the journey and the manipulative poetry is what made it art, not “draw me a tree with X, Y, Z attributes and here’s some detail text to help pick the right source material, and all of this in Studio Ghibli style”.
So I guess I’ve seen one bit of real AI art but I’ve seen a whole tone of super basic photo manipulation or image manipulation tricks that are little more than stolen source material and decidedly not art.
So, “sure”, but the stuff you see on Instagram ain’t it.
2
u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ 1d ago
The answer is subjectivity. The fundamental difference here is that a photo was taken because someone saw it in real life and thought “that’s cool. That’s worth capturing.” That is a subjective judgement. An AI response to a prompt is ultimately not subjective, and has no opinion on what it’s actually looking at.
Art is the delta between subjective intent and the result. With AI, there is no subjective intent, so there is no delta
2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
Not every photo has subjective judgement and some AI generated images have subjective judgement.
3
u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ 1d ago
That is not true. Every human-taken photo has subjective intent, because *somewhere* in the decision tree that led the person to take it, there’s at least one opinion in there that isn’t grounded by fact or data. That is subjective judgement. That is true for almost every decision we make as humans, but it’s especially true with art, where there’s always an opinion of some kind the artist held that isn’t objectively true or false, but that still guided the art into being what it is.
AI, on the other hand, is a collection of weights applied to calculations it makes using data it has in response to a prompt it’s given. There is NOTHING subjective about that, nothing whatsoever. It is all math. I’m a fan of AI, but to think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is and how it works. At best, whatever subjective opinion it holds is just an average estimation of what it thinks we feel based in the data it has, nothing more
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I sat on my phone and took a picture of black the other day. Does that have subjective intent?
Algorithmic art use calculations. The subjectivity is when the human looks at it and decides whether or not it is "worthy".
2
u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ 1d ago
Yes, because why the hell did you do that? Because you wanted to? That’s subjective. Doesn’t have to make any sort of sense, in fact it’s more subjective the less sense it makes.
As for algorithmic art, the human decision to try it is where the subjectivity lies. There’s no objective reason for algorithmic art to exist beyond someone being curious enough to decide it’s worth the effort. Like the guy who sold a blank white canvas at an art showcase for millions of dollars: the subjectivity is that he had the balls to try that
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
No, because my phone got inadvertently unlocked and I accidentally sat on my phone.
… do humans not make a human decision to try to use AI to generate an image?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ 1d ago
Can you sit on a computer running an AI image generator or w/e and make the equivalent of your same screw-up
2
5
u/eternal_dibs 1d ago
I think a better distinction is photography is done by an artist and an AI generated image is not. Both may be art but only one was made by an artist.
Someone who prompts and iterates on generative images is no different than a Renaissance noble who commissions Michaelangelo for a painting of a specific biblical scene he wants. He may be orchestrating, paying, and guiding the process, but no one would credit him the artist.
-1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
What is the problem with someone who says that someone who takes a photo is no different than a Renaissance noble who commissions Michaelangelo for a painting of a specific scene that he sees?
1
u/eternal_dibs 1d ago
When you say "someone who takes a photo" do you mean a guy with a a camera who is recording things or someone engaged in the art of photography?
There are differences. A man who paints my walls is not an artist, da vinci was. Even though you can call them both painters, with similar mediums, only one is an artist. Someone who records a concert on their phone is not a movie director. When I take photos of my cat I am not a photographer.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
Your point was that someone that prompts an AI model for an image is not participating in the creation of the image.
When someone takes a picture, are they not prompting a camera for an image that they are not participating in the creation of?
1
u/eternal_dibs 1d ago
I am not arguing that the AI prompter isn't involved in the process. I'm saying that theyre as involved as someone who commissions art. Not as one who makes it.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
Isn’t it similar to when someone takes picture, then they’re as involved in the creation of the picture as someone who commissioned someone to make a recreation of what they see in front of them?
4
u/WickedWeary 1d ago
It's accepted that art generally requires skill and I'd say that's the distinction. You don't need skill to create AI. Practice isnt required, style isn't developed, etc. That's what makes it so e ticing to people. They dont need to practice to get a "good enough" rendering of what the want.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I don't necessarily agree that art requires skill, but let us assume it does require skill.
I am assuming you mean it doesn't take skill to create an AI generated image, because it definitely takes a lot of skill to "create AI".
It doesn't take (that much) skill to create any random AI generated image, but it doesn't take (that much) skill to take any random photo, either.
I absolutely would argue it does take skill to get an AI generated image to not look immediately completely trash.
3
u/Particular_Can_7726 2∆ 1d ago
There are a lot more to photography than just taking a random photo. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head:
- Composition
- Light Metering
- Understanding and applying the exposure triangle
- post processing
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
There also is a lot more to AI generated images than just prompting a random image.
1
u/Nearby-Complaint 1d ago
Such as?
-2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
Checkpoint/Model Selection
LoRA Selection
LoRA Weighting
Prompt Engineering
Prompt Weighting
Conditioning
Sampler Selection
Scheduler Selection
Denoising Steps
CFG/Guidance Strength
Seed Control
Resolution Selection
Aspect Ratio Selection
VAE Selection
ControlNet
IP-Adapter
Reference Conditioning
Pose Control
Depth Control
Edge Detection
Preprocessor Configuration
Regional Conditioning
Inpainting
Outpainting
Masking
Mask Feathering
Denoising Strength
High-Resolution Passes
Latent Upscaling
Image Upscaling
Face Restoration
Detail Enhancement
Node/Workflow Construction
Compositing
Color Grading
Retouching
Sharpening
Dataset Curation
Image Captioning
LoRA Training
Learning Rate Tuning
Optimizer Selection
Epoch/Step Tuning
Regularization
Overfitting Detection
Checkpoint Testing
Model Merging3
u/Nearby-Complaint 1d ago
And how do you edit the images to get these changes?
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
All of these are done by a human in a program on your computer.
You can definitely give it to an AI to do it for you, but you can basically do that with anything that involves a computer at this point, including taking a photo.
3
u/Nearby-Complaint 1d ago
At which point it's no longer purely an AI-generated image. And frankly, I've yet to encounter a face enhancement program that isn't AI-generated.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, you set up these steps in an AI generated image program, and it all happens in one step after you set it up.
They basically function as parameter adjustments on the AI model.
1
u/AndorinhaRiver 1d ago
You don't directly control the vast majority of those though — most of these are steps that the AI does for you
Professional photography generally has a lot more steps involved than just choosing a model and writing a prompt, which is all you're realistically doing usually
0
u/AndorinhaRiver 1d ago
That and, I don't think most people would necessarily call photography art, it can be, but unless it achieves something incredible it's not really like a painting or something that was hand drawn.
The main reason why people say AI art isn't real art is just because it never really involves that kind of process at all, and it's usually just stuff that looks really bad and that doesn't have much meaning or purpose
2
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
You can directly control the vast majority of those.
Much the same way you can directly control a lot of photography variables, or you can just use your smart phone camera and basically control none of them.
1
u/silduck 1d ago
one of them makes a snapshot of the human eye, the other does not
-3
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
The view isn't that there isn't a fundamental difference. The view is that there isn't a fundamental difference that allows one to be considered art and not the other.
2
u/silduck 1d ago
another big difference is that AI-generated images are works of machines that try their best to translate a prompt into an image, and humans don't have control over the creation process itself photography is a way to snapshot the human eye, which has to find scenery in the wild to capture
1
u/FingerPurple 1d ago
When it comes to photography, it's the REAL aspect that makes it so impressive. Whether it's a landscape of sunlight passing through clouds, or a portrait showing intense emotion, it's the fact someone ACTUALLY saw this and you can see it in the world if you just look around. So it's really no comparison with photography.
Now if you want to compare it to imagined art, then it still falls short because the artist has a vision theyre trying to achieve from their minds that they can fully realize. A generated image from pre-existing works can (at best) be "close enough".
I'm not an artist and dont really know that world all to well.
1
u/HD60532 5∆ 1d ago
A photograph is the impression of light upon a sensor or film, from a scene. When we look at a photograph, we see the colours in the LEDs or on the page, but we also see the objects in the scene. It transports us to the place and the time where the photograph was taken, and we perceive the real objects themselves, as if we were there. That is what makes it art.
AI generated images represent no true scene, no true objects, they are only the colours from the LEDs. They do not transport us to a real place and time with real objects.
With paintings or drawings and AI images, there is less of a distinction, but there still is a distinction. However that is not what the CMV is about.
1
u/xfvh 12∆ 1d ago
The actual problem comes down to the fact that no one has a stable or widely-accepted definition of art, particularly not on the boundaries. Is it skill or effort? No, a toddler's crayon scrawl is still art. Human creativity? No, stumbling across something in the natural world and taking a picture of it is art. Providing framing? No, a painting is still art even if you took it out of the literal frame and tacked it up under a dumpster. Involving any effort? No, Duchamp's Fountain, a literal mass-manufactured urinal, is still art.
What we're left with is mostly vibes and concealed elitism about what's "really" art, and there's no real reason to prefer one definition over another, since none of them are stable nor shared. In your personal view, AI-generated art is art. Cool, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to accept your definition.
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I didn't provide a definition, my view is just either photography and AI images are both eligible to be considered art or neither are eligible to be considered art.
It is decidedly not my personal view that AI generated images are art.
I will say, though, your comment is closer to actually representing my views than 95% of the other ones, so well done.
1
u/xfvh 12∆ 1d ago
The intent of my comment was to demonstrate that the question presumes that there's a consistent way to define art at all. There isn't. You don't have to have a consistent definition to exclude AI-generated imagery since no one has one even if they include the same.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
There is no consistent way that art is defined between two different people, sure, I agree with the fundamental idea of that statement completely.
Are you also saying that there is no consistent definition for art for two different things even for the same person?
1
u/xfvh 12∆ 1d ago
Things don't define art, people do. Person A can declare that object X is art but Y is not, and Person B has no real way to argue the point without appealing to an unshared definition.
If you could get someone to explain their definition of art, which you accepted for the purposes of the debate, you could then point out consistencies or inconsistencies with their labeling of objects under that definition, but the original post appears to claim that no definition of art can consistently define AI-generated imagery as not art without implying photography is not art, which is just factually incorrect.
1
u/dillthecow 1d ago
Their isnt its just a change in the physical skill required. I'd be willing to bet when photography first started breaking into the art side of it their was a lot of grumpy painters and sculpters out their or when painting started to have a big digital adaptation, heck im sure that war is prolbably still going unless they have truced to take on ai lol.
1
u/Antique-Stand-4920 7∆ 1d ago
Both AI generated images and edited photos can be seen as art, but because they are built via different processes, they might be judged differently. Even if AI can make an image that looks exactly like an edited photo that is said to be aesthetically pleasing, an observer may also care about what kinds of artistic decisions the creator made in the making of the image. That may lead them to say that even though both approaches produced a work of art, one is more artistic because of the decisions that were made in its making.
1
u/aRabidGerbil 41∆ 1d ago
Art is an inherently expressive form of communication, as modern AI has no internality to express, AI generated images categorically cannot be art.
0
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
You make good points.
I would say, though, that even though someone might question one or the other's status as art based on the decisions that were made in its making, their questioning happened just because of ignorance, not due to an actual fundamental difference between the two mediums.
It is possible to take a photo or prompt an AI with very little decision making. It is also possible to take a photo or prompt an AI with a lot of decision making. I don't really see a difference in the allowed minimum or maximum amount of decision making.
0
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 122∆ 1d ago
I mean, the thing about AI art, is that it just isn't really there yet.
Like photography has had close to 200 years to develop as an art-form, while ai art is just getting started.
So it's really going to take some time for AI art to actually become an artform and not be a gimmick.
1
u/lobaway0001 1d ago
I'm not really trying to argue that AI images are art or are not art. I'm just saying there's no inherent quality in AI generated images that disallows it from being art that isn't also present in photography.
I appreciate what you said, but I don't think it actually addresses what my view ultimately is.
40
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, there is a fundamental difference. The photographer is capturing what they see in the real world and altering the image. AI art is built from prompts and however the model learned
You could argue whether one matters more or not, but there is a fundamental difference, ergo they can be judged differently.