Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Rowena Ball (rowena@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 14:10:50 JST Rowena Ball

   • Thomas 🔭🕹️

   @thomasfuchs

   Well, yes, quite.
   What if we substitute 'mathematics' for 'art'?

   • Embed this notice
     gotbadger (gotbadger@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 17:56:45 JST gotbadger

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs very reductive idea of what art is. What is and is not art is an argument that’s been gone over for at least 100 years since Duchamp’s Fountain.

     If someone wants to call something art then let it be judged on its merits. A lot of AI art is simply bad but an expression of art nonetheless.

   • Embed this notice
     kΔ (kdelta@techhub.social)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 22:35:54 JST kΔ

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs Going to somewhat dispute part of what you are saying here. Neanderthals also made art, and that’s just one other Earth species. We have not even considered beyond too. Living beings perhaps?

   • Embed this notice
     Deadly Headshot (dheadshot@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 03:50:49 JST Deadly Headshot

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs I guess point 1 depends on the definition of "art", which has shifted over the years. Not that "AI Art" is any of them, but other animals' art could still class as art?

     Sorry if I'm going too off-topic with this tangent...

   • Embed this notice
     Deadly Headshot (dheadshot@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 04:10:17 JST Deadly Headshot

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs The dictionary I checked agreed with "creativity" but didn't specify "human", so I guess the question is whether animals can be creative? There are those Australian(?) birds that create "sculptures" out of parts of their environment to attract a mate: does that count as creative and art or is attracting a mate enough of a purpose to be design instead? I mean, you could say that some human art had the same purpose?

     (Sorry if I'm getting too philosophical, I can shut up if you like)

   • Embed this notice
     Dad (geekanddad@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 06:54:05 JST Dad

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️
     • Eric Stein �

     @thomasfuchs @toba Are you interested in counter thoughts on this? Asking because I drafted a lengthy reply but then realized you might not be interested and thus it might be annoying (which I have no interest in being).

   • Embed this notice
     ruru4143 🏰 (ruru4143@graz.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 08:23:37 JST ruru4143 🏰

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs I would disagree with you.

     1. Art is created by humans
     2. Drawing something doesn't (automatically) create art
     - independent of the tool
     - same for e.g. photographing something
     3. Creating art is a special human process of imagination
     4. AI can be used as a tool to create art.
     Just typing words into a prompt doesn't create art.
     Most things called "AI art" are just randomly prompted pictures and therefore not art.

   • Embed this notice
     ruru4143 🏰 (ruru4143@graz.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 08:47:04 JST ruru4143 🏰

     in reply to

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs
     I'm not arguing on an STEM level. Not about photons or algorithms (btw most camera use a ton of algorithms to create things that aren't photons, not even talking about post editing). I'm arguing on an level of the artistic process one goes through.

   • Embed this notice
     ruru4143 🏰 (ruru4143@graz.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 08:47:05 JST ruru4143 🏰

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs fair argument, but i disagree.

     The camera doesn't create the photo/art.
     If i go out to do some photos, the photos are created in my mind before i touch my camera. Sometimes my tool doesn't allow the image i imagined to be created.
     then i must rethink the Photo.

     If you watch the video of the cosmopolitan AI cover creator, you will see how they imagine something. How their tool doesn't allow their imagination to be created. then they must rethink their work.

   • Embed this notice
     ruru4143 🏰 (ruru4143@graz.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 09:04:49 JST ruru4143 🏰

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs If i give you 1 million images and ask you to pick the best.
     Does the selected image reflect something on the personality or creativity of you?

     I would say yes. Because you as selector are interpreting the image. The AI does generate something meaningless, as you said, "just [...] stuff from it's corpus". But you selected one specific image, because of reasons.

   • Embed this notice
     ruru4143 🏰 (ruru4143@graz.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 09:06:43 JST ruru4143 🏰

     in reply to

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs (maybe you could even argue that a photographer is also only selecting an image out of an meaningless world. They create the meaning through interpreting this world only guided by physics)

     as a reminder: i would consider 99,9% of the images generated by AI and published somewhere **not** art. And exploitation.

   • Embed this notice
     The Penguin of Evil (etchedpixels@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 22:16:46 JST The Penguin of Evil

     in reply to

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️
     • F4GRX Sébastien

     @f4grx @thomasfuchs If you run even a random number generator long enough it will produce something which is art but it will do so by accident. There's a simple proof of this - Macbeth is considered art. Eventually as per the thousand monkeys the generator will produce Macbeth. There are some important nuances around creating art versus intentionally making a work of art. Even clouds randomly shape into something that provokes reaction and is art in the eye of the viewer.

   • Embed this notice
     F4GRX Sébastien (f4grx@chaos.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 22:16:48 JST F4GRX Sébastien

     in reply to

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️
     • The Penguin of Evil

     @etchedpixels @thomasfuchs I think a chimpanzee is more capable to make art than a creative language model.

   • Embed this notice
     The Penguin of Evil (etchedpixels@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 22:16:49 JST The Penguin of Evil

     • Thomas 🔭🕹️

     @thomasfuchs

     https://news.artnet.com/art-world/congo-late-chimpanzee-painter-whose-work-sold-thousands-will-solo-show-december-1671976

     The defence rests its case.

     The Cambridge Dictionary defines art for one thing as "an activity through which people express particular ideas: " - in which case AI prompting and guiding is art.

     American Heritage says "The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciate" so providing it has a human guiding it then it is art.

     And it's all a bit like the old "computer paint programs will ruin art"