• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I like this take.

    How far can the artist be removed from the art, and still be considered the artist?
    And is it even important to ask “is this art” if art is inherently subjective? It’s probably more important to ask “who is this helping?”

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I have a pretty wide definition of art, so I hesitate to say it can’t be art flippantly. I do think that for something to be art it must contain the voice of the artist, though, and for many AI generations I don’t think you can see that voice, even if a lot of work went into creating it. Maybe that will change as the tools become more sophisticated and easier to get what you want out of them.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree but I don’t think that has to do with AI necessarily. There are people who create images without soul, no matter the medium and tools used.
        I think that people who make soulless art are just drawn to AI generators because it allows them to make something aesthetically passable without hours and years of tedious practice (which they otherwise wouldn’t be willing to do since they obviously have no care for the art).