this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
478 points (96.7% liked)

Curated Tumblr

5932 readers
612 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8uurg@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

The difference is photography can be art, but it isn't always. Photo composition and content are used to convey meaning. The photo is a tool under the artist's complete control. The photo is not art on its own. Just like if you accidentally spill paint on a canvas it isn't necessarily art, a photo taken without intent isn't necessarily art. If I accidentally hit the camera button on my phone that doesn't make me a photographer.

I don't completely agree. While an accident is one example where intent is missing, publishing accidental shots could be a form of art in its own way as the act of publishing itself has intent associated with it.

Furthermore, nature photography is in my view also art, but provides much less control than studio photography, as the scene and subject are free to do whatever they want.

AI generated images can not do this. The user can give a prompt, but they don't actually have control over the tool. They can modify their prompt to get different outputs, but the tool is doing its own thing. The user just has to keep trying until they get an output they like, but it isn't done by their control. It's similar to a user always accidentally doing things, until they get what they want. If you record every moment of your life you're likely to have some frames that look good, but you aren't a photographer because you didn't intend to get that output.

I don't think recording everything would make it less of an artpiece: you would have intentionally chosen to record continuously to capture that frame, and skimmed though those frames to find the right one. Like splattering paint on a canvas intentionally, you don't intend to control the full picture - where the paint ends up - but rather the conceptual idea of a splatter of paint, leaving the details, in part, up to physics.

There are limits to what repeatedly prompting an AI model can do, but that doesn't stop you from doing other things with the output, or toying with how it functions or how it is used, as my example shows.

While I wouldn't discount something if it was created using AI, I need there to be something for me to interact with or think about in a piece of art. As the creation of an image is effectively done by probability, anything missing in the prompt will in all likelihood be filled with a probabilistically plausible answer, which makes the output rather boring and uninteresting. This doesn't mean that AI cannot be used to create art, but it does mean you need to put in some effort to make it so.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 16 hours ago

I don't completely agree. While an accident is one example where intent is missing, publishing accidental shots could be a form of art in its own way as the act of publishing itself has intent associated with it.

Yeah, find interesting accidental photos that tell a story would be a creative work of art. The photos wouldn't be before, but putting them together could be.

Furthermore, nature photography is in my view also art, but provides much less control than studio photography, as the scene and subject are free to do whatever they want.

Like I said, composition and subject are important. That doesn't mean you stage them. It means make something interesting out of the scene.

I don't think recording everything would make it less of an artpiece: you would have intentionally chosen to record continuously to capture that frame, and skimmed though those frames to find the right one.

Yeah, the act of choosing a frame could be artistic. That's not what I meant. I meant an amazing image could exist within the frames. It isn't art just because it's there. Sure, something could be done with it to make it art. Like you imply, intention is the important part. You're agreeing, but you're adding intention to all the examples I'm giving. Without the intention I assume you agree that they aren't art.

There are limits to what repeatedly prompting an AI model can do, but that doesn't stop you from doing other things with the output...

Sure, you can do things with the output. I've proposed the idea of making a piece about the soulessness of AI generated images, and making a collage of AI generated images next to artist created ones, to show how it's missing the creative spark a human can add. This would be taking AI generated images and making art out of them. They wouldn't be art right out of the model though.

[–] tpyo@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That's the beauty of art. It spawns discussion and it can't be nailed down to any singular definition. You and the person you responded to are completely correct

I think with ai art though the issue is not the user's ability to tweak the prompts but more the fact that anything generated from an AI is stolen work

If there was a way to train your own ai (llm, genai) off of your own creations or the works of others with their explicit consent then I'd consider that art. But the biggest issue right now is many of these ais are using stolen work across the board to generate their images, regardless of how much time and care goes into crafting the perfect prompt

[–] 8uurg@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

I think that is less of a problem with the technology itself, but rather in how it is currently used or created. I wouldn't say that anything generated with AI is stolen work, as that predicates that AI necessarily involves stealing.

I vaguely remember Adobe Firefly using images only with proper licensing to the point they will allow themselves to be legally held responsible (though some AI generated work did make it into their stock image site, which makes the ethics part vague, even if it will in all likelihood be legally impossible to pin down). Sadly, this is Adobe, and this stuff is all behind closed doors, you have to pay them pretty significant sum and you can't really mess with the internals there.

So for now there is a choice between ethics, openness, and capability (pick at most two). Which, frankly, is a terrible state to be in.