Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn't include Generative AI?
That's now what I said is it? I'm asking you to give a definition of art that upholds your position that AI art isn't art, but all traditional forms of art are still included.
Because it believe such a definition does not exist.
For one you understand that way more libraries have computers than crochet classes?
If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn't help them.
Can you give an actual concrete reason why AI art isn't art? Because the only arguments people make for that case are either esoteric nonsense about "soul" or their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.
Punching a text string into a machine that vomits out stolen work is not art.
Can you give an actual reason why? Without using esoteric terms like "soul"
Well yeah.
I mean, no, even ignoring the whole licencing argument you can just generate you model from explicitly donated data, so it's not "designed" to plagiarise.
Probably to find the small joys in life.
You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don't want to.
Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?
But it's both.
People should be free to create art however they want with whatever tools they want without people harassing them for it.
And it's also made art objectively more accessible.
I volunteer once a month to teach a computer science class at an after school club for kids with disabilities. And when I showed them AI generation and let them play with it on their own, they are ecstatic and I've never seen them happier the whole time I've been going there. Some of those kids can barely hold a pencil and can't even draw a stick man, then suddenly they're making comic strips, or there own Marvel OCs in a high fidelity that they would be physically incapable of reaching on their own. Those kids have vast wells of creativity and this technology allows them to express that, and I will defend it against anyone for that reason alone.
I get the arguments against it. I hate the spam of AI slop too, but being staunchly against the technology itself is nothing but eleitsm.
No.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
For second I want working class people to be able to produce whatever art they want however they want, without houlier-than-thou elitists telling them they can't.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn't have people harassing you for doing so.
Library cards are free.
Because art is a fundamental part of the human experience. No matter how you want to produce it.
And people that want to limit how you create things or what you're allowed to create are just elitists.
The consent thing is pretty much a myth.
Most people don't bother to think what licence they are publishing their art under when they upload it to the internet. It's almost always a creative commons licence or something similar that allows anyone or at lead the company that owns the website you are uploading it to, to use that image for whatever purpose they fit. Which includes training AI models.
And I'm sure you'll disagree with this point, but when a human uses an image as a reference or inspiration, or even just views an image and subconsciously recollect it when creating their own art, do they ask for permission to do so?
I don't really like to engage in esoteric arguments like these because the "purpose" of art is entirely subjective. So to you that cycle might be the purpose of cresting, to others it won't be.
I'm not trying to weave electric sheep or anything that effect. I'm using tools that are available to turn the product of my creativity and imagination into a material thing in the real world. Sometimes that's with a pen and paper, sometimes it's a camera and editing software, sometimes it's cloth and stich and sometimes it's with a bit of software and a mouse, and sometimes it's with a more advanced piece of software and a keyboard.
Drawing a line in front of that last one and saying it's not valid or immoral or not real art is very much arbitrary and I remember many years ago people making similar arguments to draw the line in front of using any computer program. AI is simply a tool that you can use to create art just like any other, it makes art widely more accessible and easier to produce than ever before, yes that means some people will use it to make slop, just like digital art and photoshop and cameras allowed more people to make slop and things that don't have "use" beyond advertising or spam or whatever (frankly the idea of art needing a "use" is a bit antithetical to what I think the point of art is)
So basically I think there's no real argument to why people are drawing a hard line in the sand here and decaying anyone and everyone that uses AI as inferior or lazy or something to that effect other than those people being scared of change and wanting see themselves and the thing they like as superior.
So it's probably taken a specific image as input so it's the user doing it intentionally, which is really no different to using illustrator or something to trace.
(Also when AI generation first hit mainstream people on tumblr were doing this a lot to "show" that AI was stealing art directly)
And even then, other than the composition it's still a fairly different image.