Firstly, art and creativity are turning into a kind of Lego constructor with minimal value, and secondly, it is becoming more and more difficult to trust the news, because AI makes better and better deepfakes; Thirdly, people, for example, I have a friend on the Internet, but due to the frequent use of AI, he has become quite apathetic, I try to support him and somehow help him, as I did before, but more and more often he just ignores me and brushes me off with a simple thank you or bye, and if we communicate, then not for long, since he does not listen to me, but usually he shows me masterpieces or memes that he has generated with the help of AI, calling it real art, honestly, it is more and more unpleasant for me to communicate with him.
I hope I explained clearly, sorry, the exact explanations are not about me.
As a hobbyist photographer, I find it pretty amusing that when I use a device I just point at a target and press a button, it counts as art - but when I spend 3 hours tweaking a prompt to get exactly the image I want, suddenly it doesn’t. Seems way more like an ideological stance than a logical one.
Go ahead and tell the AI to scout out the location, then travel to the location to shoot, wait for the optimal lighting conditions and then find the best angle and camera settings to capture that one in a million photo that your years of experience working with film and photography tools taught you.
If you can tell me honestly that an AI would do the same job, then I’m going to say you should find a new hobby.
I have heard this bogus “but what about a camera?” argument more times than I can count. And it’s always a poor argument in defense of AI.
I don’t need to tell an AI to scout the location, travel there, wait for optimal lighting, nail the composition, dial in the settings, etc. I don’t need to tell a sculptor to do that either - it’s a completely different artistic field. Nobody here is claiming AI-generated pictures are photography - they’re not. Photography is done with a camera. The discussion is whether generating pictures with AI counts as art or not - not whether it’s photography.
I’m using photography as the example because people dismiss AI art on the grounds that “it doesn’t require any skill or effort,” but the exact same argument has been thrown at photography forever. There was a time when purists said the same thing about digital photography, and they were equally saying it about film photography back when it was new and painting was still “the” way to make pictures.
There’s a lot more to good photography than just point and click
The discussion is whether it is art or not. It doesn’t matter how bad someone is at it - people still accept it as art. You’d be a massive dick telling a beginner that their photography is so terrible it doesn’t even qualify as art. You can also take a great picture completely by accident, just like you can put a ton of effort into one and still end up with garbage.
Any HUMAN being using learned skill to capture a photo is art. Because art is something produced by a mind that strives to create it.
AI is not art because AI can’t comprehend art.
A camera can’t comprehend art either - it’s just a tool a human uses to create it. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own either; it needs a human to operate it too. The camera isn’t the artist, Photoshop isn’t, a canvas and brush aren’t, Illustrator isn’t. They’re just tools. The artist is the human behind them.