This reminds me of an art class in high school in the early 2000s where I handed in a printout of a 3d generated image (painstakingly modeled and rendered in software over the whole weekend by me) and the teacher looked at me and told me that's not art because it's "computer generated" and I didn't "even use my hands" to make it. Even as a teenager, the idea that art is defined by how it's made versus it being a way for the artist to express intention in whatever way they seem fit seemed really reductionist and almost vulgar to me.
Maybe lots artists of the future will actually use AI models to express their inner thoughts and desires in a way that touches something in their audience. It will still be art.
Re:Dall-E 2
by throwaway71271 on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @12:42PM
(#30934417)
'art' comes from 'artem' which means 'skill', which is the root of 'artificial' (https://www.etymonline.com/word/art and https://www.etymonline.com/word/artificial)
your teacher was wrong
i had a friend who didnt get credit for his design work because he used photoshop instead of using pen and paper for similar reason, i still find it amazing that a teacher would say such a thing
> 'art' comes from 'artem' which means 'skill', which is the root of 'artificial'
His teacher was wrong but "argument from etymology" is surely a fallacy.
Jumping out of the conceptual box to generate novel PURPOSE is not the domain of a Dall-E 2. You've still gotta ask it for things. It's a paintbrush. Without a coherent story, it's an increasingly impressive stunt (or a form of very sophisticated 'retouching brush').
If you can imagine better than the next guy, Dall-E 2 is your new tool for expression. But what is 'better'?