And let's not forget that people call "art" to more things than the popular masterpieces. A guy sold an invisible sculpture¹ clamming it was art. If things like this can be called art, whatever AI makes can be called art too.

1: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-o...

"What is or isn't art" didn't simply become a topic because people like to philosophize about the meaning of words. Over the 20th century the art world took fascination with the subversive, transgressive, the postmodern, rejecting authority and standards of beauty that were deemed limiting and oppressive etc. One direct contributing component was photography. Skill of realistic depiction became deemphasized, with mass production, plastic etc., the focus became abstract ideas. It was also a protest against the system that brought the two world wars.

It was considered "anti-art" at the time, but basically took over the elite art world itself and the overall movement had huge impact on what is considered art today, on performance art, sculptures, architecture that looks intentionally upsetting etc.

It's not useful to try to think of the sides as "expansive definitionists" who consider pretty much anything art just because, and "restrictive definitionists" who only consider classic masterpieces art. The divide is much more specific and has intellectual foundation and history to it.

The same motivations that led to the expansive definition in the personally transgressive, radical and subversive sense today logically and coherently oppose the pictures and texts generated in huge centralized profit-oriented companies via mechanization. Presumably if AI was more of a distributed hacker-ethos-driven thing that shows the middle finger to Disney copyrightism, they may be pro-AI.

By this same logic, AI will also become accepted as art in 50 years. And by the way, no one who's serious about AI "art" uses commercial generators, they use local AI with workflow managers like ComfyUI. They are not just typing into a box like Midjourney. Therefore these are the hackers who're showing the middle finger to Disney, they dislike copyright as much as anyone.

That's right, and a lot of stuff is being conflated and the "debate" is mostly on the level of soundbites and emotional vibes. Many have strong opinions who have never tried the models or seen someone skilled using them (easy to find YouTube streams), combining LoRAs, ControlNets, etc.

I generally find the specific debate around "whether it's art" super boring. People have squeezed all the juice out of "what even is art" decades before the banana taped to a wall. Duchamp's Fountain, Manzoni's Artist's Shit, John Cage's 4′33″, the Red Square by Malevich, Jackson Pollock etc.

I simply don't care if it's art. It's not an inherently prestigious label to me given this history.

This is a debate that existed long before LLMs with things like action painting. If I give you a Jackson Pollock and a piece from someone who randomly splattered paint on a canvas until it looked like Jackson Pollock, are they the same?

Pollock was a part of a coherent intellectual movement across all of art. You can't productively discuss whether it's art without focusing on that. He didn't just wake up one day and think to himself that it would be fun to throw paint on the canvas like this and then people looked and wondered if that's art or not.

It was the intellectual statement conveyed through that medium that made him famous.

Same in what sense? That is the real question, and perhaps not even the important one when it comes to art. Because, if the Pollock is more "important," there is an implication that it's better because it's by a more famous person, while art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.

The same in whatever sense you want to compare the art rather than the creators. Pollocks try to convey the action and emotion of the creation process. Our hypothetical copycat lacks that higher level meaning, even though they've created an otherwise similar physical product.

As an aside:

    ...art should be able to come from anywhere and anyone.

is an immensely political view (and one I happen to agree with). It's not a view shared by all artists, or their art. Ancient art in particular often assumes that the highest forms of art require divine inspiration that isn't accessible to everyone. It's common for epic poetry to invoke muses as a callback to this assumption, nominally to show the author's humility. John Milton's Paradise Lost does this (and reframes the muse within a Christian hierarchy at the same time), although it doesn't come off as remotely humble.

It depends what the copycat was thinking, maybe they wanted to follow in Pollock's footsteps, maybe they wanted to showcase the point you're making, whether a copycat is as good as the real thing and therefore also considered art, perhaps even as important (apprentices often copied their masters, such as da Vinci's), maybe they are just creating it because it looks good. If there's no other reasoning, then I'd still say they're the same, because how can one say they're not art too? Even as an observer of the art, what if I like the copycat more? These are all open questions to the philosophy of art and I'm glad it's accessible today to everyone rather than only to the historically abled.

Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified.

If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in.

Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is.

There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.

You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard.

> It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.

I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally". I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman

It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.

I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal:

A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war.

A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war.

I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.

Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.

And, is the artist the one who taped it, the one who told them to tape it, or the one who created the banana?

It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.

Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist?

> AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case

So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art?

Edit: And if you think an AI can't handle that question, I just gave it to an image model and got this. Did I create this art-piece? If not, who did? Did the AI create it?

https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb

The AI created it but you choosing to display it is the art, performance art specifically, not that the image itself is art (but again if someone looks at it and it moves them, the image itself could also be considered art); did Duchamp manufacture the urinal he turned into The Fountain? No, but then why do we still consider that art? By your logic, he wouldn't be an artist.

Not sure why you're talking about managers, that seems one step removed. Michaelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to create something, is the Pope the artist? But then let's say Michaelangelo then uses some machine or hires his subordinate to paint for him, who is the artist then?

> Your answer to that is the answer to your question.

In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion? You're not making a grand philosophical point, you're frustrating the attempts of other people to understand your point of view and either blocking them from understanding your point of view or addressing your argument in a meaningful way.

If you cannot or will not engage in the conversation it would be more efficient and more purposeful for you to say so than the "whatever you say is what I say" falseness you're expressing in the above comment.

> In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion?

Because priors affect your conclusions.

For example, I don't like licorice, that makes me not like many kinds of candy. But I know that if a person likes licorice, they will have a very different view on these candies. Similarly how you define art affects how you see AI art, because its meaning is completely different to different people.

So for the example in question, I don't view a banana taped to a wall as art, but I know some other people do, and I understand why they do so, so answering that question tells us a lot about a persons priors.

> I don't view a banana taped to a wall as art

If some don't understand why, I argue art needs to stand on its own, without the surrounding social context. If you view trash as art just because an artist told you, then the art isn't the trash the art is the artists explanation.

So, if you see a banana taped to a wall on a house when out walking, would you see that as beautiful art? If not, it isn't art according to my definition. The art piece is the whole thing, the banana and the explanation.

But many pictures can be considered art on their own without the social context, they are just beautiful and nice to look at. A banana taped to a wall doesn't pass that test.

Edit: So according to this definition AI art can be art, since some of those images can stand on their own as beautiful pieces of art without needing a social context.

It is a rhetorical device that nevertheless clearly explains the various thought groups of AI art. If one requires human creation rather than mere human intent to be art, then similarly they can't consider a banana taped to a wall as art, nor AI as art either. But if one considers the former but then discounts the latter, then that's a logical hypocrisy. I am of the group that considers both as art, because both require human intention.

That's just evasive bs. You're not Socrates, be polite and answer the question you were asked.

"be polite"

Project much?

When I see rude behavior I respond in kind, since that's clearly what the person understands. To do otherwise is to reward trolling.

ALL of the rude behavior and trolling was yours (and you're still doing it) ... there's nothing rude about "Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.". And your behavior violates the site guidelines, whether it was "in kind" or not.

I need to bathe after reading your grossly dishonest excuses. Over and out.

Deflecting a question with a different question is rude. You seem to be taking this a mite personally; I'm not responsible for your bathing schedule.

Two people want to make a statement about war.

One person spent years painting landscapes and flowers.

The other spent years programming servers.

Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?

The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.

> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?

To whom?

One of my favorite quotes is "The product of your art is you." (I heard it from Brandon Sanderson, not sure if he's the original.) I have come to believe this is true on multiple levels. So in your example, I can answer "they're both equally valid and profound" assuming they put similar levels of effort, skill, and basically themselves into that work.

I think that's the part where generative art falls behind. Sure, I can generate some art of a frog, print it, and hang it on my wall. But the print next to it, that I took with my actual camera after wading through a swamp all day? That will have much more profound meaning to me.

Excellent question though. I had to think for awhile on this, and most importantly, I learned something while doing it. Thank you.

> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?

In my opinion, yes. But that's the entire point here: art is in the eye of the beholder. I think much much much less of AI-generated art than I do of human-generated art. Even if an artist who is well-known for his human-generated art were to use an AI to make art, I would still likely think less of that art than of their earlier work.

> The other spent years programming servers.

I will be the first to shut down people who try to say that programming isn't a creative endeavor, but to me this is not "art".

> The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.

I don't agree with that. Consider just regular argumentation. If I'm trying to argue a point, how I express my argument matters. The way in which I do it, the words I use, whether I am calm and collected or emotional and passionate, perhaps graphs or charts or some other sort of visual aid, all of that will influence whether or not you buy my argument.

So If art is to make a statement, each individual has to believe that the way it's presented is powerful and resonates with them. This is a personal thing, and people are going to differ in how they react.

Art is not art. Art is the thought manifested into something which convey the thought. If an artist is using an AI to manifest a thought, then that can be art.

Similar, music is not music, but rather the thought of an musician manifested is what we call music. This is why silence can be music, but silence without the thought is not.

Images generated through an AI that lacks the human thought is not art. It can look like art, have similarities to art, but it is no more art than silence is music. Same goes to music and text generated by AI.

People can inject defective thoughts into the process like "what generates me most money" or "how can I avoid doing any thinking", in which case the output of the AI will reflect that.

What about musical synthesizers? Can they be used to create art?

Cavemen probably once had the same argument about whether musical instruments could be considered “music”; something previously only possible by singing.

Obviously, the answer is yes; musical instruments, including synthesizers, can be music and art.