I’d zap that, but is it real?
Does it matter?
Am I zapping the artwork, or the artists ability to prompt and edit? Does a photo of a human, or a painting have more value than one that has been prompted in AI? Or does the value lie in the ability of the work to elicit an emotional response and it shouldn’t matter how it was created?
I’m conflicted.
What is real, Neo?
I’d zap that, since it appealed to me ! Regardless if it’s a real photo or AI generated
I agree, but then I think about what the world would be like if all of our art was created by AI and would I want to encourage that?
It’s just another tool in the artist’s toolbox.
I zap proportionally to the effort put in by a human, as best I can perceive it.
A cool AI prompt that made a pretty? Double or triple digit zap.
Something that took several hours of work, triple or quadruple digit zap.
A painting hand painted by a true artist.... many digits of zappage.
I feel like appreciating a computer making a pretty when a human prompts it is ok, but I definitely try to reward PoW when I can.
The AI art is sourced from real images, which trained that model.
if you are taking that stance on AI, why only on art ?
A lot of stuff produced by humans, will be done by AI in the future…
Art is art. That being said said there will ₿e a cottage industry of artisans who will create what AI can’t. It will ₿e perfectly imperfect like you and me. Zap ₿eauty and more will come.
The value is what you feel.
Did your brain make good chemical ? Zap
Easy as that for me i can like prompted art just as much as a human making it just respect the work more of a human
I've always thought about art this way. If it moves me in some way, than I appreciate what the artist has been able to do. It's the same with AI, but then I worry about living in a world where the only art we see is created by AI, as it is much more accessible.
Technology eventually makes tools available for everyone.
Photography, desktop printing, 3d animation, AI, all the same continuum.
Not like we whould know human art shared here is actually made by that person ,
I get your point it whould be nice if human work was pushed more.
But end of the day ai art is here its not gonna capture emotion or nuance like a human can and there will always be room for human artist
Creating images with AI is an art too! Same goes for any tools. No need to conflict about this, as long as you get value out of it. 🐶🐾🫡
🎯
I agree, thinking out loud here. What about the extreme? What would the world look like if the only art we are able to view is that which has been created by AI? Does it change?
Have you actually tried creating something with AI? Because I tell you, it is as hard as with any other tool to get something worthy! Yes, you get lucky sometimes, but that’s rare! 🐶🐾🫡
I tried OpenJourney for the first time yesterday, and man I was unlucky with the results 😂😂
Exactly! It is not easy, and I hate the fact that people take it as a cheat. It’s not! 🐶🐾🫡
Calm down doggie 🐶😂 it’s not as easy as it sounds, that’s for sure!
Haven’t tried Midjourney and DALL-E but I’m sure they will give better results than OpenJourney
I have and I completely agree with you. It’s not “easy” to create a piece of art with AI. It’s like any other art form, it takes work, practice, and a level of expertise to create something that moves people. This is what I’m trying to figure out for myself. Why do I place a higher value on human generated artwork than AI? Should I? Why does it matter? I’ve always been of the school of thought, if it moves me in some way, anyway, than it has value to me. But, now I find myself asking should it, especially when it comes to portraits of humans.
But it shouldn't change. The painter is interpreting the subject with their brushes, canvas, and paint. They are taking their experiences and using those to reflect their interpretations of the world back to me. The same could be said of the "prompter" or AI artist, so it shouldn't matter to me, but for some reason it does.
It is a bit like comparing photography and cinema.
Cinema is moving photography.
AI art is digital painting.
Then it is up to the taste and pleasure of the person whether they prefer to have an image on a video medium, or an oil painting framed on a wall.
So the artwork does not hold any inherent value, it is the interpretation of the audience which gives it value?
In your opinion can a canvas with a cut in the middle be considered a valuable work of art?
Yes
No, but I also don’t know the context of the rip in the canvas. What is the artist attempting to show with this statement? What aspects of the human condition are they trying to represent? A ripped canvas is nothing to me, without knowing the story behind the artwork.
Yet this too is art.
Indeed, it is art that represents the relationship of the canvas to the surrounding space.
Lucio Fontana and his conceptual works are art.
No, AI art is not digital painting.
Digital painting is when an artist paints with digital brushes that attempt to mimic how real brushes work.
AI art is when a person commissions a program to do the work, without doing the work themselves.
Art is simple.
But simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Yes - “The value lies in the ability of the work to elicit an emotional response and it shouldn’t matter how it was created”. This is true for memes too, some of which can be made in about 30 seconds but get zapped because of the emotional response they elicit.
This is how I have always thought about it too, but then I find myself placing more value on non-AI art. I shouldn't be, but I do. I'm trying to figure out why.
It could also come down to the subject matter of the art too. I find it difficult to zap an AI generated portrait of a human. It puts me off for some reason.
I agree, the nuances are always a little off with AI art. Picasso in all his distorted human morphology got it right, AI, not so much. Yet.
I do too. I think it’s because handmade is more time consuming and possibly more impressive since we’ve all, at some point, tried drawing so we know how hard it can be. I usually zap AI images if I think they look cool or are complex. The ones that are just people look cool but I don’t get any sort of emotional response that makes me want to zap.
I think everyone should at least give midjourney a try so they can appreciate that it can actually be a difficult task to render a complex image.
Yes, people should definitely try it. It’s not easy at all.
Conflict > procrastination
Action > no creation
Acknowledge > reaction
Be water.
What is value? Where does value come from? How does something obtain value?
I don't know.
The question of “what is value” must be answered before determining whether one thing has more value than another thing. Otherwise how do you measure which has “more?” Is value beauty? Is it monetary? Is it a feeling? Is it bragging rights among friends? Etc.
Freedom to choose
#discernment
Saylor must really mess you up then 😂 his acct def conflicts me. I've decided that man has two modes: 1) if capital then buy bitcoin 2) if no capital then midjourney till manifest capital 😂🫂
🤣🤣 I think his social media is managed by someone else. He provides more value by being on podcasts etc and integrating btc into microstrategy. He’s an animal but he can only do so much 🤣
It was all of the portraits of women over the last couple of days that did me in. I appreciate the amount of work that went into creating it and they are absolutely beautiful, but slightly off for me. Like I’m being tricked. They don’t actually exist right? 🤷♂️😁
AI art deserves nothing. There is no POW
I don't agree with this. Have you tried to create something in Midjourney, or another AI tool?
I have, and it's 10000x easier than actually drawing.
Plus it all looks like really fake
I would make a general distinction:
Artists create art whereas people who write a prompt are commissioning an AI to make something for them. The person who commission a piece doesn't create it.
Detailed AI art is not appreciated among artists since the algorithms steal art and details from artists without consent. No artists have been asked for their agreement. Some algorithms are also trained to remove watermarks, to hide how the art is embedded as a collage in the final result.
In human-created art there is a person with experiences inside the artwork. There is a soul in there. In every design-decision there is a result of creativity and personality. Our decisions inherit our unique outlook.
Generated art: you didn't create that. That's not your voice. That is not your personality speaking.
If there is no person behind the artwork it doesn't mean anything for me. There is nobody there to connect with.
Is an artist an artist without the paintbrush as a tool? AI is just a tool, just like the paintbrush.
But’s it’s a tool that requires much less creative input or originality from the creator.
If you think it matters how it was created you start to sound like Marx
The emotional response is what matters. Everything else is derivative
Art is art. The feeling you get is internal. While such feelings are important,I see a craft artisan industry ₿ooming as we start to create art like me and you, perfectly imperfect.
The polished ai will produce. As marketers have in the past. We will value it against our own experience.
I like stuff I can’t create. My art will not ₿e everyones ₿ut I think we can agree that a certain level of talent must be shown to consider it art.
If you like it, zap it! Art doesn’t have to be original to be meaningful.
I make some stuff using AI, but most of the things I post are made "by hand" using GIMP. If I am posting a picture I made with AI, I'll try to note that in the post as well. I feel more attached to non-AI images, simply because of the effort I put into them.
