[cicdw]

This article has an implicit premise that the ultimate judge of art is “do I/people like it” but I think art is more about the possibilities of interpretation - for example, the classics/“good art” lend themselves to many reinterpretations, both by different people and by the same person over time. When humans create art "manually" all of their decisions - both conscious and unconscious - feed into this process. Interpreting AI art is more of a data exploration journey than an exploration of meaning.

[ARandumGuy]

That's one of my problems with AI art. AI art promises to bring your ideas to life, no need to sweat the small stuff. But it's the small details and decisions that often make art great! Ideas are a dime a dozen in any artistic medium, it's the specific way those ideas are implemented that make art truly interesting.

[cicdw]

I couldn't agree more; I love what you said in your other reply: "AI art punishes the viewer who looks closer"

[tpmoney]

I feel like AI art promises the ability to raise the baseline art available for people who want some artwork for some purpose from stick figures drawn in MS paint to something reasonably artful. The sort of things that would previously have been filled by a Google image search, ripping something off deviant art or just browsing a stock images / clip art website until you find something “good enough”. I think part of the problem with AI art discussions is we do these side by sides with “real art” while glossing over all the places where “art” is used all the time and doesn’t need to rise to the level of “something that will be displayed in a museum”.

[viraptor]

When the quality AI images are created, like these in the post, that description doesn't really apply. If you hang out in those discords, you'll see people obsessing about details and inpainting things that don't look like what they wanted. The high end of results is very specific in the implementation.

[jncfhnb]

Eh. That’s an artificial goalpost. Realistically, it’s a tool in the toolkit.

[Ferret7446]

There does not need to be intentionality for people to interpret it. Humans have interpreted intentionality behind natural phenomenon like the weather and constellations since pre-history, and continue to do so.

And I contest the original claim that AI art has no intentionality. A human provided a prompt, adjusted that prompt, and picked a particular output, all of which is done with intent. Perhaps there is no specific intent behind each individual pixel, but there is intent behind the overall creation. And that is no different to photography or digital art, where there is often no specific intent behind each individual pixel, as digital tools modify wide swathes of pixels simultaneously.

[viraptor]

The Rorschach test is quite literally an example of people finding meaning in randomness.

[dpig_]

Agreed. AI art subtracts intentionality.