[imperio59]

So are photos that are edited via Photoshop not art? Are they not art if they were taken on a digital camera? What about electronic music?

You could argue all these things are not art because they used technology, just like AI music or images... no? Where does the spectrum of "true art" begin and end?

[mghackerlady]

They aren't arguing against technology, they're saying that a person didn't really make anything. With photoshop, those are tools that can aid in art. With AI, there isn't any creative process beyond thinking up a concept and having it appear. We don't call people who commission art artists, because they asked someone else to use their creativity to realise an idea. Even there, the artist still put in creative effort into the composition, the elements, the things you study in art appreciation classes. Art isn't just aesthetically pleasing things, it has meaning and effort put into it

[intended]

If you know what goes into the making of good photos, or good art, you can make out the difference in ability.

If you use GenAI to simply remove effort, then it’s a savings of efficiency, not an expression of ability.

If they used GenAI to create pictures that couldn’t be taken, or to create compositions, novel tableaus or effects - then that is artistic.

I suppose post-modernism may not give a hoot.