Strongly disagree on the “AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new” part. Are collages new? Is new music new if it uses pre-existing chords? Is parody new?
Unless you think AI just copies/pastes existing art like Google image search (it doesn’t), the things that AI creates is new.
My unsolicited opinion as an artist of a few different media.
Good art communicates emotions and feelings of the artist to the audience through its medium. Parody is “new” when it takes an original artist’s message, and responds with another artist’s absurd take.
Without emotions or feelings, a computer just wings it, and tries to simulate it. It’s like receiving a message from an insincere person - maybe pretty but ultimately shallow and hollow.
In the future, computers will be better at faking it. However, I think that will make real art from humans more valuable, not less.
As a couple people pointed out, I don’t literally mean it can’t generate pixels in a sequence it hasn’t exactly seen. What it can’t do is make art with an original take/message/meaning. It doesn’t have the accumulated life experience of a person and so can’t produce something that takes that and represents it in its art.
Strongly disagree on the “AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new” part. Are collages new? Is new music new if it uses pre-existing chords? Is parody new?
Unless you think AI just copies/pastes existing art like Google image search (it doesn’t), the things that AI creates is new.
My unsolicited opinion as an artist of a few different media.
Good art communicates emotions and feelings of the artist to the audience through its medium. Parody is “new” when it takes an original artist’s message, and responds with another artist’s absurd take.
Without emotions or feelings, a computer just wings it, and tries to simulate it. It’s like receiving a message from an insincere person - maybe pretty but ultimately shallow and hollow.
In the future, computers will be better at faking it. However, I think that will make real art from humans more valuable, not less.
As a couple people pointed out, I don’t literally mean it can’t generate pixels in a sequence it hasn’t exactly seen. What it can’t do is make art with an original take/message/meaning. It doesn’t have the accumulated life experience of a person and so can’t produce something that takes that and represents it in its art.
It might be new, but it isn’t “art”, at least not by my definition.