Surrealism is not nonsense. It has a purpose, even if that purpose is hard to tell. If you think Dali and AI slop is the same, you don’t understand either.
Fine. If it’s offending your senses too much to be tame surrealism, call it dada. If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice, you… well, haven’t seen much art.
Note that I’m not arguing for or against AI here. I’m saying that your critique of AI is slop.
If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me,
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
In order for something to be an artistic choice, it has to be a choice. It has to have meaning and intent. AI did not choose to put a glass there, it calculated that there was probably a glass there based on shitty reasoning. AI does not have the creative capacity to make art. It can only make images, and those images are shit.
You’ve thoroughly proven you can’t tell between slop and high art, so thank you for the compliment of my critique.
AI does not have the creative capacity to make art.
I agree!
And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.
The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.
Surrealism is not nonsense. It has a purpose, even if that purpose is hard to tell. If you think Dali and AI slop is the same, you don’t understand either.
Fine. If it’s offending your senses too much to be tame surrealism, call it dada. If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice, you… well, haven’t seen much art.
Note that I’m not arguing for or against AI here. I’m saying that your critique of AI is slop.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.
It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.
In order for something to be an artistic choice, it has to be a choice. It has to have meaning and intent. AI did not choose to put a glass there, it calculated that there was probably a glass there based on shitty reasoning. AI does not have the creative capacity to make art. It can only make images, and those images are shit.
You’ve thoroughly proven you can’t tell between slop and high art, so thank you for the compliment of my critique.
I agree!
And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.
TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.
The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.