Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

art42.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#121

Post by willvarfar »

jsaldes wrote: post #119
willvarfar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your problem that you know its bot-generated, or that you think there's some flaw in the pictures? What if you didn't know that the painting was the work of a bot? What if it was just some abstract painting that someone took enough fancy to to pay to have put on a canvas? Personally, I couldn't really tell them from the human-generated wikiart pictures that seeded the algorithm. Those human-generated pieces didn't…

I'd say it depends. For me art is as much about the artist behind a specific piece as it is about the actual piece. I agree with the person you responded to. I want human feelings in my art, no matter how abstract, for it to truly speak to me!

Playing devil's advocate: it sounds like you're deluding yourself ;)

Perhaps the Vogels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_and_Dorothy_Vogel knew the artist? The way they amassed their collection is truly inspiring.

Picaso's wife infamously knew he was having an affair with his muse from glancing at a painting. But did every other Picaso fan who saw that same painting? Did truly know anything about the artist behind the picture?

So the chances of everyone else who appreciates an artist actually truly knowing anything about the actual artist? Complete rubbish, say I!

Take Turner, for example: turns out, the location of a lot of his pictures have been wrongly attributed! How everyone can claim to 'know' the artist and yet not realise that the picture is of Portsmouth or a lake in Scotland instead of Venice or somewhere else seems like they didn't really know the artist after all?

So there's a picture on the wall by Satoshi Nakamoto. You feel that genuine, because it's signed? Then when you get told that its painted by a bot, you feel cheated? Because you felt you knew something about the artist by looking at the art?

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#123

Post by flarg »

allovernow wrote: post #93

This is indistinguishable from something that would be hanging in an art museum, and anyone pretending otherwise only believes so because they know a priori that it is generated by ML. Honestly I would consider buying something like this, though I'd never waste my money on something so pretentious from a human. This, however, is an achievement, and there's beauty in that. Edit: in fact, if love to see two tests: a bl…

Whilst these all the samples seem to have decent form, use of colour and space, one can quickly see derivate concepts and images from more famous original works and an excess of 3D forms. There's also a challenge in understanding the meaning of each painting. Also, a lot of penguin type shapes for some reason.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#124

Post by flarg »

iakh wrote: post #39
kengor wrote: post #27

Not trying to denigrate the amazing technical skill needed to make this thing, but from the point of view of someone who makes art, this is a pastiche image maker. I have yet to see AI generate anything that's not a combination of existing images and techniques. Probably wading into murky philosophical waters here but I reckon art needs to be more than a nice 'arty' looking image to be considered any good. If you are…

Not trying to denigrate artists, but as somebody that admittedly doesn't appreciate art, I'm still not sure how artists aren't just pastiche image maker themselves. Based on your comment, I'm not entirely clear what the difference is

A lot of art is exactly that, but it's usually very obvious. As it is in these pictures.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#125

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

willvarfar wrote: post #121
jsaldes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it depends. For me art is as much about the artist behind a specific piece as it is about the actual piece. I agree with the person you responded to. I want human feelings in my art, no matter how abstract, for it to truly speak to me!

Playing devil's advocate: it sounds like you're deluding yourself ;) Perhaps the Vogels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_and_Dorothy_Vogel knew the artist? The way they amassed their collection is truly inspiring. Picaso's wife infamously knew he was having an affair with his muse from glancing at a painting. But did every other Picaso fan who saw that same painting? Did truly know anything about the artist behi…

Having bot-made art in the office just gets me asking all the wrong questions like "What is this? Why is it here? Why am I here? What am I doing with my precious finite time on earth? Why did they automate the creation of art? Why didn't they automate my job?"

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#126

Post by mkl »

tacheiordache wrote: post #72
tacheiordache wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We train algos on creation and we think AI nailed it

Would be more intersting explaining the computer what art is, give it some hints and let it come up With something. This is all but a gimmicky remix of previous work, whatever was trained on

I don't think anyone has found a way to explain to people what art is, let alone computers. Practically all art is very heavily inspired by what has been done before, even if as a kind of rejection of it. The only exceptions I can think of are "art" by toddlers, chimpanzees, pigs, etc., and it's debatable whether that fits the definition (or whether the definitions it fits are acceptable).

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#128

Post by ribs »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #125
willvarfar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate: it sounds like you're deluding yourself ;) Perhaps the Vogels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_and_Dorothy_Vogel knew the artist? The way they amassed their collection is truly inspiring. Picaso's wife infamously knew he was having an affair with his muse from glancing at a painting. But did every other Picaso fan who saw that same painting? Did truly know anything about the artist behi…

Having bot-made art in the office just gets me asking all the wrong questions like "What is this? Why is it here? Why am I here? What am I doing with my precious finite time on earth? Why did they automate the creation of art? Why didn't they automate my job?"

Those seem like difficult questions, and maybe we don’t usually want to grapple with them, but they don’t sound like the wrong ones.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#130

Post by nineteen999 »

satanspastaroll wrote: post #113
alharith wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the art allows me to get to know the person. If an anonymous voice tells me a short story I enjoy, I still get to appreciate the qualities of the person's storytelling (almost a completely lost art these days)

Would you appreaciate these images if you thought they were made by a person?

Machine learning enthusiasts always treat this response as if it's a checkmate, but it's a silly stance, you are depending on either:

a) the ignorance or apathy of the person answering the question; and/or

b) deception if you are telling them it's created by a human, when it's not.

There's less inherent value of this kind of "art" for most people if they know it's created by an algorithm in milliseconds, rather than by a human artist who spent hours working on it. Maybe there is an audience who would pay good money for it, who knows. But I think most human beings would devalue it if you were honest about its source.

Post reply on HN