Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

> generator was uploading one image every 40 seconds before it was banned

> not have the Art Portal flooded with computer-generated art

That was the real problem.

> any new deep truth

What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically.

> factual understanding of the real world

Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has brought.

I don't think that's really fair... I can see the argument for removing AI generated stuff in part because it doesn't require technical artistic skill (whereas digital art still does, in your ability to observe, draw with perspective, etc.)

People who are precious about art will keep defining it away from anything that upsets them.

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art.

Duchamp poked the art establishment in the eye with his 'readymades' (urinals on the gallery wall, etc.) Warhol with his 'factory' making silkscreens.

The 'reverse Monet' (too lazy to link) that caused such an uproar when it was shared last week was ironic – apparently people aren't aware that the impressionists themselves were considered 'not artists' by a lot of people at the time.

The camera and photography made many painters sit up and say, 'hey, it can't just be about "image" anymore' – enter abstract expressionism, fauvism, cubism, etc. Work that shifted the focus from the image represented in the painting ('a window into a world') onto the surface of the canvas itself: Rothko, Albers, etc.

The thing is, people have wild misconceptions about what this technology does. Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. When in fact what's been done is to take all of this online knowledge and create an incredible new tool with it. Like a music synthesizer times a million.

It's understandable why this technology makes people uncomfortable. There are legit fears about displacement, economic uncertainty, etc. But we are fundamentally tool makers – it's arguably intrinsically part of what makes us human (borrowing from Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden").

If I were back in the art department last century, I'm pretty sure we'd be really excitedly discussing how these new tools will enable entirely new forms of expression. And sure, there'd be the old guard saying it was awful, and 'not Art'.

This is a really interesting debate – I just wish it scratched deeper than the surface more often than it does, with a bit more historical context.