I zoomed in as far as I could go and saw some occasional flecks of red. Is that just lint, or remnants of when it was defaced in the 70s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Shafrazi#Shafrazi_and_Gue...
31–40 of 88 posts
I zoomed in as far as I could go and saw some occasional flecks of red. Is that just lint, or remnants of when it was defaced in the 70s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Shafrazi#Shafrazi_and_Gue...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, is Pixar’s Toy Story a work of art? Or what about Julia set renderings, where people make choices about the colors? ;) Tongue-in-cheek aside, I do think I agree with you in that (1) art, as perceived by us human meatbags, is art because of the human element of it (if not in creation, then in perception), and that (2) AI absent explicit steering trends towards a rather bland medium. But there’s art in everything…
The element of creation is central to art. A painting or a photo of a sunset can be art, but the sunset itself is not art. In addition, the communication doesn't need to be explicit or intentional. It can be communicating something antithetical to the artist's original intent like a blurry and out of focus photo. Or it can even be antithetical to the piece itself like a lot of modern art (Fountain[1] comes to mind).…
The natural question to pose is, does that mean that when the person who pressed the shutter button in that camera, that button press was the extent of their art? Of course not; intent, sensibility, timing, understanding there's something special about what's in front of you, preparing a composition, orchestrating poses, framing to create a special composition, manipulating the medium via speed or exposure or etc to create an appropriate texture... all those and more can play a part, and the button press is just the delivery method.
Millions of photos per day are not art even if they show a pretty thing, and nobody has a problem with that. Even when we actively try to capture something special, most people will later look at their photo and say "it shows the place, but it doesn't communicate anything like what being there made me feel".
So in the same way, I think the interesting discussion will be not that AI images are not art. Millions of prompts per day will not be art, and nobody (except grifters) has a problem with that. But how can AI become another vehicle for people to produce interesting art? Perhaps there's nothing special there. But I hope people with the drive to explore and the need to communicate continue giving it a shot and prove or disprove the notion that "it's just a prompt".
[dead]
Guernica shocked the world. It was the start of aerial bombardment of civilians, something which we have sadly normalised since WW2. but which I regard as terrorism. Picasso also painted another great work titled "Korea" in the same vein. War is an abomination, something we should all fight against.
There was this new theory at the dawn of air warfare called "Strategic Bombing", one of its main advocates was Giulio Dohet. The idea was that aircrafts could get behind the frontlines and bomb vital centers (civilians and production) freely. Hypothetically the morale would collapse, and lead quickly to surrendering. He even calculated that 300 tons of bombs per city over the most important cities would be enough to…