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

Coarse is better

borretti.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 125 posts

Re: Coarse is better

#41

Post by zelphirkalt »

cluckindan wrote: post #16
nickelpro wrote: post #7

The author has succeeded only in arguing one meaningless image factory produces images they find more aesthetically pleasing than another meaningless image factory. The framing implies they understand little of art at all; beyond gurgling and clapping like a child at the colors and shapes they find most stimulating.

Found the zealot. Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk? If so, then why lambast the lesser folk over their ignorance of the secret knowledge?

I don't think it is some secret. There are many who say that art is not just a painting itself, but in the process of making it, and the motivation and goals behind it. Generative "AI" has none of that. It does not labor like a human would. It has no motivation, because it is not a thinking being. It has no intention in making a digital output. It just works. It has no meaning by the process of creating. Some Michelangelo working on something amazing for years, that's something that has meaning.

It is also not inventive. It's rehashing and regurgitating. That point is a bit muddy, because many humans do that too. But ask a generative "AI" to make something better than what it has learned from and new, and you will probably be disappointed.

I am not an art buff, but I can sort of see, why one wouldn't consider it proper art.

Re: Coarse is better

#42

Post by graemefawcett »

nativeit wrote: post #25
cluckindan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found the zealot. Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk? If so, then why lambast the lesser folk over their ignorance of the secret knowledge?

> Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk? Kind of. If everyone on the planet can paint the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, then it’s not anything special anymore is it? Especially if it reduces the process to asking the world’s most prolific counterfeit machine to do it for you.

Besides, if everyone could paint the Sisten Chapel, then we'd have works equivalent to the Sistene Chapell everywhere.

Why is that a problem?

That to me sounds like the opposite of a problem.

Used effectively, these tools are elevators, enhancing the capabilities of everything they touch.

Telling them to paint you a picture results in the word you envision.

Painting a picture with them is how you see mine

Re: Coarse is better

#43

Post by dleeftink »

Eno applies:

> It's the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.

Re: Coarse is better

#44

Post by only-one1701 »

card_zero wrote: post #28
only-one1701 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is art, fantastic. I see nothing wrong with this definition.

We have at least established that very boring pieces, such as Andy Warhol's Empire, Kazimir Malevich's White on White, and John Cage's As Slow As Possible, are not art.

Bad code is still code. A painting of code is not code.

Re: Coarse is better

#45

Post by jellyroll42 »

only-one1701 wrote: post #19

AI doesn’t make art. The OP is trying to fit the square peg of their intuitive understanding about the art creation process into the round hole of generating it via AI

Correct! The process and struggle of creation is a large part of what makes art art. Removing friction from the process makes something artless.

Re: Coarse is better

#46

Post by zelphirkalt »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #33
Zak wrote: post #5

The author claims the old models are better at creating art than the new ones. I disagree; art requires consciousness and intent while this type of model is capable of neither.

I'm pretty sure people have created images via random physical processes, then selected the best ones, and people have called it "art." That's no different than cherry picking AI generated images that resonate. The only difference is the anti-generative AI crusade being spearheaded by gatekeepers who want to keep their technical skills scarce in their own interests.

I think one could still point out a little difference: Random physical processes do usually not involve mix and matching millions of other people's works. Instead, something new in every aspect and its origin can emerge.

It feels like AI art is often just a version of: "I take all the things and mix them! You can't tell which original work that tree is taken from! Tiihiiihi!"

Where "tree" stands for any aspect of arbitrary size. The relationship is not that direct, of course, because all the works gen AI learns from kind of gets mixed in the weights of edges in the ANN. Nevertheless, the output is still some kind of mix of the stuff it learned from, even if it is not necessarily recognizable as such any longer. It is in the nature of how these things work.

Re: Coarse is better

#47

Post by only-one1701 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #30
only-one1701 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a car crash art?

A drawing/painting of a car crash certainly can be https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can... As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that). And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.

I would never argue that a painting of a car crash couldn’t be art. It’s funny your bringing up that a camera is a tool for creating art; I also hold photographic art in lower esteem than other kinds of visual art (though I still think some kind of photography can be art).

At a certain point, we need to be realistic about the amount of effort involved in artistic creation. Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art? They certainly had the vision to put those two specific paintings together, and they used a tool to create that vision in reality!

Re: Coarse is better

#48

Post by amram_art »

The problem is not in the image models rather the training data and its context. "British museum" for MJ is the image source, "British museum" is the setting for Nano Banana.

Re: Coarse is better

#49

Post by zelphirkalt »

LatencyKills wrote: post #9
Zak wrote: post #5

The author claims the old models are better at creating art than the new ones. I disagree; art requires consciousness and intent while this type of model is capable of neither.

I define art as something that evokes an emotion or feeling. I’ve seen people wax poetic about the ”meaning” of an imagine only to find out that the image was created synthetically. Were those “feelings” not authentic?

I don't think it is about the feelings or emotions evoked in the observer. At least not in that generality. It only is, if there is an intention in the creating process of the art, that aims at evoking the emotions or feelings. Otherwise going by the more general definition, many everyday objects become art. Home becomes art. The way to the office becomes art, even if it completely sucks.

Re: Coarse is better

#50

Post by jellyroll42 »

kakapo5672 wrote: post #27
nickelpro wrote: post #7

The author has succeeded only in arguing one meaningless image factory produces images they find more aesthetically pleasing than another meaningless image factory. The framing implies they understand little of art at all; beyond gurgling and clapping like a child at the colors and shapes they find most stimulating.

It seems we have found the One True Artist on this thread, the gatekeeper and judge for all that is worthy. Humble obedience in thy presence.

Someone pushing back against a provincial and fundamentally incorrect definition of art is not gatekeeping.
Post reply on HN