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

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Coarse is better

#51

Post by card_zero »

jellyroll42 wrote: post #45
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.

Yes, but: when I was young I used to love photorealism and hyperrealism, which is super-smooth-and-shiny art that conceals its process in order to awe simpletons. Then I bought an airbrush, and then true color computer graphics happened, and soon after that I began to appreciate brush strokes and the texture of pen marks and the idea of the personality of the artist's hand. But that doesn't mean the process-hiding stuff is non-art, or even bad art. What's wrong with creating an amazingly convincing illusion, wasn't that always the goal, historically? Also there are no prizes for effort, and if your artwork is only struggle, I don't want to see it. Unless you're really badass about it.

Re: Coarse is better

#52

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Coarse is better

#53

Post by card_zero »

only-one1701 wrote: post #44
card_zero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're saying bad art is still art, but I'm unsure what to do with the second sentence. I'm toying with "an encoding of art is not art", which might mean that art has to be available to an audience.

Re: Coarse is better

#54

Post by card_zero »

only-one1701 wrote: post #47
RHSeeger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tw…

It's going to be "creativity" (another hazy definition!) rather than effort, though. Photography, often said to be all about framing, seems very low effort. You might take one lucky snap. Then the effort can be claimed to be in years of getting ready to be lucky, which is a fair point, but that displaced effort isn't really in the specific photo. Besides, maybe you're a very happy photographer, loved every minute of learning your craft, and found it no effort at all, just really interesting.

Re: Coarse is better

#55

Post by Undertow_ »

airza wrote: post #2

Years of refinement on the taste of people with no taste has produced a model with no taste. Crazy

it's not shocking that this is the result of "art" from people that think complexity and accuracy are the only qualifying factors.

Re: Coarse is better

#57

Post by nehal3m »

card_zero wrote: post #51
jellyroll42 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but: when I was young I used to love photorealism and hyperrealism, which is super-smooth-and-shiny art that conceals its process in order to awe simpletons. Then I bought an airbrush, and then true color computer graphics happened, and soon after that I began to appreciate brush strokes and the texture of pen marks and the idea of the personality of the artist's hand. But that doesn't mean the process-hiding st…

I really like Cory Doctorow’s description of why it feels empty, quote:

“Herein lies the problem with AI art. Just like with a law school letter of reference generated from three bullet points, the prompt given to an AI to produce creative writing or an image is the sum total of the communicative intent infused into the work. The prompter has a big, numinous, irreducible feeling and they want to infuse it into a work in order to materialize versions of that feeling in your mind and mine. When they deliver a single line's worth of description into the prompt box, then – by definition – that's the only part that carries any communicative freight.”

Re: Coarse is better

#59

Post by card_zero »

nehal3m wrote: post #57
card_zero wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but: when I was young I used to love photorealism and hyperrealism, which is super-smooth-and-shiny art that conceals its process in order to awe simpletons. Then I bought an airbrush, and then true color computer graphics happened, and soon after that I began to appreciate brush strokes and the texture of pen marks and the idea of the personality of the artist's hand. But that doesn't mean the process-hiding st…

I really like Cory Doctorow’s description of why it feels empty, quote: “Herein lies the problem with AI art. Just like with a law school letter of reference generated from three bullet points, the prompt given to an AI to produce creative writing or an image is the sum total of the communicative intent infused into the work. The prompter has a big, numinous, irreducible feeling and they want to infuse it into a work…

OK, but then there's the possibility of reestablishing the bandwidth by selecting the output. If the artist selects one AI image from hundreds, that's like photography, or collage, or "found sculpture" if you can dig it. Then we can do away with the need for hundreds of versions by saying that the artist selected this image from among all the assorted sights seen during the day to frame as art and present to the viewer, and that's just like picking a preferred version from among hundreds, and thus is just like crafting an image. Tenuously. (This falls apart because the selectivity of the selection isn't good enough, I guess. But the process - throwing away bad ideas as you go along - is just like drawing.)

Re: Coarse is better

#60

Post by nehal3m »

card_zero wrote: post #59
nehal3m wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like Cory Doctorow’s description of why it feels empty, quote: “Herein lies the problem with AI art. Just like with a law school letter of reference generated from three bullet points, the prompt given to an AI to produce creative writing or an image is the sum total of the communicative intent infused into the work. The prompter has a big, numinous, irreducible feeling and they want to infuse it into a work…

OK, but then there's the possibility of reestablishing the bandwidth by selecting the output. If the artist selects one AI image from hundreds, that's like photography, or collage, or "found sculpture" if you can dig it. Then we can do away with the need for hundreds of versions by saying that the artist selected this image from among all the assorted sights seen during the day to frame as art and present to the view…

Sort of. It’s like selecting from hundreds of versions of a letter of reference that word the same three bullet points slightly differently. It still feels empty to me, but I guess that’s personal.
Post reply on HN