If photography is art, so is AI image generation. If one can see something in the natural world they had no part in creating, and get an idea, a spark of creativity, and then choose a camera, choose the angle, choose the framing, set the configurable aspects of the camera such as shutter speed, exposure time, what type of film, what lens to put on, and produce a photograph, perhaps several, perhaps even a dozen attempts to get it just right, and the final result can be placed in a gallery alongside paintings and sculptures and Jackson Pollocks without a single modern art snob batting an eye, how then is that any different from someone with the same spark of creativity tuning a prompt for a model they’ve become deeply familiar with, seeking to bring the inspiration in their mind’s eye into the real world where others can see and experience it too?
I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but it bears repeating for those who haven’t - photography was not initially considered a form of art. But photographers didn’t seem to care too much, and neither did the layperson, so here we are again, having the same old argument about another new art form made possible through a technology that invokes Clarke’s law.
Yeah the reason I joined this instance was because I thought there was supposed to be less hot air bullshit like this. I think people got this hateful take already when it was shoved down everyone’s throats everywhere for a couple of years now when it’s not even relevant to the discussion. That horse has been flogged all the back to Hades and back a hundred-fold already.
That’s not very nice.
If photography is art, so is AI image generation. If one can see something in the natural world they had no part in creating, and get an idea, a spark of creativity, and then choose a camera, choose the angle, choose the framing, set the configurable aspects of the camera such as shutter speed, exposure time, what type of film, what lens to put on, and produce a photograph, perhaps several, perhaps even a dozen attempts to get it just right, and the final result can be placed in a gallery alongside paintings and sculptures and Jackson Pollocks without a single modern art snob batting an eye, how then is that any different from someone with the same spark of creativity tuning a prompt for a model they’ve become deeply familiar with, seeking to bring the inspiration in their mind’s eye into the real world where others can see and experience it too?
I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but it bears repeating for those who haven’t - photography was not initially considered a form of art. But photographers didn’t seem to care too much, and neither did the layperson, so here we are again, having the same old argument about another new art form made possible through a technology that invokes Clarke’s law.
Yeah the reason I joined this instance was because I thought there was supposed to be less hot air bullshit like this. I think people got this hateful take already when it was shoved down everyone’s throats everywhere for a couple of years now when it’s not even relevant to the discussion. That horse has been flogged all the back to Hades and back a hundred-fold already.
edit: typo