The virtues of A.I. art

[SteelPoint]

I think a bit of quibble is that the downloaded picture is not "exact", in that it lacks the texture and resolution of an original (speaking of, for example, an oil painting). Though there is digital Art - Painted by humans using digital brushes etc... which is NOT A.I.

That is not painting. There is no paint.

And those are not brushes. There are no bristles.

And the real question in the minds of many - as you very well know - is: is it art..?

... or is it just 'machine rendering' of an idea?

 

[THROBBS]

That is not painting. There is no paint.

And those are not brushes. There are no bristles.

And the real question in the minds of many - as you very well know - is: is it art..?

... or is it just 'machine rendering' of an idea?

That is digital painting. It is not the same as physical painting, but it is still person-created imagery., just different tools.
In my weekly life-drawing session, several folk have brought tablets and drawn/painted live, using Procreate (or a similar application).
That is the same process as what I do on paper with pen or pencil.

You are welcome to coin a new term, but for me, adding the modifier; "digital" is enough, and SHOULD be used.

I have seen folk on these forums omit the term "digital" and say they "painted" this or that, but that is disingenuous.
And worse, the digital "painting" that is presented, is often simply using that "brush" over a photo.

Whether it is "art" or not, is more about the mastery, the net result. Just as anyone can use a physical brush on canvas, anyone can use a stylus with digital brush on a computer.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

One thing I will say for AI is that when it can produce porn up to the normal standards, that might turn out to be a good thing for at least some vulnerable young women.

 

[SteelPoint]

That is digital painting. It is not the same as physical painting, but it is still person-created imagery., just different tools.

Right. So, by that definition, any discreet functionality - voice activation/command of a computer (programme), for example - can be termed a "tool".

'Computer, "paint" me a rose'... it ought to be sort of curly and pink"...

... and shazzam... I'm an artist. Mine was the creative idea. I was just using a computer as a tool (to do all the hard work). Forget that part. Just please admire me.

A line has to be drawn, in every sense. You have to stop the madness of this utter pretence somewhere.

 

[THROBBS]

Right. So, by that definition, any discreet functionality - voice activation/command of a computer (programme), for example - can be termed a "tool".

'Computer, "paint" me a rose'... it ought to be sort of curly and pink"...

... and shazzam... I'm an artist. Mine was the creative idea. I was just using a computer as a tool (to do all the hard work). Forget that part. Just please admire me.

A line has to be drawn, in every sense. You have to stop the madness of this utter pretence somewhere.

You made an extra leap from tool to "Art".

I only suggested that painting with a digital brush/tool is still a form of painting (or drawing).
The stylus is held in the same manner. A great difference is the "feedback" the user gets - friction/resistance, smell.


Neither tactile paint nor digital "paint" necessarily becomes "Art".

No "Shazzam". Physical painting and digital painting require practice, observation, hand-eye coordination.
I'd say (from my experience) that one who has some mastery at physical/traditional painting (drawing) can more easily adapt to digitla painting/drawing than the reverse.

 

[Mollie06]

I like it. Its art so its perspective based.