Wanna Bicker about/discuss Digital Art vs digital "art"?

[THROBBS]

I can read music. I am not a musician.
I have rebuilt an engine and made many automobile repairs. I am not a mechanic.
I have danced at parties. I am not a dancer.
I have fixed/replaced pipes, sinks, toilets. I am not a plumber.
I drafted the plans for two home additions. I am not an architect.
I wired one of those additions. I am not an electrician.
I sing in the car (when alone). I am NOT a singer.
I've designed logos and packaging. I AM a graphic designer.
I've written and illustrated a published book (sold ~ 4,000 copies). I AM an illustrator... I am marginally an author.
I've won medals in gymnastic competitions. I was an athlete, no longer.
I mowed the lawn. I am not a landscaper.
I was in a couple plays in Junior High School. I am not an actor.

A person makes a mark on paper, on a screen, on a canvas — is not necessarily an "Artist".

 

[SteelPoint]

A person makes a mark on paper, on a screen, on a canvas — is not necessarily an "Artist".

Agreed... but NB that person is the fons et origo of those marks... the originator. Not some thieving software.

 

[THROBBS]

Agreed... but NB that person is the fons et origo of those marks... the originator. Not some thieving software.

In most cases, yes. And with practice, they may, eventually become an artist.


One might argue, that prompt writer is the "catalyst" of the image that is generated from stolen art.

One might argue that the person applying the filter(s) to an appropriated photo is also the originator of the final image.
And if the source photo is their own...? I'd say, "ok, they are the creator of the end image, but that is not Art."

 

[SteelPoint]

In most cases, yes. And with practice, they may, eventually become an artist.




One might argue that the person applying the filter(s) to an appropriated photo is also the originator of the final image.

Doubtful. The final image could not exist without its reliance on the original prompt. That is a serious flaw in the argument and, I suspect, the reason why no court would support it, i.e. that 'person' would be declared to be merely a modifier of something pre-existing and therefore a plagiarist.

 

[Prudence_Art]

I can read music. I am not a musician.
I have rebuilt an engine and made many automobile repairs. I am not a mechanic.
I have danced at parties. I am not a dancer.
I have fixed/replaced pipes, sinks, toilets. I am not a plumber.
I drafted the plans for two home additions. I am not an architect.
I wired one of those additions. I am not an electrician.
I sing in the car (when alone). I am NOT a singer.
I've designed logos and packaging. I AM a graphic designer.
I've written and illustrated a published book (sold ~ 4,000 copies). I AM an illustrator... I am marginally an author.
I've won medals in gymnastic competitions. I was an athlete, no longer.
I mowed the lawn. I am not a landscaper.
I was in a couple plays in Junior High School. I am not an actor.

thats a long list, i would go through it point by point but in general
you seem to be suggesting getting paid is a big defining factor here.....

A person makes a mark on paper, on a screen, on a canvas — is not necessarily an "Artist

shifting the goalposts here, the thread title specifies the word 'art' not 'artist'.

 

[Prudence_Art]

If one is to talk about/discuss Art, then there need be some sort of definition of just what art is (and isn't). That is indeed a rule.
to say it "should not be limited by rules" is kinda being "up one's own arse". kinda pompous.

i dont know if you are aware of Austin Osman Spare, known in his time as 'Englands greatest living draughtsman', but he said this....."Great thoughts are against all doctrines of conformity"
he also pioneered automatic drawing, where he was guided by spirits to make art., kind of like a.i without computers

I am not "slagging a medium" (digital art), I am calling out specific uses and claims.
I use digital tools. I do not try and pass off poorly manipulated photos as "paintings" (digital or otherwise).

yes i should not have quoted you there, but that attitude has definitely polluted this thread

It DOES have harm to do so. It is misleading, and undermines the hard work and craftsmanship of actual artists.

i am going to refer you to the neoists, not all named artists are craftspeople or hard workers, 'artists' have done more to destroy arts value than a bunch of happy amateurs having fun making pictures distributed and displayed on the interwebs...

Just as AI "art" being passed off as a prompter's "work", it isn't.

finishing on a visual joke to lighten the mood..
.'imagined portrait of annie sprinkle of in the style of rubens'

 

[THROBBS]

thats a long list, i would go through it point by point but in general
you seem to be suggesting getting paid is a big defining factor here.....



shifting the goalposts here, the thread title specifies the word 'art' not 'artist'.

Nope. $ is not the defining factor. especially as I've been paid for a bunch of those things.
I am speaking to a certain measure of qualification to wear the "mantel".

Art being created by Artists.

Making a mark does not equate to making Art. (happier now?)

Same posts. just expanding on the theme.

 

[THROBBS]

i dont know if you are aware of Austin Osman Spare, known in his time as 'Englands greatest living draughtsman', but he said this....."Great thoughts are against all doctrines of conformity"
he also pioneered automatic drawing, where he was guided by spirits to make art., kind of like a.i without computers

I have seen and heard of him. However have not really delved into his work or views.
Looked a bit just now. I wouldn't really equated what he did to what AI does, his work is coming from his head , whereas AI imagery is coming from thousands of heads, and being mushed together.

yes i should not have quoted you there, but that attitude has definitely polluted this thread

Alrighty. Yes, I have noted. Though I think we bicker about discuss those views.

i am going to refer you to the neoists, not all named artists are craftspeople or hard workers, 'artists' have done more to destroy arts value than a bunch of happy amateurs having fun making pictures distributed and displayed on the interwebs...

I am also suggesting that the label of "artist" has, indeed, been misappropriated. Again, not havng to do with "professional" vs "Amateur" (being paid or not)

finishing on a visual joke to lighten the mood..
.'imagined portrait of annie sprinkle of in the style of rubens'


View attachment 2246005

Interesting, amusing (though not really in the style of Rubens)

 

[000zing]

You forgot the obvious one of adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa...

I like the noticeable retreat here a post or two back... "making pictures". A concession of sorts, finally.

 

[Prudence_Art]

You forgot the obvious one of adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa...

....no i was saving that one, anyway the hardline view here would say thats not art

I like the noticeable retreat here a post or two back... "making pictures". A concession of sorts, finally.

....grasping at straws somewhat .

 

[Prudence_Art]

Interesting, amusing

thanks...

(though not really in the style of Rubens)

....that may be part of the joke .
....and not a single artist was hurt in the making of that image.
....apart from bruised ego's

 

[THROBBS]

thanks...


....that may be part of the joke .
....and not a single artist was hurt in the making of that image.
....apart from bruised ego's

Who's ego got bruised on that one?

 

[Prudence_Art]

Who's ego got bruised on that one?

time will tell.

 

[Prudence_Art]

as an aside from the debate i was wondering what the happy throng
thinks about pic sharing threads, of which there are many on the forum
particularly ones where loads of pics are shared with no credit to the original creator.
in my case i have shared but always credit photographer/artist/model

imagine if one's work was scooped up and posted elswhere on the web, winning adulation
unknown to the artist.

asking because i wonder if people think only editted or adapted images are
cheating/theft or is sharing is equally frowned upon....?

 

[THROBBS]

as an aside from the debate i was wondering what the happy throng
thinks about pic sharing threads, of which there are many on the forum
particularly ones where loads of pics are shared with no credit to the original creator.
in my case i have shared but always credit photographer/artist/model

imagine if one's work was scooped up and posted elswhere on the web, winning adulation
unknown to the artist.

asking because i wonder if people think only editted or adapted images are
cheating/theft or is sharing is equally frowned upon....?

It's all theft.
The pic threads are almost all "honestly" thievery, where as the altered ones that are being passed of as the poster's own work is dishonest on top of theft.

In addition there are many images being passed off as photos, and the ignorant public are accepting them as such.
Digitally enhanced breasts, digitally reduced waists. or simply A.I. images.
Bad enough that there have been airbrushed images forever and there is so much body dysmorphia rampant in our culture.
This crap simply adds to unrealistic expectations. (from women and men)

Those who do recognize the manipulation tend to pass it off as simply fuel for a fetish.

Quite a few men, who have little actual knowledge of female anatomy, are lead to believe these fabrications are what they might see, should they get so lucky.

As for the "sharing" view point, I reckon that those viewing are not frowning.

 

[Prudence_Art]

From ARTnews. <READ THE ARTICLE)

"An artist declined an award at a prominent photography contest because he had submitted an AI-generated work, proving, he said, the competition couldn’t deal with art made by that means. The contest’s organizers, in turn, said they didn’t know the extent to which the work utilized AI.

Boris Eldagsen won the World Photography Organization’s Sony World Photography Awards for a piece titled The Electrician. The work appears like an old photograph showing two women, one of whom crouches behind the other. Another person’s hand extends toward the front woman’s body."

...
“AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this,” he wrote in a statement on April 13. “They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.”

more from Boris......
" The process has many steps, it’s not putting in three words and clicking ‘generate’,” Eldagsen explains. “I identified 11 parts of the prompt; you create an image with text prompt, then when you want to leave the frame, do something to the image outside of the painting [for example, create imperfections to the surface, as there are on The Electrician], then again you have to describe, ‘What do I want to appear?’”

"The German artist caused uproar this week when he revealed the shot that won a prestigious award wasn’t what it seemed. But, he insists, AI isn’t about sidelining humans – it’s about liberating artists"

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...6RN9kY0f4sCNXNG5IcffdiRA-33KTrXFkVQtiF63tigqI

 

[THROBBS]

At least he is thoughtful about what he does. And willing to explore new terminology to describe it.
It is NOT photography. Nor is it painting or drawing, even if some after prompt manipulation is applied.

We have words for hand chosen/placed manipulated imagery like collage.

Choosing the prompt words to get what you want (hope) can be a developed skill set, but you are still not selecting the source material (unless you've input it yourself, which is not available with all software) You are relying on the data base of (mostly) stolen works (some is actually public domain).

 

[THROBBS]

So Jackson pollok did not create art by your definition, correct?

Incorrect.

One must assess Pollock's works contextually, they were a product of the time in which he created them.
99.9% of painting which the generally public perceive to be "Jackson Pollock" work ie. paint splatters. Are simply derivative and do add anything to the story or purpose, they are simply visual masturbation.

JP was an abstract expressionist and put considerable thought into the physical movements of painting and what Art was about. He had great intent. His work was original.

 

[THROBBS]

so his art had intent, purpose….

Indeed.

Might be worth a read about him.

I do not "like" his work, but appreciate that he did it. He pushed the boundaries and generated something(s) unique.


Boris Eldagsen (in Prudence's linked article in the post above) speaks of having knowledge and study of art history for creating more powerful (intentional) AI prompts.

 

[THROBBS]

He was a putz.
His art is random crap.
I must be missing something here. He pushed boundaries but ai does not?

I added to my post above.

I don't know him, he may have been a putz. But his art was not so "random" as one may 1st assume.
I would reckon that it generally perceived as non-visually "pleasing" to look at (crap?).
Yes, you are missing something - mainly the historical context.
You don't have to LIKE his work, but you could learn to appreciate what it is and why it is.

Not everyone likes every Artist or even every work by certain artists.

AI pushes boundaries, even pushes buttons! LOL
That alone does not make it Art.

 

[Prudence_Art]

He was a putz.
His art is random crap.
I must be missing something here. He pushed boundaries but ai does not?

....he's considerably better known than Lee Krasner thats for sure.
wonder why ?

 

[THROBBS]

....he's considerably better known than Lee Krasner thats for sure.
wonder why ?

He was a man, duh.

OH! You were being sarcastic!

Much like with Auguste Rodin and Camille Claudel in the arena of sculpture.

Part of our patriarchal society (and therefore HIStory).


NOTE: Bea did not pick on Lee as an example of "shouldn't be considered art".
Another factor, besides gender, is that Krasner was more diverse than Pollock — the general public prefers to pigeon hole artists.

 

[THROBBS]

Sounds a little pretentious to me

Much of the Art world IS pretentious. However there really is more to the story than that.

Seriously, do not dismiss his (or her) work out of hand. Even read the Wikipedia version.

I read the articles that Prudence shares. Knowledge is a good thing.

 

[THROBBS]

Studied pollok a couple decades ago, even tried creating splatter and dribble art in his style. Not really my thing. Not what I consider art.

Ok.

Perhaps it is time to revisit. Not to generate, but to understand. It is not my thing either. There is no need to repeat that.

Abstract expressionism had its moment in Art History. Reactionary.

 

[Prudence_Art]

Sounds a little pretentious to me

....who/what ?

Studied pollok a couple decades ago, even tried creating splatter and dribble art in his style. Not really my thing. Not what I consider art.

cryptic, what is your thing ?