13
Heard a teacher say AI art isn't 'real' art... but what about digital tools?
I was in a workshop last Tuesday and this older instructor flat out said AI generated pieces don't belong in a gallery because there's no human effort involved. It got me thinking though isn't digital painting the same argument people made 20 years ago against Photoshop? I kinda see both sides since AI does a lot of the heavy lifting but also requires prompting and curation. Which side do you lean on for showcase spaces like this?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
riveradams20d agoMost Upvoted
My buddy Dave spent like three hours last week trying to get an AI to make a picture of a raccoon in a tuxedo holding a tiny umbrella. He kept tweaking the prompt and regenerating until it was just right. That's more effort than some abstract painters I've seen who just throw paint at a canvas and call it a day. Digital tools are just different kinds of brushes at the end of the day. If someone can sit there and guide a machine to spit out something that actually makes people stop and look, I'd say that counts for something in a gallery.
8
faith68420d ago
Yeah, I'm guilty of thinking that stuff was just typing words and hitting a button. But three hours of tweaking? That's real work. @riveradams, you kind of changed my mind. Guiding a tool that long takes actual vision, even if you're not holding a brush.
0