Back to rock, huh?
How about people who need a camera to create their art? Are they less of an artist than a painter?
I’m sick and tried of people re-hashing a discussion that has been settled for almost two centuries. Yes, photography can be art. There’s art in how you use the tool. Not all people making photographs are artists or are even out to create art, and then it isn’t art, and that’s also fine. Why are people having such an issue applying the same to AI as a tool, saying not “Your shit sucks because it’s AI” but “Your shit sucks because you’re a hack”.
Cameraman is an artist, he does way better than ai piss bro to master his art genre.
It’s 2025 and you don’t know why AI sucks? At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it, you had time to develop critical thinking.
How about using AI-assisted tool in creating your art?
I’m a professional underwater photographer who teaches the subject at a university as a side job. I teach my students to hover underwater on scuba without stirring up the bottom to get the perfect shots. They’re having to control their buoyancy, adjust camera settings and lighting, frame their shots, and more. It’s extremely difficult, detailed work to get an underwater photo.
Does the fact they use lightroom and AI de-noising filters invalidate all that work?
Technical aside all generative AI is denoising. At least all diffusion models, don’t really know the tech behind the rest.
Models made for generation will be able to denoise complete noise, reading things into it, but will also be able to only denoise a little bit. Models made for denoising might lack the capacity and training for a complete denoise to be faster, but ultimately it’s still the same technology.
Is everyone who ever took generative AI for a spin an “AI piss bro”?
I won’t, for a millisecond, deny that there’s a fuckton of AI piss bros who wouldn’t be able to see artistic intent if it kicked them in the head. They write a random prompt, hit “generate” and declare it art, and yes of course that’s all thoughtless garbage. But it’s also perfectly possible to take thoughtless photographs, that doesn’t mean that all photographs are thoughtless garbage, or all photographers “photography piss bros”.
At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it,
So you can more confidently dismiss me as an ai piss bro, I presume. Certainly would make not engaging with the argument easier.
i say this as nicely as I can, you dont need expensive and exploitative algorithms to make art. i dont really care if you say you cant make anything, put a pen to paper and draw. your terrible scribble has infinitely more value than anything a tech company’s software can generate using stolen data. and after you crumple that up and throw it away, get another sheet of paper and do it again, and again, until your wrist snaps apart, and I guarantee you will not only have learned something about yourself but you will be more of an artist than any tech bro using chatgpt
People use AI for making “art” not because of their lack of ability to create art per se, but they use it rather as a way to cut costs in their commercial projects and skip contracting real artists. This is why it’s malicious. I wouldn’t care if somoeone uses it for pure, private leisure.
“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”
Exactly. AI images are not going to eliminate art. They just make it more difficult for artists to compete under capitalism.
The solution is to abandon capitalism. Not stop tech development.
Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
How do you believe the idiom applies here? They’re not shitting in their hands. They’re actually building it.
I meant in response to your solution of abandoning capitalism. Not that I wouldn’t be overjoyed that we’ve done so but we’ve shown no real effort to impede it’s continuous infection.
I’d rather we not fuck over artists in the meantime.
Fuck over artists vs fuck over artists and everyone. How about some simple regulation and laws to cope with the new technology maybe?
Art is inherent in us. Just like the need to put boobs on mythical lizard creatures.
Drawing boobs is second only to the instinct to draw cocks.
If that Heavy Metal episode of South Park has taught me anything, it’s that everything looks better with boobs.
Relevant Oglaf (NSFW but not nearly as NSFW as this comic often gets): Dimorphism
I get the message and agree but busty dragoness is not an art lol let’s be honest here. It’s a well crafted image
It never ceases to amaze me that nsfw goon creators think of themselves as artists
Just cause you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it not art. Art is anything created by an organic being that relays a mood or a message wether it be intentional or not.
Art is something that conveys some message and meaning. Gooning is just opposite
Cmon you surely realise that these nsfw furry commissioners cannot be called artists.
Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.
Organic being is also wrong btw. Sentient instead.
On the most basic level art is means of communication.
As you can see portrait of big tiddy dino waifu on porn site has no message nor communicates anything. There is no meaning to it. There could be but there isn’t. Though OP picture actually communicates something so it is an art in this example, meta art
“art can’t be erotic” is some stupid american conservative puritan take.
I mean if you call a dino with huge tits an art then you are only embarrassing yourself
There is nothing about bahonka honkas on a reptilian that immediately disqualify it from being art. You can have tremendous brushwork, lighting or technique on your scaly porn.
Besides if it manages an emotional response it’s art. Getting you horny is an emotional response.
Not really lol. Please, no one sane would consider dino with a dick an art. What kind of bubble are you in? Some kind of coomer circles maybe but those people are not to be taken seriously
You would be ridiculed at any art institution mercilessly if you made it as some sort of bachelors. Actually I want to see it lol
If the rule is “emotional response except for THAT ONE, eww” its not really an rule. Its some puritan bullshit.
I never said it was high art, it still qualifies as art.
Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.
Usually it’s not a very high standard but it is a standard, and even without getting into proper erotica and staying with pulp: Lemon stealing whores exist. Even Gonzo in itself is a choice, breaking through the traditional structure, opting to completely eradicate the fourth wall, the pretence. I bet it takes quite some skill to portray the fantasy of being a camera man on a porn set vs. the reality of it.
Art is not like enlightenment, it’s more like meditation. You don’t need to be good at it to be doing it.
On the most basic level art is means of communication.
Nope that’d be language (in whatever form). The core of art is intent. It’s the science of subjective choice, there’s no requirement to be intersubjective. It can be just you and the medium, and that medium can even be yourself, c.f. ars vivendi. Plenty of philosophers are artists.
I disagree
With all of what I said? Damn.
With your definitions everything becomes an art. Even painting your walls and baking bread hence it must be incorrect definition as obviously not everything is an art. There is a difference between craft and an art. You can be a good crafter of nsfw images but that doesn’t mean you are an artist.
Craft is about objective, not subjective, choice. Craft is saying “The wall of this mug needs to be thicker or I won’t have enough clay to trim the surface smooth”. Art is saying “I’d like to do some more experiments with copper inclusions, they tickle my aesthetic sense”. Sorry I watched a lot of Florian Gadsby lately.
The creation of a bread recipe often involves art, it is a conversation between your personal taste and the medium. Figuring out how to bake 100 of those a day in a reliable, reproducible manner, is craft. Different bakers land on different points on that spectrum. It’s no different with goon artists, but they probably all have created a recipe or two.
“real art”. Gatekeeping art now, are we?
Yes.
Art is made by living things. Until AI is alive it cannot make art. Current models don’t fit the bill. That’s not saying that a far more advanced future AI couldn’t make art, but at present AI can’t make art.
And by what definition would an advanced AI be “alive” enough to create art?
When it can be proven to think for itself and not regurgitate what it thinks you want to hear. When it steps past lines of code, not as a façade or fascimile, but as its own being with its own goals and its own sense of realised existence.
If I may rephrase it: Art can be created by an AI only if it has agency and self-awareness (or, more general, conciousness).
Is that necessary though to create art?
Quite a loaded philosophical question, but an important one if we want to talk about the essence of art and the beings – either natural or artificial – that create it.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
By that definition, those without a (known) sense of self-awareness or conciousness, couldn’t. And yet, we can see behaviour that we would call “art”. Be it a bird, which mimicks sounds or invents a dance to impress females, or a fish that draws patterns into the sand for similar reasons.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s dolphin poetry. Most animals simply don’t seem to be able or interested, though, the development of art as a reflective practice (as in: the science of subjective choice) requires a lack of pre-programming, reliance on self-reprogramming, that’s mostly limited to humans as far as we’re aware.
Cats seem to like music in pretty much the same way as we like purring, as in: It resonates with them, but so far there’s no cat composers out there, reflecting the thrill and joy of the hunt in terms of music. I’d totally listen to that.
Lemmy users are notoriously delicate. They cannot survive outside heavily moderated and curated online spaces.
Hence, gatekeeping is a needed tactic to ensure these spaces were they thrive keep a metastatic state.
In fact, a common practice in Lemmy is to gatekeep subjective experiences, like humor, art, memes, taste in music, movies or games.
You name it, you will have dozens of users telling you that “no, in actual fact, your subjective experience about <THING> is wrong, and has to conform to mine, or else”
Removed by mod
I require a computer to create art. I suck at everything art related. Can’t draw, can’t paint, can’t play a musical instrument. If I have an image in my head, the best way to create it, for me, is to tell an AI what I want and then look through the results for what is closest to the image I had in my mind.
We all start out like that. There is no magic artist that “just paints it” or even draws it, it’s hours of training.
Folks, it’s not magic! Just get to it and you’ll get better. Copy other artists to learn styles and how to do things, and one day you’ll wake up with your own unique style that is just you.
You are less of an artist than the person comissioning an artist.
Haven’t seen this on here yet
I’ve seen it 3 times already.
But why give a lizard boobs? They don’t have boobs!
Because it’s hot
It’s not a lizard.
It’s a dragon.
Dragons could have boobs, I’ve never seen one.
Have you ever seen a giant, flying, fire breathing dragon IRL that didn’t have boobs?
Because they don’t need no AI to sexually objectify women’s bodies!
That’s not a woman, that’s a dragoness.
That’s where the fire is stored
Warm cushions when not breathing fire
Non-mammals lacking mammary glands?! Say it ain’t so.
And the first thing that came to mind after typing that? Lobster-titties
Would they come in their own armoured bra?
I would pay to see Snake-tits.
Of course Ethel guy who can draw a dragon was with coal does nto need AI lmao. The guy with two legs an a working spine doesn’t need a wheelchair.
Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.
This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
Archaeologists:
Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
Around the 2000’s a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.
Although we studied this acient relicts in great detail, we can not make sense out of the high representation of fertility related dieties in comparison to other typical deities i.e.war or hunting gods. A possible explanation could be a crisis of reproduction caused by the cost of living during this period of time.
Furries: “I would like to purchase this rock.”
I wouldn’t purchase this without nipples at least
