2 Comments

A nice nuanced take on the "AI Art" controversy.

I think one way to see AI Art is to compare it to photography. The writer E. Michael Jones claimed that photography is not art. Why? Because you're not really making something from scratch but rather you take what's already there. There isn't any "mimesis" going on with with photography. The same should be said for AI Art. It doesn't mean that it's not beautiful or that we can't make use of it, but we shouldn't call it art.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks! The thing I'd argue with photography is the fact you do have control over elements such as lighting, poses, color, experiments with multiple exposures, etc. Your sense of vision and ability to manipulate tangible, real-world elements is used to construct the image. Also the case with the cinematography aspect of film. With A.I., it is completely hands-off. You can adjust parameters, but that does not guarantee the results you seek. In photography, human error amounts to poor exposure, lack of focus, etc., but those are all elements one has control over, or can use to great effect (look at soft-focus photography). In A.I., there is no human error. Only what you ask of the machine.

Expand full comment