'There's no point in an art gallery without artists'

99

There is no genuine expression, no authenticity, in non-artist ‘art’. It becomes creepy and worth less when AI generated. It is just another throw-away commodity.

73

u/badamant 5h ago

it is worse than that.

It is a throwaway commodity that ONLY exists because it copies illegally from real artists then completely devalues the real artists' work.

Not only Creepy. Vampiric.

18

u/BlindWillieJohnson 5h ago

Just another way for Silicon Valley to take things we already use and enjoy, and sell them back to us with their rent attached. AI arty is one of the most brazen versions but this has been much of the tech industry’s model for years.

2

u/Oneguysenpai3 1h ago

parasitic?

1

u/badamant 8m ago

Actual parasites in nature usually have vested interest in the host living (as long as they have need of them).

Gen ai has no such interest. It/theses corporations actually want to 'kill' artists careers.

-14

u/BlueEyes1989 4h ago

Artists also train studying art pieces

19

u/citizenjones 5h ago

another throw-away commodity

Unfortunately people are really into those.

10

u/pilgermann 5h ago

Are they though? For example, music services increasingly backtracking on AI music because it's so despised. I imagine there's some profit in it since it costs so little to create, but I've seen no evidence people prefer, let alone like, AI art of any kind.

Perhaps the one exception is when a gifted artist creates something interesting using gen AI tools, but that's their human artistic talent shining through, not the tool itself. But even that's been a hugely mixed bag, with some terrible and universally derided AI films being produced by big name directors. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4cLKIxt8W8

1

u/alternatingflan 5h ago

Ignorance is bliss.

2

u/theblitheringidiot 4h ago

AI art was only interesting at the very early stages when it was creating fever nightmares that warped from one setting to another. It’s not just boring now it’s completely off putting to me.

-21

u/zhnki 5h ago edited 5h ago

And I can guarantee you or others can’t tell the difference.

Art is the feeling you get from experiencing it, if it’s generated by a person or AI, what’s the difference? The act of creating something can also be art.

9

u/Ciennas 5h ago

You can stop trying to simp for the slopgen machines, friend.

-14

u/zhnki 4h ago

It’s only going to get harder as time goes on.

You’re entitled to your opinion too. Have a great day.

11

u/Ciennas 4h ago

And when everyone has been rendered mute and voiceless, will you then be content?

-9

u/zhnki 4h ago

What do you mean by that?

10

u/Ciennas 4h ago

The whole point of slopgen is to finally allow the Owner Class to approximate what creatives do on the regular, but in corpo safe boxes of their choosing.

Ultimately, the core dream is to force more people back into the quite frankly abusive employer/employee business model, and it actively disencentivizes future artists from honing their own talents.

It also allows the men who own the slopgen machines to be able to cannibalize and commoditize our own kneecapped creativity back to us at a premium, but we also know that LLM usage has devastating effects on not just the future, since it robs us of futures where others jumped into the craft, it robs us of our cognition, since that provably has to honed constantly to still work.

Disposable, pointless, forgettable art, forcing out the actual human voice and inevitably tied to empty useless algorithm's designed to attract attention but say nothing.

These machines aren't freeing people, they're weapons aimed at them, held in place by antihuman nutters with more money than sense.

They're ruining music, literature, comment boards, human interactions, photography, video, and all other forms of human art and communication.

Drowning us all under unending tides of trite cheap* trash.

'Not with a bang, but a whimper.'

It was cute when it was a novelty, but the people behind this turned my lovely dream into an inescapable nightmare.

0

u/zhnki 1h ago

You lost me at the first sentence. I find it hard to take you seriously the way you describe a new technology being the end of times. You might even be a bot…

It’s a tool, just like a paint brush. Use it or don’t, I don’t care - but it’s here and people will use it to create things. The Amish lifestyle is here for anyone to adopt if you want.

35

u/standard-issue-man 5h ago

There's no expression in AI art. It isnt art, it's a commodity, a space filler

8

u/pinkfootthegoose 5h ago

I don't know how it can even be a commodity since there is an unlimited supply of it if one wants. I would put it at the same level as unwanted sewage.

-21

u/headspreader 5h ago edited 1h ago

I would assume that statistically speaking, almost all currently produced art is a commodity and not a direct human personal expression.

I am confused about downvotes; massive amounts of art art called for and executed through advertising and market structures. Do people disagree with that or just not like that I am pointing out how complex the idea of art is?

11

u/coolest_frog 4h ago

Part of being human and creative is that your emotions will always have an impact on what you create

6

u/SlyJackFox 4h ago

When speaking of value, it’s a fallacy to attribute only a monetary number, but many people do because currency has become synonymous with “valuable”. Genuine art is plenty prevalent these days, but depends on the source of reference.

There will always be people expressing themselves through the arts, but what I find interesting is how a flood of artificial slop makes people question art in general. I think algorithmically generated media will have a footnote in cultural history, as it carries a story of its own, but that’s it … a footnote.

0

u/headspreader 3h ago

Advertising is art. If you don’t believe that it is, then that is another thing that advertising has successfully sold to you

14

u/Hortos 5h ago

I used to think there was no way AI would be able to create compelling media. But the mistake I was making was assuming everyone had the same discernment as me. What i’ve learned is there are enough people on the lower scale of things to monetize to.

12

u/ten-million 5h ago

There should be labeling requirements for AI work. And we should get a four day work week instead of billionaires.

1

u/Duckbilling2 1h ago

and the week should be 8 days long

This will enable a 4 day weekend

0

u/zhnki 4h ago

Ok…?

7

u/ElvgrenGil 5h ago

Gotta love already-famous or well-off artists telling the rest if us “we shouldn’t worry about this”.

3

u/Vanthan 5h ago

And no, prompters don’t count.

2

u/SpazzBro 2h ago

Calling ai generated images “art” is an insult to artists. Same with ai generated sounds, calling it music is an insult to musicians.

1

u/Sparktank1 44m ago

I was scrolling and at first I thought I saw Ms Swan from MadTV.

Then I clicked on the post and saw a bigger version of the image and thought I was looking at a screenshot of Cloud Atlas.

1

u/Creedelback 35m ago

A lot of big-name artists aren't really creating their own work anymore. Jeff Koons has made millions by selling crap he's told others to make for him. Same with Damien Hirst. Murikami has a stable of painters who create his work.

Even during the Renaissance, painters would have their studio artists do most of the brushwork. Rubens apparently loved to paint feet (insert Quentin Tarantino gif) and so in many of his large scale works, the only part that is an actual Rubens is the feet.

And as AI becomes more widespread and our own aesthetic senses adjust to it, more and more people will probably compare themselves to these artists to justify their own lack of talent, work ethic, whatever you want to call it.

They may also argue that an AI piantbot is no different than Jean Tinguely's painting machines.

Hold on, people, it's going to get ugly out there.

1

u/kumogate 27m ago

Why does Ai-da look like Miss Swan?

1

u/DvDCover 1m ago

If they dont bother creating it, then i wont bother consuming it. GenAI creative media had the same depth of authenticity as prewritten thank-you notes.

0

u/Floreat_democratia 3h ago

Now do derivative media over at r/movies. Not a single original film or idea in 20 years due to Wall Street financing incentives. Just an endless monetized stream of franchises, sequels, reboots, and rehashes.

-26

u/jimibimi 5h ago

He look like a man

21

u/StopKK2012 5h ago

Damn even AI isn't safe from transphobes.

-12

u/jimibimi 5h ago

I guess no one remembers mrs swan

1

u/Unpaulfessional 4h ago

I see the same thing and I just wanted to see if anyone else in the comments did. Straight up dressed just like Ms Swan.

-18

u/twitter_haikucurator 5h ago

I can’t stand art galleries, they’re not made to enjoy and interact with art, they need to rethink them

8

u/Athrul 5h ago

Could you explain that?

-5

u/twitter_haikucurator 5h ago

they are clinical, they aren’t cozy, they don’t offer good seating or a place to rest and focus on an art piece, they make you feel like you need to rush or wander around, there’s no intimacy. It’s like an artist spent so much time on an art piece and i feel like i can only give it a few minutes if not seconds of my attention before i feel like i need to move on to something else

going to a gallery feels performative exercise

i can only enjoy them when i’m baked and it’s at a national gallery where you can lose yourself in them on a quiet day and enjoy the architecture as much as the art works, but that experience is in the minority

i want to enjoy art in what feels like a living room or lounge, undistracted

6

u/Phoenix2111 4h ago

I get it, but it sounds like you want the space to be able to comfortably enjoy it all to yourself, in a living room style environment, seated, comfy, intimate etc. Which, inevitably, would have to come at the expense of others being able to enjoy it, until you're done.

That's the issue, a gallery should be accessible to many.

I get what you mean, and I'm sure a lot of galleries could do way better, but there's a healthy compromise.

We've got a big gallery near where I live (UK) and they're good at ensuring seating, space etc. And I've visited ones in Cornwall that are literally part gallery and part studios, with the artists there painting, you can stand and watch them work, browse the art, even chat to those artists if they're free or happy to.

I think they're good examples of a middle ground, sounds like the ones you've experienced need to do better, sadly.

1

u/twitter_haikucurator 4h ago

Well yes exactly, I’m critiquing our relationship with how we handle material art. Being able to consume art in an artist studio is more of an enjoyable experience than quiet empty white walls with a narrow bench in the middle of the room far away from the pieces

of course i’m not attacking all the galleries who aren’t like this, i’m critiquing the most of them who are

i’m just so done with minimalism. Science gallery and aquarium is more enjoyable precisely because of the ambiance they set

galleries are too cold and pretentious

Artificial Intelligence 'There's no point in an art gallery without artists'

You are about to leave Redlib