HOME | DD

Description
Aside from the issue of theft, I'm producing a number of arguments about the different reasons why ai generated images are not art, why they do not belong on an art site and why ai users are not artists. I'm publishing them publicly here and allowing any pro-ai prompters to publish their rebuttals in the comments section, if they can. This is my fourth post of this type and so far, no-one has been able to produce any effective counter-arguments to any of the points I've made (a number of pro-ai prompters have replied to my posts to say that they don't like them, or to insult me personally or to tell me that it doesn't matter what I think but none have succeeded in addressing any of the actual arguments as yet). I'm still open to the possibility that they could and they're welcome to try.

The first three are:

1. Complexity of materials / simplicity of thought
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

2. The prompter's equivalence to the patron.
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

3. The prompter's lack of control
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

Of the eight arguments I've devised (so far), I'll deal with the 4th and 5th here together, as they are related. One is regarding the lack of any individual style in any ai prompters' "work" and the other is about the lack of apparent skill which the art-loving public can wonder at. The 4th point is also related to the 3rd, in that demonstrating individual style requires control.

4. If I went into a room in an art gallery, knowing that there were two paintings in there which I'd never seen before and that one of them was painted by El Greco and the other by Caravaggio, I would know as soon as I walked in, which one was which. Without having seen those two particular works before, I would easily recognise the painterly style of each. This isn't a boast on my part; anyone with a smattering of art history knowledge would be able to do the same. This would be the case even if El Greco and Caravaggio had used the exact same brands of paint and brushes.

If, on the other hand, you went into a gallery and there were two printouts of ai-generated images hanging on the wall, one generated by one prompter and the other generated by another prompter, you wouldn't have a clue which was which. You wouldn't even be able to tell if they really had been produced by two different people or both by the same person. Artists have individual styles and ai prompters do not.

5. One of the aspects of art which the art-loving public enjoy is to be able to marvel at the skill in execution of a well-crafted piece of art. When you stare at the face of the eponymous Miller's Man in George Clausen's triumphant portrait, it's hard to believe that a human being could have such incredible ability to create a face with such depth, character and realistic texture using just tubes of coloured paint and some sticks with bristles on the end (related to point 1). Likewise, the distended veins and perfectly rendered skin on the forearms of the dead Christ in Michelangelo's Pieta, make it hard to believe that what you are looking at was once just a block of marble before a towering genius took a chisel to it.

With ai, you simply don't have that. Someone may marvel at the intelligence of the Google Deepmind engineers or whoever else created a machine which apparently has the ability to learn and to beat even the best human players at Chess... and then make that engine marketable by making it user-friendly... but even if and when ai-generated images one day become much better than they currently are, no-one will ever be impressed by the 'skill' of the prompter who requested the image; he is just the engineer's customer. He is nothing more than a consumer.

Description
Aside from the issue of theft, I'm producing a number of arguments about the different reasons why ai generated images are not art, why they do not belong on an art site and why ai users are not artists. I'm publishing them publicly here and allowing any pro-ai prompters to publish their rebuttals in the comments section, if they can. This is my fourth post of this type and so far, no-one has been able to produce any effective counter-arguments to any of the points I've made (a number of pro-ai prompters have replied to my posts to say that they don't like them, or to insult me personally or to tell me that it doesn't matter what I think but none have succeeded in addressing any of the actual arguments as yet). I'm still open to the possibility that they could and they're welcome to try.

The first three are:

1. Complexity of materials / simplicity of thought
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

2. The prompter's equivalence to the patron.
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

3. The prompter's lack of control
www.deviantart.com/bouncypecs/…

Of the eight arguments I've devised (so far), I'll deal with the 4th and 5th here together, as they are related. One is regarding the lack of any individual style in any ai prompters' "work" and the other is about the lack of apparent skill which the art-loving public can wonder at. The 4th point is also related to the 3rd, in that demonstrating individual style requires control.

4. If I went into a room in an art gallery, knowing that there were two paintings in there which I'd never seen before and that one of them was painted by El Greco and the other by Caravaggio, I would know as soon as I walked in, which one was which. Without having seen those two particular works before, I would easily recognise the painterly style of each. This isn't a boast on my part; anyone with a smattering of art history knowledge would be able to do the same. This would be the case even if El Greco and Caravaggio had used the exact same brands of paint and brushes.

If, on the other hand, you went into a gallery and there were two printouts of ai-generated images hanging on the wall, one generated by one prompter and the other generated by another prompter, you wouldn't have a clue which was which. You wouldn't even be able to tell if they really had been produced by two different people or both by the same person. Artists have individual styles and ai prompters do not.

5. One of the aspects of art which the art-loving public enjoy is to be able to marvel at the skill in execution of a well-crafted piece of art. When you stare at the face of the eponymous Miller's Man in George Clausen's triumphant portrait, it's hard to believe that a human being could have such incredible ability to create a face with such depth, character and realistic texture using just tubes of coloured paint and some sticks with bristles on the end (related to point 1). Likewise, the distended veins and perfectly rendered skin on the forearms of the dead Christ in Michelangelo's Pieta, make it hard to believe that what you are looking at was once just a block of marble before a towering genius took a chisel to it.

With ai, you simply don't have that. Someone may marvel at the intelligence of the Google Deepmind engineers or whoever else created a machine which apparently has the ability to learn and to beat even the best human players at Chess... and then make that engine marketable by making it user-friendly... but even if and when ai-generated images one day become much better than they currently are, no-one will ever be impressed by the 'skill' of the prompter who requested the image; he is just the engineer's customer. He is nothing more than a consumer.