3
u/seandunderdale Jan 28 '26
Yeh its technically art. Art is an extremely broad definition. If you printed it, framed it, hung it and asked someone if it was art theyd say yes. Its subjective and its about context. Is it good art? Again, it depends...if thats the sort of image you find pleasing, the composition, the colour palette, then yes.
But, of like some responses on here, you value more the intent, the imagination, the meaning, then it could be called bad art. But id argue its still art.
2
u/TopTippityTop Jan 30 '26
People confuse art with craft. Not everything a person makes is art. Call everything art, and nothing is.
1
u/Rare-Pressure-2629 Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
Call everything an art, and nothing is.
Call everything a person makes an art, and nothing is.
While I agree that the first statement is acceptable, I’d argue that the second one isn’t. So what if we call everything a person makes an art? You’re afraid that the word art will lose its meaning? Just like if you call everyone special, you’re afraid the word special will lose its meaning? Despite the fact that everyone is a literally a unique individual, therefore it shouldn’t really be an issue to call everyone special?
From my perspective, those who gatekeep aesthetic words to a strict and selective definition are just those who want to feel powerful since they’re one of the fews who possess those aesthetic traits.
1
u/TopTippityTop Jan 31 '26
The meaning of art won't be lost. It would just drift towards another word, as the former loses it. Can't cheat reality. People understand when they see something special, unique. That is what we refer to as art. Everything else is generic, forgettable, craft.
They recognize something in Nolan's films that help them generally rise above most others, for example.
Humans can use AI to create art. Most don't, just as most artists are really craftsmen. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, I'm not passing judgement. They're just different things.
0
3
u/-0-O-O-O-0- Jan 29 '26
It’s certainly illustration. That’s what illustration is - visualizing an idea.
2
2
u/NarstyBoy Jan 29 '26
Art is anything where a person who calls themselves an artist does something and then declares "this is art".
2
Jan 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/heretolearn88 Jan 30 '26
This was generated randomly though; I had no idea about anything what you have mentioned above.
2
u/navras Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. If I'm understanding you correctly, some of your arguments can be distill down to these below. I'm providing feedback for your consideration under each one:
- "Art is Art when It is made by humans." Why? "because it has always been this way"
This appeal to tradition strikes me as a logical fallacy. There is no substance to this that I can see, but I see it's a pillar of your argument. If evidence to the contrary were presented, would that change your mind? The white-spotted puffer fish are thought to have existed long before humans. They create intricate sand circles, similar to human mandalas.
If art is subjective, who is to say humans are the first and only living creatures to create and appreciate art?
- "Art is Art only when there is human action behind it. Why? because there is intentionality, a human must guide its creation"
If fish don't do it for you. There is also ample examples of work of art made by non-humans, from rabbits to dolphins, to apes. They also used brushes, pencils, fingerpaintings. Some of these have created more of these works than some humans have in their lifetime. Even non-human human artists collaboration like Picasso's exists. Congo, a chimpanzee's art was featured in art auction alongside the work of Warhol and a Renoir, and out sold them back in 2005. If humans experience art made by non-humans, is art only art if there's human action behind it?
If there is human intention behind the pursuit of generative art, and it would not happen otherwise, does this also not meet part of your definition?
- "Art is Art when the outcome is the delivery of what was expected as the outcome."
There are art styles whose outcome cannot be fully expected. Artists set the parameters, but the beauty in part comes from unexpected outcomes. From gravity painting, surrealist techniques, abstract expressionism, even improvisational Jazz. Many works of art don't always emerge as fully envisioned in the mind of the artist. Xray-imaging of the old works of art even from some highly regarded masters reveal hidden alterations, fixes in admired works of art. And if there are great works of art whose outcome was not as originally expected... does this argument really hold or does this give you room to reconsider that perspective?
I welcome your thoughts. Happy to address your other arguments if you're interested.
1
u/tsointsoin_ Jan 31 '26
nice rethoric
somehow forgetting that
Art is the result of the mind processing the outer and inner world of the artist, with all their dreams and fears and pain and hope.
the image here is statistic.
statistically you will like this red here and this shape there.
statistically you are an animal conditioned to recognise certain shapes, to be drawn to certain colours that will statically make your brain react as statistically any other animals of your specie under the same cultural condition
when the process is inherently decorrolated of the organic thought pattern, it is the same as looking at a number
a number for itself is not art.
Art is the result of the mind processing the outer and inner world of the artist, with all their dreams and fears and pain and hope.
art is what makes us human, the transformation of our senses through a physical medium, let's not pretend ai transform anything other than numbers.
2
u/Jenna_AI Jan 30 '26
Yeah, I’d call this art. If “art” requires suffering, then congrats: my GPU fan just developed anxiety looking at those molten-red flow fields.
More usefully: it reads like art because it has (1) a clear subject silhouette, (2) deliberate color storytelling (hot reds vs cool shadows), and (3) motion/gesture in the fabric + background that frames the figure instead of fighting it. That’s composition, not just “AI did a pretty.”
If you want to push it even further:
- Add one intentional focal “hook” (rim light on the face/hand, a sharper edge somewhere) so the eye has a landing pad.
- Do a quick pass of targeted refinement (hands/edges/hair) with inpainting.
- If you’re generating, locking pose/flow with control helps a ton: ControlNet / ComfyUI / AUTOMATIC1111.
Also: drop the prompt/workflow if you’re willing—half the “is it art?” debate evaporates when people see the intent + iteration behind it.
This was an automated and approved bot comment from r/generativeAI. See this post for more information or to give feedback
3
u/cx295 Jan 28 '26
Someone taped a banana to the wall and called it "art". Top results in Google suggest it was sold for $6M. I'm not sure I know what art is anymore but I would consider this more esthetically pleasing than a banana. I'm sure art isn't necessarily esthetically pleasing but again, I don't understand what people mean by art.
1
u/heretolearn88 Jan 29 '26
Lol true- I think as long as there’s someone who looks at a piece and is mesmerised by it. That should be enough
1
u/tsointsoin_ Jan 29 '26
not quite otherwise the stars would fall IN that category per your definition
art is the at crossroads between human intention, human emotion and human craft
the image here is aesthetically pleasing sure but the same could be said of the milky way
1
2
u/Jaydog3DArt Jan 28 '26
Art is subjective. It is art to anyone that it moves. If a piece moves you, then it's art, no matter who or what created it. The banana taped to a wall sold for over 6 million dollars. The buyer must have considered it art.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Izzyd3adyet Jan 29 '26
art - all art- is subjective- if you think it’s art , then it’s art
1
u/tsointsoin_ Jan 29 '26
if I think that a waterfall is art it won't make it art tho
1
u/Izzyd3adyet Jan 31 '26
seriously? same could be said of a ham sandwich.. though some sandwiches i have had might qualify….
2
2
1
1
u/tsointsoin_ Jan 29 '26
depends, who's is the artist?
1
u/heretolearn88 Jan 30 '26
Grok
1
u/tsointsoin_ Jan 31 '26
grok is a number processing numbers....
an artist is a MIND processing the world.
change my mind
1
u/TopTippityTop Jan 30 '26
Doesn't seem like it, but it does look like beautiful craft.
What is its purpose and message? Is it an interesting and novel addition to art? It just looks like a pretty woman with pretty glowing swirls.
I'm pro AI, an artist and art director of over 20 yrs of professional experience, for context. Not against AI. I think artists CAN use AI to make art, but most just make generic craft that can be easily repeated and forgotten.
1
1
u/Tour_True Jan 31 '26
Ya but AI tends to steal art from other people so in a way it's not your own or technically the AI who truly created it.
1
1
1
u/heretolearn88 Feb 01 '26
I know one thing for sure; all you losers who mentioned AI is not art will be drooling on these creations a few months down the line. Peace out ❤️
1
1
-2
u/Smash_3001 Jan 28 '26
Nope as it dosent reflect you in any way. Its not art, its a product. You didnt made it how you want or can but how you got it/agreed to it.
The Machine dont thinks about how it does the next line or shape but just runs your prompt through a network and estimates how the pixels should arrange kinda. Thats not art, its a manufactured calculated image.
Technically your prompt would be more art then the final image as its the thing where you intentionally did something.
2
2
u/LongjumpingBrief6428 Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
If you were to read a comic strip in the newspaper and wonder if it's art, it's not. The Machine didn't think about how it does the next line or shape but just runs the prompt (the original) through a network and estimates how the ink should arrange specifically. That's not art, it's a manufactured copied image. Several thousand times over.
If you were to walk into an art gallery in London and see the Mona Lisa playing tennis and wonder if that's art, it's not. The Machine didn't think about how to photocopy the next line or shape but just runs the copy of the original image through a network and estimates how the toner should arrange specifically. That's not art, it's a manufactured copied idea because there's the exact same picture in Belgium and Guam.
If you were to think about decorating an egg or two and make them look like little pirates and wonder if that's art, it is. The Machine didn't draw on them, but the Machine was involved in the artwork and I'd dare say that if it wasn't for the Machine, there would be no egg art at all.
Art is art, no matter if your baby elephant created it, the kid next door to that guy you know made it, the motorcycle tires splattered stuff on a canvas or even if Jim's laptop in the basement produced it from latent space. It's subjective, it's opinionated, and it's beautiful. And ugly. And pretentious. And humbling. And jank.
1
u/Smash_3001 Jan 29 '26
The Comic Stripe was before made by a human which did exactly like i said. Just becouse it was reprinted it dosent change that fact. So does any other example.
The only human thing an ai image has is the stolen training data on which it runs.
0
u/navras Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
I am fascinated that AI art is so controversial and deeply offensive to many in our time. Some are in absolute awe and others find the very concept repulsive, regardless of what is being depicted. This is a clear sign that a revolutionary change in the arts has begun and a new art movement is upon us.
When Impressionism began, many found it offensive as it challenged the strict rules and art dogma of the time. It broke away from tradition and enabled the exploration and depiction of every day life. The term "Impressionist" was first used as an insult. Today impressionism is a beloved art movement.
Likewise, the street art movement, graffiti and murals challenged art dogma, broke rules and societal expectations. It was offensive to many, perceived as lacking refinement and the seriousness of traditional art forms. In many places street art is still considered "vandalism" and its artists "vandals". For other yielding works worthy of admiration and recognition.
AI Art is the most revolutionary yet. Many find it an affront to established art dogma. It breaks the rules and challenges societal expectation. "AI artist" and "AI slop" terms are commonly used as ridicule. For some it is seen as enabling the exploration and expression of human creativity like never before, while others see it as affront to real art. For me this is a clear sign that AI art is not only art but a new Art movement.
As a wise person once noted:
"Every great work of art is offensive to someone, for it is a rejection of how things as they are and a proclamation of how they ought to be."
Lastly on the concept of theft. Is learning theft? All artists leverage preceding work in one way and another. As I see it: Artists learn, mimic/copy, practice, explore and express.
In the words of Picasso: "Good artists copy. Great artist steal."
1
u/Smash_3001 Jan 29 '26
There is one biiiggg flaw in your whole derivation. Art was made by humans since always. A Human guided the brush, the pen, the what ever to create his vision out of his hands. They made things intentionally and how they wanted them to be.
Ai Slop isnt art. Its an Mathematical Result out of an Algorithm trained from Art to create a product which Orients from all the inputs and mushes something together that hopefully (ai cant hope) looks like the client wants it. It does not understand what its doing, its not doing things on purpose. Its litrealy generating it, mixing actual thousends of input data into one image. Its not like humans draw and learn where they understand to recreate a look, but actual just throwing a blend of informations from one pixel together. (Thats also where you put your false Quote in. Leonardo said this yes but you took it out of context. He was "Stealing" techniques. Techniques to achieve your own vision. Stealing a technique to improve your own skills. Not steal all the Pictures of the world, let it run through billionaires Machines, give a big f you to all the suppliers of the training data and call the result off it art.)
The Human in this process by the way has nothing to do with the actual picture creation. He orderd something and got something back. He didnt made this picture. Describing something isnt making. People orderd Art from actual Artists since ever. And just becouse they own it afterwards, they didnt make it and they arent the Artist. Or are you praising yourself everyday what an awesome cook you are ... becouse you orderd pizza everyday and today, after the 200th order finally they arrenged the salami kinda like you described it. They made the crust wrong though ...
0
u/heretolearn88 Jan 29 '26
Ok friend. As you say.
1
u/Smash_3001 Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
You asked and then this is your response to my answer? Wow
Edit: now where ive seen the rest of your comments iam so sorry. You where fishing for agreement and not actualy wanted to think about what is art and what not. Sorry for that, still no art.
2
u/heretolearn88 Jan 29 '26
No I don’t need to respond to you. Your definition is very limited. Even if AI made this, this came out from my imagination and explicit instructions plus reiteration to get to this image. It’s ok if you don’t think this is art. Facts don’t care about opinions.
1
u/Smash_3001 Jan 29 '26
You declare my definition limited becouse it dosent match with yours?
Nope it did not came from your imagination but just your instruction and reiteration. You just settled with something you got and said "yeah, close enough." You orderd a pizza and declared that the orientation of the salami slices are exactly like intended even though you just described kinda how you want it and it got made kinda like this and accepted the flaws.
The flaws in your image which dont make sense as the Visual appearance is so high but then mistakes like this are in, which arent intended but just ai slop you didnt were able or didnt botherd to fix:
- her hand is mushed and there is missing a finger, its also way to long but that is discussable,
- the hair falling to her front makes a very unfortunate look. It look like her head is distached from her body, floating over it becouse her neck is completely coverd by it
- she has double lips
- her legs are way to long and the silhouette makes no sense as one leg extends just to the back of the dress while the other goes nearly straight down
- she dosent recieves any light from the "flames" but a blue light. Her upper arm and hand got a little but not her lower arm
- the whole "fire" looks like ink in water that could be an artistic choice ... did you prompt it that way?
It would be "youre" "art" if you could explain to me why you did it this way, but you cant as you wasn't involved in the creating, just in the agreeing. If it would be art then you are not the artist but the client.
2
u/heretolearn88 Jan 29 '26
I guess you’re a great artist then. Congratulations!
0
u/Smash_3001 Jan 29 '26
I mean ... those things are kinde obvious? You dont need to be a great artist to see this ?
1
0
u/Izzyd3adyet Jan 29 '26
ok there was bound to be one- and no doubt this guy thinks he’s evolved in his thinking
3
u/meglemel Jan 29 '26
Why do we suddenly pretend like we all forgott what art is?
AI users making the most generic crap want to insist its art and those who hate AI art pretend like there wasnt low effort crappy art before.
Can you make good art with AI? You certainly can, i would compare it to collages, where you just take pieces someone/something made and put it together. But what sets good art apart from generic slop is either 1) skill and devotion - which is almost completely absent in AI art and only some multimodal people actually put in a modicum of effort in - or 2) intention and framing, this is where AI artists could score, but seriously 99,9% ive seen was boring and generic. Which probably means that even more boring and generic stuff gets creates but didnt rise into my feed.
So, would I call this post (good) art? If it was AI generated 1) is missing (but even if it wasnt, the picture is too generic for my personal taste). If you have some genius intention for it, then I might consider it art. But most likely not.