I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the art
A stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as “bland”, “samey”, “wrong”. The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.
These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
There is someone using the model and it’s their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don’t consider the intent of the camera.
The context surrounding the art
The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It’s also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren’t being fair.
We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn’t be the defining factor.
My own interpretation of the art
You largely ignored this since it is essentially “the thoughts and emotions it envokes”. It is also arguably the most important.
We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don’t call people stupid.
I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
I disagree with your points fundamentally, and I believe the difference is in how we interpret both art and the creation of art. I do not believe that a prompter is able to convey enough intent for it to count.
This could be compared to someone commisioning a drawing for, for example, a story. The story and direction they give, that would be the prompt or what lead to it, in this case, would display their intent. The drawing itself, however, would not display their artistic vision, but that of the artist they commissioned to draw it. Now, they might coördinate with said artist to get their visions to align as closely as possible, but as I said, models have no vision, and so none can be aligned with. You could ‘find’ an image generated by such a model that aligns with what you wish for, but there is no intent behind it.
The environmental damage is inherent to the technology, as matrix multiplications are inherently not very efficient, and any given model runs a lot of them. Running a model at home seems more efficient because you only generate for yourself, but if every user of diffusion where to do this, the cost would not be better.
I do not understand what you see in the video you sent me. It does not, to me, seem to carry a message. Sure, some of it’s imagery can be aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot interpret it as carrying any meaning.
Oh, and dw, I did not mean to call you stupid, I think the ideas about art you have specifically are stupid. That does not necessarily carry over to any other part of you.
Prompting can be quite involved, especially when you use techniques like ControlNet, img2img, and inpainting. In the video I linked, they used real footage of dancers and the rest is essentially very complicated post processing. There’s countless way to use AI generation and it can easily be blended with other mediums.
While typing a quick prompt and generating something in a few minutes might not qualify as art, dismissing the entire medium is shortsighted.
The environmental damages are there but you chose to ignore the environmental damages of every other form. Even using cloud computing pales in comparaison with the cost of shipping over brushes from China.
I see in the video the things you were asking for in your previous comment:
It has clear creative intent and objectives. Context wise, it weaves together multiple art forms in a complex, cohesive piece. It’s clearly pleasing and brings about an emotional response. It’s a strong example of how AI can be thoughtfully integrated into the creative process.
Having a message and meaning is just another goal post even more subjective then the last which is the real issue. You are gate keeping something so subjective, and calling any differing opinion stupid is brutally obnoxious.
I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the art
A stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as “bland”, “samey”, “wrong”. The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.
These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
There is someone using the model and it’s their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don’t consider the intent of the camera.
The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It’s also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren’t being fair.
We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn’t be the defining factor.
You largely ignored this since it is essentially “the thoughts and emotions it envokes”. It is also arguably the most important.
We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don’t call people stupid.
I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
https://makeitrad.xyz/project/etherea/
I disagree with your points fundamentally, and I believe the difference is in how we interpret both art and the creation of art. I do not believe that a prompter is able to convey enough intent for it to count.
This could be compared to someone commisioning a drawing for, for example, a story. The story and direction they give, that would be the prompt or what lead to it, in this case, would display their intent. The drawing itself, however, would not display their artistic vision, but that of the artist they commissioned to draw it. Now, they might coördinate with said artist to get their visions to align as closely as possible, but as I said, models have no vision, and so none can be aligned with. You could ‘find’ an image generated by such a model that aligns with what you wish for, but there is no intent behind it.
The environmental damage is inherent to the technology, as matrix multiplications are inherently not very efficient, and any given model runs a lot of them. Running a model at home seems more efficient because you only generate for yourself, but if every user of diffusion where to do this, the cost would not be better.
I do not understand what you see in the video you sent me. It does not, to me, seem to carry a message. Sure, some of it’s imagery can be aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot interpret it as carrying any meaning.
Oh, and dw, I did not mean to call you stupid, I think the ideas about art you have specifically are stupid. That does not necessarily carry over to any other part of you.
Prompting can be quite involved, especially when you use techniques like ControlNet, img2img, and inpainting. In the video I linked, they used real footage of dancers and the rest is essentially very complicated post processing. There’s countless way to use AI generation and it can easily be blended with other mediums.
While typing a quick prompt and generating something in a few minutes might not qualify as art, dismissing the entire medium is shortsighted.
The environmental damages are there but you chose to ignore the environmental damages of every other form. Even using cloud computing pales in comparaison with the cost of shipping over brushes from China.
I see in the video the things you were asking for in your previous comment:
It has clear creative intent and objectives. Context wise, it weaves together multiple art forms in a complex, cohesive piece. It’s clearly pleasing and brings about an emotional response. It’s a strong example of how AI can be thoughtfully integrated into the creative process.
Having a message and meaning is just another goal post even more subjective then the last which is the real issue. You are gate keeping something so subjective, and calling any differing opinion stupid is brutally obnoxious.