It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art
First, go ahead and get the shaming of me for asking this out of the way, and after that’s over with, why not?
You said it yourself,
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
A human was involved in dreaming up a scene depicting something, and proceeded to use their tools to manifest their imagination into an image. They likely chose their tool (different models), used their preferred technique (selecting the right settings, right keywords, and probably regenerated areas that depicted 8 fingers on a hand), and the result was an image that they visualized.
Sounds like human involvement to me, it’s not like lightning struck wood and boom, there’s a big boobed anime girl with pink hair in low lightning manifest.
Again, gatekeeping whether or not it is art seems kinda silly. The proper attack vectors, IMO, are whether it’s good art, with a side of whether it’s stolen art.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
First, go ahead and get the shaming of me for asking this out of the way, and after that’s over with, why not?
You said it yourself,
A human was involved in dreaming up a scene depicting something, and proceeded to use their tools to manifest their imagination into an image. They likely chose their tool (different models), used their preferred technique (selecting the right settings, right keywords, and probably regenerated areas that depicted 8 fingers on a hand), and the result was an image that they visualized.
Sounds like human involvement to me, it’s not like lightning struck wood and boom, there’s a big boobed anime girl with pink hair in low lightning manifest.
Again, gatekeeping whether or not it is art seems kinda silly. The proper attack vectors, IMO, are whether it’s good art, with a side of whether it’s stolen art.
Get a real job, prompt engineer
Have a good one ;)