• Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you take away an artist’s brushes, they can’t make art without making new brushes.

    All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.

    I don’t like AI art, but I don’t think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      There are a ton of other types of art than those using brushes. Hell, the example is using something other than a brush.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        As a digital artist his brush is a stylus pen, but he can put that down and use a whittled burnt charcoal pencil, because they’re both largely brush-like objects. A prompt-wrangler can’t go into their backyard and whip up a midjourney-like object to use in the same way.

        But I don’t think complexity of tools makes a real artist.

        If the argument is that digital artists have learnt the skill of drawing and therefore count as real artists, well some percentage of prompt-wranglers can draw, and some percentage of conceptual, ‘outsider’ and other artists can’t draw.

        Almost all professionally trained artists can draw, but I hope we can agree that professionally trained doesn’t = real artist either.

        I think “plagiarists aren’t real artists” is a much sounder argument than this, but mostly I don’t think there’s much sense in policing who or what is a real artist. Even about stuff I don’t like.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the OP their entire medium and tool set was taken away and they still made art. Not sure how that’s not demonstrating perfectly that an artist can make art no matter what they have on hand.