Can generative AI make art? Share your opinion for $3

It.... depends.

First of all, I strive to remain neutral and avoid making hasty judgments. As a photographer, my own form of artistic expression was heavily criticized ~150 years ago. Back then, critics viewed photographers merely as individuals with black boxes, simply being in the right place at the right time to capture a dozen photons. So art wise, I try to be open-minded and not instantly judge others.

Another point to consider, as many here have already mentioned, is the need to define 'art'. The main issue, in my opinion, is that people often confuse art with creativity. Even then, when someone's creative work transforms into art, does it need to be accepted by 100 people or 10,000? At what threshold does someone's sketch become an art object? This, in itself, is a philosophical question.

We are certainly in the midst of a crisis, but I believe we've faced similar situations before – when photography was introduced, or when films challenged theatre stage. One thing I know for sure is that, although I'm not a painter or a writer, with the help of AI, I can supplement my text with illustrations. I believe these illustrations enhance my content and help convey the right mood and vibe. A year ago, I didn't have such a tool at my disposal, and I had to resort to using screenshots, memes, or photos instead.

A good question, In my opinion Ai can make images, Images based on your needs and of what already exists. The issues with Ai being able to create "art" is can they create what doesn't already exist and without using the art styles and techniques already in place from actual artists on the internet, this is where I think Ai fails ! The ability to dream up and create fantasy in the mind of an artist is not something easy to recreate ! but then this leads down a deeper hole of what we consider to be "art" and how it is represented, which is WHOLE other subject and filled with subjective views !

As someone who does create art, I am not afraid nor do I try to villainise Ai, I do not like that the current model uses artists work to create their own but that is another subject. I can see a use for Ai in the creativity process, and then artists can build upon that, etc.

I do think that this does fall in line with other enhancements in Society in General and Art specifically and how people do get over emotional about the changes, But, I do also understand peoples / Artists worries and upset around their work being used to help Ai generate images without any form of consent !

But to go back to our previous question, Can Generative Ai make art, No, these Ai can make images based on the need of their user, but the Ai itself has no Style of their own, no penmanship, its just a copy.

I don't believe AI pictures are art.

The software can not be inspired or create on its own so it copys. It looks for images of what has been asked and basically makes a picture with them (can you tell im a really techy person).

There is a word for this and that it plagiarism. AI is still very new and because of this it isnt covered by law however it will happen.

Dont get me wrong, there is a place for AI but that should not be replacing human creation.

Linguistics and Philosophy

First, we must define what art is. If we believe it's "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form," then it gives us a firmer no. Expression, in this instance, refers to "the production of something by pressing it out." There's no direct control from the prompter to the tool beyond instructional. Artificial intelligence simply remixes art from other people and produces something according to a brief or specification.

There's an argument that generative AI is simply the paintbrush in this scenario; a tool used by the artist who puts in the prompt. To that, I pose another question: if I create an idea and tell you to paint it for me, am I still the artist? Visionary, perhaps. Creator, sure. Director? Maybe. But artist, I feel, is a term that's reserved for the action of expression.

There's something special that goes on in a professional or gifted person's mind when they string the right words together, pair certain colours across particular lines, or mould curves in the best places. It draws from years of experiences, emotions, and skill sets that a machine can't hope to understand. The journey of creation is just as important as the end product. And what you get out of it will naturally have imperfections reminiscent of humans themselves.

Should we define 'art' as a catch-all term for pictures, books, poems, and the like? Then yes. AI can create art. What quality you'll get out of it becomes the true debate.

In my humble opinion, AI either gets too close to perfect that it removes the human elements of art or is so far from perfect because of its lack of understanding. It'll never know what it's like to experience class differences, the existential nature of ageing, or the struggles of the human condition. It can't hope but to regurgitate something by proxy of others, and remakes so rarely make for something better than the original.

I've seen a lot of AI artworks, and for some I would say it is art, for others I would say it's very clearly a montage of "stolen" art. With badly trained AI it's sadly the latter, many artists have discovered a clear copy of their art in the generated picture. Is it still art? Would you call a poem art which has every line taken from another poem? I will leave that up to your judgement.

The AI art I've seen and think is amazing was from a very talented artist who learnt how to phrase his prompts for the AI to give exactly the image they wanted to create. The question is, who created that art truly? The AI based on the words told or the artist by knowing what words to say?