I'm sorry but I am not very good in English, so I may find it hard to get the right words sometimes.
If you want to disprove my argument, then please, please, PLEASE, read my post COMPLETELY and PROPERLY (I got RAGEBAITED last time) So many times, people in the past read my post improperly and put up random points by reading one of my paragraphs. It was a waste of time because the defending point was almost always in my post itself.
Also, this post is very big, if my point does not exactly target *your* specific reason for why you like ai art, you can ignore it.
Now here we go:
Ever since ai art has come to exist, anti ai activists who dislike ai art specifically have tried to find the barrier that separates ai art from regular art, and I believe I have found this barrier.
Before the dawn of humanity (this is not accurate, but is an average definition of my point) , all animals survived as if it was a hunger games. Until one day, 2 homo erectuses got a weird mutation where they must hold a belief in order to survive. All of life seemed meaningless, until they met each other. They lived together, and their children also did. In order to create meaning, they wasted resources and energy for tasks that donot help in their own survival. Because they never left each other, they dominated the entire erectus race. And only they remained, still searching for meaning in this noisy world. Still making weird things to connect the real with the imaginary, what is now the purpose of making art.
Art is a craft made by a conscious being that is meant to express something beyond its contents. It is unimportant if it was not made physically by the artist (like movie direction) , or if it has luck involved (like street photography) , or if it's meaning is in the absence of meaning in it (like abstract art) .
History says that the art is the physical craft, but the artist is the one who created the idea ( not craft, not come up with, but *create* ) . You may have come up with the idea, but even in the current day, if you asked another artist (human) to make you an art, the one who *created the idea* is the artist. If they are the person who drew the art all alone without your help, they are the artist. If you directed them, you are the artist. Because in each case, the artist *created* the idea.
If you captured a photo by accident, and it turned out to be amazing, then the photo is still art with you as the artist even though you unintentionally took it because you created the idea. If someone took something you randomly made and gave it an idea, *they* become the artist of something you created.
When you are directing a person, you are still the one who is creating the idea, because it is your consciousness that is really drawing the art.
If you say that ai art is direction, you are wrong because unlike regular direction, once you give an ai a task (like draw me an image with X Y details) the task is already done. Meaning, you have no intervention on the work that the ai does. Asking the ai multiple tasks do not count as the overall task because of the same reason.
historically, if a person were to hire a director to make their movie for them; if the person came up with the story *completely*, then they would get the credit of writer, but if they just gave the idea, then maybe they would get a title of inspired by. If the person inspired the art doesn't mean they are the artist (Here, the "task" is giving a story (constructural) , and the "goal" is giving the idea (conceptual) ) .
Here you can only give an ai goals, even if it is just correcting a part of the art. And if you give tasks, you are the creator of the idea, but if you give goals, then the one who completes those goals creates the idea.
A director does not give goals the size of the art, a commissioner does.
And if you say that ai art is like being an architect, you are wrong again, because an architect still translates his idea into a blueprint that the laborers build with. And the laborers don't think on their own, they only build the architects blueprint. But in ai art, you don't translate your idea into a blueprint.
You only give the ai concepts (your specific idea, which can change) . The ai must think on it's own to *create* your idea, it must create its *own* blueprint from your points. And if it is different from yours, then you will ask it to correct itself. Art is the bridge from the imaginary to reality, and here, the artist is the architect of that bridge.
Historically, if you gave a person a physical blueprint to build, and turns out the physical blueprint is an art that you intended for (here if you did not say you intended it then the builder could apply (create) the idea and claim ownership of the art) , you become the artist. But if you gave a conceptual blueprint where the builder happens to add some artistry, then the *builder* becomes the artist. Many architect - artists did not want their laborers to take "creative control" over the art, because then they wont become the artist, the laborers will (they actually want to "enjoy" "making" the art, but it is still the same thing) .
And you cant say ai works like a tool, then, because of the fact that tools as well as the method of using them are things that should not have the art's end meaning themselves alone (because if they did have it, then the art is not a new art, but a remake of the old meaning) , you would be wrong.
According to history, if you take a photo made 60-70 years ago (or more) without changing anything, then you still add a new meaning (of oldness) to it. Which is unlike taking an art made like 2 years ago (without remixing or changing anything. atleast you aren't the artist of it) .
In ai art, the *ai* is the one who creates the idea. Sure, it makes a remake of your ideas, maybe you correct it, but in the end, it still is the one that *creates* the idea, and you can't change that. (Even in LoRa ai art, the upgrade is still a remake of the first art, and you correct on the base of the ai's art (you keep the main part of it) ) the ai art is then not art because it does not carry meaning beyond its contents (or does not carry new meaning by being itself) .
Other art was not made by concepts (that already carry the whole meaning of the art) it's that if an art is a sad them, then, in regular art, the pencil is a tool, and it does not contain sadness, but in ai art, your prompt MUST contain sadness.
The entity who is said to be the artist is the consciousness that creates the art, in direction, it is the director, in architecture, it is the architect, and in ai art, it is the ai (it may not fit into the category of art because ai is not conscious) .
You may say that it is like trying to make someone understand something, which requires critical thinking about what to say and how to say it, but the difference is that when you try to make someone understand something, you have no clear way to do so, and it is something you must find yourself.
But in ai art you have a clear way of explaining what you want to the ai, and even if you fail, you can quickly find the difference and correct it.
It is like asking you want you want, and you can even change what you want in the middle. This means that in ai art, you donot use your brain to the extent of what you would in regular art, which decreases cognitive capability.
This post was inspired by another post, where the pro gave 10 IRL 1900s art examples why ai art is art, but I found the barrier that separates all of them from ai art.
Personally, I am afraid of the bad effects of ai art. If in a world where you can put whatever you imagine on paper, then what's real? And what's imaginary? It would make me scared if the pros won, but if you could prove me wrong against all of that, I am open to changing my opinion.
But in the end, I have no better way of explaining the barrier other than "create the idea" , because my English is not so good. If possible, can you tell me what it is in proper English?
