the 'fun" aspect of these "ai art" discussions is, that no artist are involved and that they show how little the techies know about art.
replicating a style in a digital image is tiny fraction of what art can be.
it's so boring having to listen to people talk about the future of something they clearly don't understand.
let me give you a couple of points to understand what separates ai and human made images, and why art is something other than replicating and recombining what's already part of our cultural space.
(sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker)
1. the medium & technique:
what technique is being used to put the artwork into this world?
I beg you all, please go to a museum full of paintings (let's not forget that there are sculptures, installations, and so on) and take your time to look at them. you will find out that the digital representation of "the girl with the pearl earrings" is not even half the artwork. it's an oil painting and that has an incredible depth to it. see how the figure is put into the frame - who cares about a hypothetical room she is in - the important part is what is being shown and what is being kept from us. the light and the dark parts..
I could go on... please try to expose yourself to art in person and find out how much more than colour values a painting is! (brush strokes, depth of colour, size, varnish, etc)
2. originality:
why have someone paint in the style of someone else?
people who are not into art often don't understand that a style is always bound to a person and the time they surface. art after 1945 had many ways of reflecting and processing the horrors of the nazi regime, the holocaust, etc
the invention of photography changed the art, but not because craftsman went out of business, but because the subject of the painting changed. before photography abstract art would not have been possible (although artists already changed their styles to less realistic)
hyper realyism on the other hand evolved long after photography was invented....
3. history and provenance of the artwork and the artist:
I'm getting tired typing this all out on my phone :)
I think i have to redo this in a more concise way with my computer or maybe pen and paper...
1. the medium & technique: what technique is being used to put the artwork into this world? I beg you all, please go to a museum full of paintings (let's not forget that there are sculptures, installations, and so on) and take your time to look at them. you will find out that the digital representation of "the girl with the pearl earrings" is not even half the artwork. it's an oil painting and that has an incredible depth to it. see how the figure is put into the frame - who cares about a hypothetical room she is in - the important part is what is being shown and what is being kept from us. the light and the dark parts.. I could go on... please try to expose yourself to art in person and find out how much more than colour values a painting is! (brush strokes, depth of colour, size, varnish, etc)
2. originality: why have someone paint in the style of someone else? people who are not into art often don't understand that a style is always bound to a person and the time they surface. art after 1945 had many ways of reflecting and processing the horrors of the nazi regime, the holocaust, etc the invention of photography changed the art, but not because craftsman went out of business, but because the subject of the painting changed. before photography abstract art would not have been possible (although artists already changed their styles to less realistic) hyper realyism on the other hand evolved long after photography was invented....
3. history and provenance of the artwork and the artist:
I'm getting tired typing this all out on my phone :) I think i have to redo this in a more concise way with my computer or maybe pen and paper...