RedPhantom posted at 10:41 AM Tue, 23 August 2022 - #4443202

Each time a new artform comes about, those who have used other forms want to say that it isn't art. It was said about Poser. It was said about 3d art in general. It was said about digital painting. It was said about photography. I wouldn't be surprised if it was said about classic forms of art too by those who prefer other forms. It might not need the skills a Poser artist uses. But those are a different set than a photographer or a painter uses. And those are different from a dancer. I've only messed with AI art a few times, but I can say it isn't just about typing a few words. It's more like visual writing rather than painting. You can get junk. You need the right words in the right order to get something good.

Will this replace traditional or even digital art? Did photography replace painting? Subjects and styles may have changed, but painting is still out there. I don't see this replacing other forms. And with the inability to copyright the images, it probably won't grow as much as we think.

I graduated with honors from a fine art school in San Francisco, I'm pretty aware of the notions of "is this art?"

Certainly it won't replace established and traditional mediums.

It's the vagueness that's a bit troubling. And the ideas of value, tradition, skill, and authorship. Which yes has always been a debate in the what is art question. However I don't think it's of the same value as something that is the product of skill, training, dexterity, and evolved style... No matter how many words are thrown at it. Does it have it's place? Sure it already does. Is it of the same value culturally and intellectually from the human experience? 

Just my opinion.