You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don’t want to.
Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?
At our library we teach people how to do art, including crochet. If the person is able to go to the library then they aren’t being gatekeeped from learning art.
My alternative? AI art isn’t even art so at this point we’re just debating what is a better skill: crafting or prompting.
For one you understand that way more libraries have computers than crochet classes?
If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn’t help them.
Can you give an actual concrete reason why AI art isn’t art? Because the only arguments people make for that case are either esoteric nonsense about “soul” or their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.
Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn’t include Generative AI? Based on that I don’t think it is possible to give you a reason you would accept.
If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn’t help them.
This is a statement of “value” not “values”. That someone wants “digital art” but there is no connection being made to their “values”, they are simply getting what they want.
Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn’t include Generative AI?
That’s now what I said is it? I’m asking you to give a definition of art that upholds your position that AI art isn’t art, but all traditional forms of art are still included.
Because it believe such a definition does not exist.
their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.
That’s what you said, so I take it as: if I give a definition that includes Photography, it will be regarded as too broad. But I went ahead and gave you part of a definition anyways.
What I said is that Art is not a commodity. I will grant you that “wanting things” and “getting things” is a form of human expression, but it is not art, that is exchanging commodities. If you can express a Generative AI scenario where someone draws upon their “values” instead of their desires then you might have an example of art. So in your library scenario, what “values” are behind their desires for “digital art”? Or is this person just wanting a certain aesthetic?
Probably to find the small joys in life.
You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don’t want to.
Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?
At our library we teach people how to do art, including crochet. If the person is able to go to the library then they aren’t being gatekeeped from learning art.
My alternative? AI art isn’t even art so at this point we’re just debating what is a better skill: crafting or prompting.
For one you understand that way more libraries have computers than crochet classes?
If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn’t help them.
Can you give an actual concrete reason why AI art isn’t art? Because the only arguments people make for that case are either esoteric nonsense about “soul” or their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.
Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn’t include Generative AI? Based on that I don’t think it is possible to give you a reason you would accept.
This conversation of “art” reminds me of the difference between “value” and “values”: https://davidgraeber.org/articles/value-the-antropological-theories-of-value/
This is a statement of “value” not “values”. That someone wants “digital art” but there is no connection being made to their “values”, they are simply getting what they want.
Art is not a commodity, AI is.
That’s now what I said is it? I’m asking you to give a definition of art that upholds your position that AI art isn’t art, but all traditional forms of art are still included.
Because it believe such a definition does not exist.
That’s what you said, so I take it as: if I give a definition that includes Photography, it will be regarded as too broad. But I went ahead and gave you part of a definition anyways.
What I said is that Art is not a commodity. I will grant you that “wanting things” and “getting things” is a form of human expression, but it is not art, that is exchanging commodities. If you can express a Generative AI scenario where someone draws upon their “values” instead of their desires then you might have an example of art. So in your library scenario, what “values” are behind their desires for “digital art”? Or is this person just wanting a certain aesthetic?