Comment by @ruthless • Hey
I am sorry Ser but saying that it’s not art is also wrong. If an image delivers a message or an emotion to the viewer, then how can it no be art?
A lot o
Comments
- Ser, I understand and mostly agree with your pov 🙏🏽 I'm also not trying to frame anything wrong or right.
To add more context, I don't think art must be created FOR anyone, nor should it have the obligation to be viewed, appreciated, or deliver a message to anyone. Art has no purpose other than to be created by the creator, that's where it derives all its meaning.
When one creates "art" FOR someone or FOR society to consume (which is fine btw, as there's no right or wrong or rules here) it becomes a commercial piece.
- Important point for me in my pitch was that AI pictures are easier to create, it doesn't require much skill imho. I may be wrong as i didn't try using AI that much.
And secondly, what's upsetting is that the artists' works are taken to teach the AI algorithm without artists' consent, no royalties paid, nothing. At least I am aware of such issue out there. Why don't they feed the ai machine just with Titian, Da Vinci, Chagal, Kandinsky, Dali, Warhol ... - whoever great out there- so that AI learns and makes progress from there. If they use some works of comtemporary artists why not ask permission and pay royalties??