I suppose my answer is that yes, I *do* have a right to dislike AI "art" as a whole, because a) yes, it scrapes from human artists' work(s) and b) it's kind of bad overall. I haven't seen AI art yet that I've actually *liked*. I agree that hopefully, there will be a human pushback towards more tangible, physical forms of art, such as oil painting.
The images you posted remind me of the “Dogs Playing Poker” velvet “art” I saw in some of my friends’ homes growing up. Amusing, framable, and mildly confusing. Art? No - even though some called it that.
You ask the right question, Mark. That cover doesn't appeal to me. On a whim, Nathaniel and I put a few poets who have a large presence on the internet into AI and what came out was cliche with line breaks. Scraping artists' work is awful. I think that will be easier with visual art than literary.
So, what is “art.” You use that term as a moniker for these graphic pieces. Elizabeth Bishop writes: "What we want from great art is the same thing necessary for its creation, and that is a self-forgetful, perfectly useless concentration." I dont feel any of the graphical pieces you shared qualifies by that definition. Nor do I think “liking” something qualifies it as “art.” I “like” some of these images much like I liked looking at Mad Magazine drawings as a kid. But there is no meaning here and art is the creation of meaning. Looking at art gives me the feeling that the artist felt differently after making that art than when they begin and that *I* am different after engaging with the art. None of these, even the pleasing ones, do that for me.
I suppose my answer is that yes, I *do* have a right to dislike AI "art" as a whole, because a) yes, it scrapes from human artists' work(s) and b) it's kind of bad overall. I haven't seen AI art yet that I've actually *liked*. I agree that hopefully, there will be a human pushback towards more tangible, physical forms of art, such as oil painting.
The images you posted remind me of the “Dogs Playing Poker” velvet “art” I saw in some of my friends’ homes growing up. Amusing, framable, and mildly confusing. Art? No - even though some called it that.
You ask the right question, Mark. That cover doesn't appeal to me. On a whim, Nathaniel and I put a few poets who have a large presence on the internet into AI and what came out was cliche with line breaks. Scraping artists' work is awful. I think that will be easier with visual art than literary.
I don't know if it's AI or not, but I like it.
So, what is “art.” You use that term as a moniker for these graphic pieces. Elizabeth Bishop writes: "What we want from great art is the same thing necessary for its creation, and that is a self-forgetful, perfectly useless concentration." I dont feel any of the graphical pieces you shared qualifies by that definition. Nor do I think “liking” something qualifies it as “art.” I “like” some of these images much like I liked looking at Mad Magazine drawings as a kid. But there is no meaning here and art is the creation of meaning. Looking at art gives me the feeling that the artist felt differently after making that art than when they begin and that *I* am different after engaging with the art. None of these, even the pleasing ones, do that for me.
I agree that in most of my experiences with AI "art" I don't feel much of anything.
Were they expecting the band to draw the cover art themselves?
Haha... I think they expected them to pay a traditional artist (or graphic designer).