Thinking about generative art
I have been trying my hand at generative AI art for a couple of months. Some thoughts:
Art is from the word 'ars,' meaning 'skill,' or 'craft.' Applied to what I do, which is generate images using AI algorithms (by putting descriptive prompts), this definition makes me immediately hit a roadblock, especially since "generative art" is actually a phrase in the Internet. What is the art, or skill, in what I do? I am not skilled the way a sculptor is skilled: a sculptor makes sculpture. It is not in this sense that I make an image from the algorithm. There are two senses to the word "creation" or "artist" involved in the case of an AI-generative artist and a sculptor.
Which led me to consider that "make" isn't the right word for what I do - it's more like "curate." The images are there, after all, and the images are the bases from which the AI generates further images from which I then choose.
Or another, more modern, parallel would be photography. The scene is there, and I capture it (through a lens, in a photographer's case, and through a prompt, in an AI-generative artist's case). Debates, however, about whether or not a photographer is an artist is still rife. Upon a cursory search, I came across this line explaining that As a relatively new medium, photography is not one of the traditional seven forms of art but it is included in the broader definition of the visual arts. Within the visual arts, photography can be categorized as either fine art or commercial art."
Which led me to another concern, now in the NFT space: utility.
Utilitas, the fact of being useful. I generate art like this:
Comments
Post a Comment