#ai-dadaism

[ai-dadaism]

#ai-dadaism #stickers #hand cut #scrapbooking #sg art #sg artist #singapore art #singapore artist #kawaii #bubble tea #pink #pink bubble tea #strawberry shortcake #food art

[jelowon]

Overlooking the looking glass ⌛️ 🪞 ⏳️ 🪞 #midjourneyart #midjourneyai #midjourneyartwork #midjourneyaiart #midjourneycommunity #spaceart #cosmicconsciousness #cosmicart #cosmicbeing #dadaism #aiartdaily #aiartofinstagram #psychedelicart #aiart #aiartcommunity #aiartwork #ai #artificialintelligence #thisisaiart #제로원 #jel0w0n (at dadaistisches bauhaus) https://www.instagram.com/p/ClwER77L8gt/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#midjourneyart #midjourneyai #midjourneyartwork #midjourneyaiart #midjourneycommunity #spaceart #cosmicconsciousness #cosmicart #cosmicbeing #dadaism #aiartdaily #aiartofinstagram #psychedelicart #aiart #aiartcommunity #aiartwork #ai #artificialintelligence #thisisaiart #제로원 #jel0w0n

[millkz227]

ai art is getting too good I don't know how to identify it anymore 😭😭😭

#ai art #I don't know if I should call this art #like there's no effort #and art should have some kind of meaning #even dadaism has meaning #Anyway #I just wanted to know how to identify art made by artificial intelligence

[vaporlocke81]

"Paradise Lost" by #deepAI and vaporlocke81

#vaporwave #aesthetic #lofi #vibe #aesthetic vibes #generated artwork #ai artwork #ai image #ai art #deepai #apples #magritte #dadaism #series #art series

[liamspoetry]

Hallonlakrits. I ett badkar.

(2023.02.28)

Ringa in mig. Attachén överhopas av tunga sidenlakan i ett berg som åskmoln. Väck mig nu. Kom hit och spå i mina händer en framtid som förvillar, förväxlar, förtvivlar i sammetslena kinder. Rosenrasande, rött, renande. Han dansar i månskenet, förvildad av dödved och kamomillte.

Ett ansikte som sammanfattar ditt darkweb på bara några sekunder. Symptomlöst. Fritt. Tidsödande kravaller och hotfulla tillhyggen på gränslösa skärmar i vindens riktning. Adjö.

Hallonlakrits. I ett badkar.

English (google)translation:

Raspberry licorice. In a bathtub.

Call me in. The attaché is piled up with heavy silk sheets in a mountain like thundercloud. Wake me up now. Come here and divine in my hands a future that misleads, confuses, despairs in velvety cheeks. Rose furious, red, cleansing. He dances in the moonlight, wild with dead wood and chamomile tea.

A face that sums up your dark web in just seconds. Asymptomatic. Free. Time-wasting riots and menacing additions on limitless screens in the direction of the wind. Goodbye.

Raspberry licorice. In a bathtub.

[image by Canva text-to-image generator]

#a poem a day #poets on tumblr #surrealism #dadaism #ai generated images

[aquietanarchy]

rip duchamp you would have loved ai generated images

#there thats my contribution to the disk horse #ai art #dadaism #duchamp #i actually have some thoughts about how ai functions as a trickster figure and debate about ''ai good'' or ''ai evil'' misses the much more #interesting question of ''what does ai do and how do artists respond to it'' but thats a post for a different day #yarrow speaks into the void #el problema es el capitalismo

[nothorses]

I'm genuinely frustrated with the AI art debate from so many angles and most of them are people completely misunderstanding the actual problems but arguing against it anyway based on like. dumb bullshit ideas Disney peddles. and making it so easy to refute "the anti-ai art crowd" using what should be strawmans- because they are that obviously bullshit- that the real problems go completely unaddressed.

AI art could be a good thing! It could! Ethically, philosophically, whatever- it could be a great tool for learning artists, an interesting discussion piece, a natural addition to the conversation started by dadaism and Duchamp's The Urinal, a tool for people who struggle with artistic skill but still have artistic ideas that they deserve to express.

Artistic skill and artistic thought are equally valuable. Someone who picks up a skill naturally and creates breathtaking work, even if it's not really thoughtful or deep, deserves appreciation just as much as someone who has beautiful and thoughtful ideas, even if they express them using AI art instead of a paintbrush (for example).

That's not the problem here.

The problem is that AI art programs are products. They are being sold for a profit. The products contain work created by independent artisans who couldn't give their consent. Even if the products often alter the work they contain, it also is sometimes producing work that is identical, or nearly identical, to work stolen from an unconsenting artist.

I think this is about as ethical as hot topic's stolen art t-shirts and those bots on Twitter and Facebook that turn random artwork into products on some shady website. They might also be producing ugly fucking shirts with hyper-specific taglines printed in weird fonts that are, by no means, stolen work from someone else; but the stolen art they're selling is still a problem even if it's not the whole business model.

The public, free-to-use tools are honestly not as bothersome to me. The people using these programs, particularly when uninformed, also aren't really doing anything wrong.

But the companies who made and profit from some of these programs could have made this a "donate your art" or a "we'll pay you like $0.50/pic you submit to help train this" situation, and I think it's a bad precedent to set that we're cool with them just, like, grabbing whatever they want for a product they built to profit from & that isn't functionally guaranteed to change everything it produces enough that you can't recognize the stolen art in it.

and I think we should be able to have that conversation without it turning into some bullshit about The Importance Of True Artistic Skill And Suffering or whatever.

[rabbitrah]

The fruit of ai "art" is mostly individuals/corporations trying to avoid paying actual artists, financial scams, and porn.... but people are still trying to say it's basically just dadaism or part of a righteous struggle against intellectual property or something. "Are people getting hurt by this" is always going to be more important to me than "is it ideologically sound." Hope that helps.

#txt

[bimbvx]

Been in here since 2010 and to see the rise and fall of things on here was insane. Now this Ai crap is taking over everything.

likewise, i’ve been using tumblr on and off for the past 10ish years, and even if it does end up collapsing completely i just genuinely hope that all the data will be preserved, there’s so much content that many people & fandoms hold dear to</3

as for the ai thing, i truly believe that artists will survive this like they survived the invention of photography and mass production.

i’ve read walter benjamin’s “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” three times so far, the last time being two semesters ago when i was doing a presentation on ai art for my sociology of art class. it’s a good book to go through for this context imo!

now i am aware of the dangers of ai we all fear (especially with the latest sora thing) but i always try to remember when my sociology professor made a comment on my presentation: ai can only learn from the things that already exist, it’s up to us to create something new. dadaism 2.0 here we come

#this was truly a fun bus ride thank you anon for reaching out #fun fact bimba is very fond of philosophy! #ramble #faq #anon

[ai-dadaism]

#aidadaism #ai-dadaism #v #v fanart #fanart #bts fanart #keychain #keychains #etsy #etsy seller #handmade

[fishyartist]

“Oh I’d hate image generation/‘ai art’ (fucking hate that term it’s so goddamn nebulous. ‘’The cloud’’ levels of useless terms ) even if there wasn’t theft+labor issues involved, because there’s no human touch, no heart, no soul” bruh.

1) there can be, and there has been in some image generation artist’s works. It’s not the same as drawing, or photography, or other mediums. That doesn’t make it not art, just different. You don’t care to look because you saw assholes being annoying and decided to stick your head in the sand about it. Plus it’s currently trendy in investor spaces among people who suck ass, and therefor a lot of people with money actively pushing it are annoying hacks. There have always been annoying hacks in art. These people have always existed, and you’ve always existed, and I’m sick of both of you. Come on now.

2) the important matters right now ARE the theft and labor issues, focus on the real tangible problems and not stupid ass “real art” debates. Anything can be art. Duchamp’s Fountain has been kicking your ass for over 100 fucking year. You would see anti art and Dadaism and claw out your own throat. im going to eat bricks.

#ai discourse #image generation #fishy rambles #<- deciding to make posts on tumblr rambling bc I hate Twitter and it’s easier to block tags here.

[fluentisonus]

there are a lot of very concerning problems with ai but also the way some of these posts try to define 'art' read exactly like some sort of 1910s complaint about dadaism or something. like rhetoric about delineating the Purity and Sanctity of True Art from The Soul or whatever is never going to be helpful in this situation because rather than doing anything about ai it just further serves to carve non-ai art into pieces. I just feel like we spent so long learning to question what makes art art only for people to now suddenly decide that the important thing is to have some sort of hard and fast prescriptive legally enforceable definition of it or something. idk

#idk some if these posts just make me worried abt how you guys see art that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas abt what art Should Be Like #especially coming from the place that loves to talk about how pointless & stupid & easy to make all modern art etc is #thoughts #like this it not a defense of anything about ai to be clear!!! rather it's about what the conversation reveals about people's ideas abt art #and also how quickly people seem to want to fall back on conservative definitions & how that ends up backfiring wrt non ai art #if that makes sense

[cookies-super-secret-blog]

if art does require intent to be considered art where does fractal art/desmos graphs that use fourier transform to play bad apple fall into this? what about that art piece that uses a swinging paint can?

I think there's been a miscommunication in regards to the "intent" thing I mentioned in my post. I don't mean art has to have some calculated deep themeing behind it to be art (have you heard of dadaism? its art with intentionally with no deep profundities, its great); creating art for it's own sake is cool too! I think what I was trying to say in my previous post in regards to my example, is that the ai can't really convey anything, because it can't replicate a human person's artistic process as they create, whether that process involves splattering paint onto canvas, or fractals, or maths. Hope this clears that up for you!

#bit speaks

[morgenlich]

and to be clear, i don’t think all art has to have “purpose” behind it or anything, the issue i have with the way AI art creators view art is that it’s just…hollow consumerism, in the end. i’ll defend it as a valid art form in the way i’ll defend collage or dadaism or disney movies or so on, but i think there are serious ethical issues that need to be addressed, that the majority of the people creating it simply don’t care about—which is a problem!

art doesn’t have to be good or ethical to be art, but that doesn’t make it or its creators immune from criticism

[savefrog]

Ai art is worthy of heavy critique, is potentially EXTREMELY damaging for artists and I think NFTs really showed how shallow and vapid generated artwork can potentially be. Ai Art in the hands of soulless corporations is a genuinely disgusting proposition.

But i literally cannot deal with some of the arguments i am seeing trying to argue against it on the basis of it “not being art”, as someone who has attended five fucking years of art history classes and has done art their whole life. These arguments will not win this fight and will only serve to tear down other forms of art in the process!! We can be nuanced! Let’s go through some of the ways I’ve seen people try to “define art” in the past few weeks:

- “Ai Art isn’t art because it requires thought/meaning” dadaism specifically tried to create art that was nonsensical and random ( pulling words out of a hat in essence, if not literally, was common) in a way that was intentionally “anti art”....and guess what, it was art too.

- “Ai art isnt art because it requires years of experience”  beginner artists aren’t making art??? People even study the art that infants and toddlers make and what it means for brain development, I’d personally consider it art. Also, what will happen when we have an ai that has been training for years, do we then have to define what constitutes experience?

- “Ai Art requires the skill of an artist” Readymades. Maybe you have not been in a debate over The Fountain but whether or not you like it, its art. So is Piss Jesus. and a random fucking snow shovel

Here is a description of that snow shovel which talks about how readymades re-contextualized art. You could argue that an ai artist inputting prompts is “creating by simply making choices”, as Marcel Duchamp said, making this argument A CENTURY OLD:

- “Ai Art requires the artist to directly create the art, something else is doing all of the work” bad news about many pieces of conceptual art. (Actually many pieces of art in general including many classical works but that’s moreso a debate about credit rather than human involvement.) Anyway, not really sure how to describe in full why this doesn’t work as an argument but provide an example: Here is a bot that buys things off the Dark Web. This is art too. Even if you do not accept it as art, it has been recognized as such. There are also art pieces that involve the viewer, animals, nature, etc “doing the work”. It is going to be extremely difficult to define how much of “the work” the artist has to do for it to constitute as art.

- “Ai art isn’t art because art must be entirely original” Collage. And, once again, Appropriation art as a whole.

- “Ai Art isn’t art because art elicits/requires emotion” Emotion is extremely subjective. Look, I get what you mean when you look at the 50 billionth big titty ai generated girl, but you are going to have a hell of a time demonstrably proving that it does not elicit emotion (and, well....I guess horny is an emotion 😔). I am also just not an emotional “feelsy” guy, do I not make art? Also, someone could prompt an ai with keywords that are extremely personal, input the description of a dream they had, recreate a traumatic scene from their life, etc is that not emotional enough? Is the AI art eliciting emotion by making you mad? Where do we draw a line?

- “Ai Art isn’t art because it steals and inserts pieces of others’ art rather than references” Ok this is just. factually wrong. Neural Networks do not store the original pieces or copy/paste. This image in particular drives me up a wall because that is NOT HOW IT FUCKING WORKS:

it’s ok if you hate ai art, THIS IS STILL JUST NOT HOW IT WORKS

How a neural network ACTUALLY works (and forgive me, i am not an expert in this, but this is how i understand it): it will analyze something and associate certain features to a variable (For example, anime eyes). It stores these values, not the images. After getting many many samples, it can adjust for variations (Anime eyes are something round, or sparkly, or sharp, but are all usually a white shape with a black outline and color inside with white spots). It then generates outputs using those parameters, oftentimes creating many many different versions until a desired outcome is finally reached. Ai is getting REALLY GOOD at replicating those patterns, and it might produce results a little too close for comfort when it comes to seeing a certain image over and over, but the ai is not thinking “oh and now to insert this eye from another artwork”, the ai is moreso thinking “According to my training there should be some sort of black circle here with white pixels inside and inside that is some sort of color and...” with a lot of room for variation because it is not working from an original, just patterns it noticed (although I wouldn’t put it past some companies to implement a hidden copy-pastey feature. Like how some phone cameras now automatically replace the moon with a high-res photo- (OK WAIT ACTUALLY GOOGLED THIS, IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED LOL) But even if that were to be implemented, that is not the kind of ai art that’s being questioned here, the point is that ai art does not inherently do this) Neural Networks are literally designed to work similarly to the human brain, so it is shockingly similar to a human using a reference, though without much other intuition and context (Hence the wrong numbers of teeth, weird undefined areas, etc). The way it is TRAINED can be the use of art without permission or compensation. You can also argue that it steals an art style, this is something that I think could become a huge debate! These are worthy points of contention and something I am personally against, but also does not itself mean it is not art.

- “There’s no way to use ai art as a tool” ok but people can and have. even if you haven’t seen it personally. they have. I could use it for backgrounds in a comic, I could use it to generate color palettes or to use in a larger collage. Maybe a lot of people are not approaching it in this way, but this is a very decisive statement for something that can easily be proven false.

- “It’s not art because it’s ugly/generic/has errors/some other subjective thing” im not going to argue with you if you think art has to personally appeal to you or “be correct” to be art lol

- “Ai art isn’t art because it is bad” Art can be bad. it is still art. Morals do not effect whether something is art. So much NFT art fucking sucked, i hated it, but it was art, just shitty art. Frida Kahlo herself painted a commission intended for a grieving mother that I found very morally reprehensible (Link to the story as it contains a detailed depiction of a real suicide). it is still art.

please stop debating against ai art by trying to define art. you will lose. This is an argument that will not get us anywhere. Even if you disagree, it will not make any change. We have been there many many many times before. art cannot be neatly defined and there will always be some sort of weird exception to whatever arbitrary rule you make. And part of art is intentionally so, much art exists SPECIFICALLY to challenge definition. If you try to pigeonhole art, artists will specifically break that rule.

When photography was first invented it caused a huge upheaval. Artists were no longer required in order to depict life. No longer did you have to sit for ages for a portrait because it could be done in a fraction of the time (though taking a photo DID take a long time back then, it was comparatively WAY faster). It was thought that realistic art would be made obsolete (and remarkably, many still  value “realistic” art over other forms...) The result was the art world swerving more towards non-representational art; expressionism, impressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract art etc. Because it was what cameras could not depict and people ultimately will always always have the urge to create.

they weren’t going to uninvent the camera. they aren’t going to uninvent Ai generated images. But we can still push for the respect of artists, push for companies to treat artists fairly and push for art posted online to not just be seen as public domain. We can fight against websites like Deviantart trying to make it “opt out” to not have your artwork sampled without your permission. We can fight against companies sampling artwork that they do not have permission to use.

The existence of ai art is not going to keep me from making my art. I will always be making art. ai will not be able to pinpoint precisely what I want and it does not replace the escapism i get from making something and testing my personal skills. it will not stop me from iterating or improving on my art (in fact, i personally love trying to redraw ai generated pokemon as it helps me break away from the generic creature “archetypes” i may get stuck in, and re-interpreting the ai blobs is fun mental exercise. I also love the bizarre dreamlike nonsense early ai generation spat out, and could see that being really effective if integrated into some larger concept.) The issue is not that people are calling the wrong thing art or doing art wrong or whatever and it’s pointless trying to universally define art and ai art.

The issue is whether i am going to be paid for my art and whether my art might be used by someone else for profit/without permission. The issue is if it’ll be possible to find work. The issue is art having to be a commodity because the world around us only values production and shallow aesthetics. The issue is companies repeatedly taking advantage of artists. The issue is that people fucking suffer when they don’t have those jobs that barely respected them in the first place. A lot of it is capitalism baby!!!!!!!!!

#dullblogging #long post #i have complicated feelings about ai art! #but seeing people try to be the first person in history to successfully define art is making me mcfucking lose it #you can advocate against the mistreatment of artists without like. being blatantly wrong about art history.

[serenfire]

you ever think that the art movement shifting to dadaism (what i like to call “impressionism 2”) in response to the invention of photography is going to be mirrored in the oncoming years because of the prevalence of AI. i’m assuming at the very least digital art will move away from the airbrushing aesthetic

#yeah i’m late going to therapy why do you ask