I would say the difference is that intent is not controlled by the artist. Sure, they give a prompt, but they don’t actually control the mechanism that creates the output. In fact, the people who create it can’t even parse what it’s doing. It’s just a bunch of seemingly random weights.
When you’re holding a paintbrush, or sculpting clay, or whatever else you’re doing, you’re controlling the tool and manifesting your intent through it. With AI you aren’t. There can be intent by the creator but there’s no intent in the tool.
I definitely read the whole post. Maybe you can let me know what I’m missing. From what I can see, someone asked why a guy buying a urinal and then signing it gets to be art but not an AI generated image. Another person responded by saying
I would say the difference is that intent is not controlled by the artist […] When you’re holding a paintbrush, or sculpting clay, or whatever else you’re doing, you’re controlling the tool and manifesting your intent through it. With AI you aren’t. There can be intent by the creator but there’s no intent in the tool.
But how does any of that apply to Duchamp’s fountain? He did not have any control over the inputs that went into making the urinal. He didn’t hold any clay. He didn’t even paint anything unless you wanna get cute about what a signature is.
Yup, definitely didn’t read the post. He submitted several urinals, and they do not match any urinals manufactured around the time of his submission. Add in his apparent skill with ceramics and, yes, he DID make those toilets.
Then again, if AI bros could pay close attention, they wouldn’t like AI images.
You’re taking a screenshot of a social media post at face value. If you look anywhere else it’s not regarded as a prominent notion that he secretly made it himself. Hell, I can’t even find reference that he worked in ceramics.
I’m not particularly pro-ai, but people being so against it that they’re willing to take screenshots of Tumblr as proof rather than consider someone’s argument is … Annoying.
It’s proof, not that he made the toilet, but that they didn’t read the post they claim to have “definitely read.” We’re discussing the post.
And you might not pay attention, but I do. I checked your post history, where you claim AI is intelligent, and AI art is art, this is not the first AI thread you’ve defended AI in, and your most recent post (rather than comment) is on stable diffusion. You are very much pro-AI, and you’re being disingenuous by claiming you’re not.
Go read the OP again. All of it. You didn’t read it, or you missed part of it, or you misunderstood something.
This is not me saying “I think you’re wrong.” It is saying your comment is fundamentally missing context that is in the OP. You’ll know what we mean when you see it.
In my opinion, you would be better served reading a history of Duchamp and a study of the piece rather than taking for granted screenshots of random people on the Internet. It’s true that we don’t actually know if Fountain is actually a readymade sculpture or not but the idea that most art scholars believe that it is not a ready-made sculpture is simply untrue. In any case, whether or not it is actually a ready-made sculpture doesn’t really have a bearing on its quality as an artwork. On the contrary, the whole point of the piece is to demonstrate that it is not important who actually made the physical object which represents the artwork.
Now that you understand that it is not a conventional opinion that Duchamp secretly made Fountain himself, I would like you to reconsider your answer to the question. And if you don’t believe me that it’s not a conventional opinion, I invite you to consult with literally any encyclopedia that has an article on the piece.
We don’t actually know if he bought the urinal or made it. The screenshot of a Tumblr post just says it’s a theory, and if you look into it elsewhere it’s just not known.
But, it doesn’t actually matter. Would it become “not art” if it turned out it was a store bought urinal?
The entire point of the post is “no”.
Demoscene sizecoders rely on pseudorandom patterns all the time. They find what they need. Maybe they didn’t sculpt those mountains, draw those textures, or arrange those notes - but it’s still art, and they made it.
Inscrutability means people gotta fuck around with these tools to get closer to what they want. The robot does stupid things and must be punished. Prompts get hammered into place over ridiculous details.
If an image took effort, conveys ideas, and looks good, what could that be besides art?
I would say the difference is that intent is not controlled by the artist. Sure, they give a prompt, but they don’t actually control the mechanism that creates the output. In fact, the people who create it can’t even parse what it’s doing. It’s just a bunch of seemingly random weights.
When you’re holding a paintbrush, or sculpting clay, or whatever else you’re doing, you’re controlling the tool and manifesting your intent through it. With AI you aren’t. There can be intent by the creator but there’s no intent in the tool.
Did Marcel Duchamp play some kind of role in the manufacturing of this urinal?
You didn’t read the whole post, and it shows
I definitely read the whole post. Maybe you can let me know what I’m missing. From what I can see, someone asked why a guy buying a urinal and then signing it gets to be art but not an AI generated image. Another person responded by saying
But how does any of that apply to Duchamp’s fountain? He did not have any control over the inputs that went into making the urinal. He didn’t hold any clay. He didn’t even paint anything unless you wanna get cute about what a signature is.
Yup, definitely didn’t read the post. He submitted several urinals, and they do not match any urinals manufactured around the time of his submission. Add in his apparent skill with ceramics and, yes, he DID make those toilets.
Then again, if AI bros could pay close attention, they wouldn’t like AI images.
You’re taking a screenshot of a social media post at face value. If you look anywhere else it’s not regarded as a prominent notion that he secretly made it himself. Hell, I can’t even find reference that he worked in ceramics.
I’m not particularly pro-ai, but people being so against it that they’re willing to take screenshots of Tumblr as proof rather than consider someone’s argument is … Annoying.
It’s proof, not that he made the toilet, but that they didn’t read the post they claim to have “definitely read.” We’re discussing the post.
And you might not pay attention, but I do. I checked your post history, where you claim AI is intelligent, and AI art is art, this is not the first AI thread you’ve defended AI in, and your most recent post (rather than comment) is on stable diffusion. You are very much pro-AI, and you’re being disingenuous by claiming you’re not.
Go read the OP again. All of it. You didn’t read it, or you missed part of it, or you misunderstood something.
This is not me saying “I think you’re wrong.” It is saying your comment is fundamentally missing context that is in the OP. You’ll know what we mean when you see it.
In my opinion, you would be better served reading a history of Duchamp and a study of the piece rather than taking for granted screenshots of random people on the Internet. It’s true that we don’t actually know if Fountain is actually a readymade sculpture or not but the idea that most art scholars believe that it is not a ready-made sculpture is simply untrue. In any case, whether or not it is actually a ready-made sculpture doesn’t really have a bearing on its quality as an artwork. On the contrary, the whole point of the piece is to demonstrate that it is not important who actually made the physical object which represents the artwork.
Now that you understand that it is not a conventional opinion that Duchamp secretly made Fountain himself, I would like you to reconsider your answer to the question. And if you don’t believe me that it’s not a conventional opinion, I invite you to consult with literally any encyclopedia that has an article on the piece.
You are wrong, cope
We don’t actually know if he bought the urinal or made it. The screenshot of a Tumblr post just says it’s a theory, and if you look into it elsewhere it’s just not known.
But, it doesn’t actually matter. Would it become “not art” if it turned out it was a store bought urinal?
The entire point of the post is “no”.
Demoscene sizecoders rely on pseudorandom patterns all the time. They find what they need. Maybe they didn’t sculpt those mountains, draw those textures, or arrange those notes - but it’s still art, and they made it.
Inscrutability means people gotta fuck around with these tools to get closer to what they want. The robot does stupid things and must be punished. Prompts get hammered into place over ridiculous details.
If an image took effort, conveys ideas, and looks good, what could that be besides art?