There are artists and there are non artists.
A non artist can be described as someone who never learned the basics of art. Which is
- composition, perspective, proportion,
- the right use of the medium and the tools to work on/with it.
An artist must have something clear in mind to start a painting, for example.
If he is not clear towards what he aims at, what he'll end up with, is coincidence of using medium and material.
It can happen that an already skilled artist
gets a truly impressive result by being un-aimed.
It can happen that a non artist gets an impressive result when he puts his heart and soul into a painting. It might be out of proportion and out of perspective but at least it would appear as somewhat well composed through coincidence. The chances that this might happen, are very low though.
This becomes particularly clear if you are a musician and composer.
Someone who doesn't understand sheet music and/or hasn't learnt to play an instrument won't be able to compose something by chance even if they sit down at a piano and start playing. All that would come out of it would be meaningless strumming, with a little melody emerging here and there by chance, but nothing more. Mostly nothing at all.
If you do not have a melody in mind to begin with, you won't finish a whole composition of music.
Before I myself began to deal with the basic rules of art,
I, like so many non-experts, was of the opinion that anything I was able to apply to a medium could be considered art. I am no longer of that opinion. There are rules in every craft.
I can ignore the rules and pretend to be able to write books, paint pictures and design objects.
But as soon as I start doing any of these things for real, I realise that I need guidance. I can only get this guidance from the existing rules. By accepting and applying them, I realise my incompetence in ability.
Artists, compared to non artists will always have better results
in painting canvas, (making music and all else art).
Since they train themselves to use the brush in a confident way and make safe strokes instead of unsafe ones. Non artists fiddle around, artists un-learned to fiddle.
AI-generated works, appear as artful and impressive indeed, but what is the point in telling a machine the specifics, since no matter how specific you get, the AI won't generate what you have in your artists mind because it's not a mind reader.
If you haven't something specific in mind - and if you aren't already an artist - but rather vague, it's different.
Logically, as someone who wants to produce a non motion picture through AI, I have nothing really specific in my mind but un-specific, and I let myself being impressed by the result, since I wasn't expecting its outcome.
I enjoy the randomness as a surprise, for example. I then may be tempted to say: "That was exactly what I had in mind!" LoL
But since I had nothing exact in mind, it cannot be true, so I delude myself.
What I may become, is a skilled typer of text commands.
The less commands I give the machine, the more I leave it to coincidence.
The more commands I type and try, the more specific I become. If I type something, the machine generates something, I'm not satisfied and type more, the machine generates something more, I might come to the conclusion that I've learnt to become more text-specific.
That's not a bad thing if you train yourself towards achieving a precise messaging. It probably can also help to become an author.
AI can, for example, explain the basic rules of authoring to me.
It is me who must understand and practice them.
Given the rules doesn't make me painter, since I decided not to apply the basic rules of painting and instead text-messaged it to the AI. It doesn't turn the AI result into art. It's art simulated. That's different.
What it does do is make me realise how to communicate with a computer program so that my instructions are 'understood'. It's quite helpful when you notice that you can also talk to people better if you use definitions correctly.
On the other hand, it gives me a sense of power
(which the ego likes) because the AI obeys my commands. This kind of experience of being in command is not to be underestimated, because the joystick and keyboard are instruments of power.
Ultimately, art loses meaning when it can be created in abundance and in just a few minutes. The sheer mass of results of computer-generated images and texts runs away from contemplation if contemplation is limited to a second's viewing and then the next click makes you forget the whole thing. It may then be no contemplation at all.
Art can be entertaining but it's not pure entertainment.
You could say that programming is an art. Then it's one art form amongst others.
In order to find out whether a work was created by a person or a machine,
the process itself is documented on film. This means that people record themselves creating their work. But even this can soon be simulated, so that no one can ever be sure to watch a human being. The only way to find out is to leave the internet and commit primarily to the physical realtions.
As an artist, I would not accept a worse result than what I came up with myself to make AI creations accessible to the public. I would scrutinise and examine such a result and discard it the moment it did not conform to the basics of art. But I would have something in comparison to begin with. My work and the AI's result.
It's really bollocks that art has no rules, like people might think.
They are too lazy to learn them, to make the many miles themselves, to deal with frustration and bad outcomes. The majority of what you wrote, painted, designed, lands either in the trash bin or is being stored as practice-material in maps and folders (digital or material).
If everything you ever wrote, designed, painted, landed always in the open (Internet) and your trash bin is empty and your folders too, you may be not very critical towards yourself and consider everything worth to publicize. Then you can also be considered to trash the public. LoL
What is being hated about the "me-too's" is their lack of skill with a simultaneous lack of modesty.
An artist who is extraordinary can only afford a lack of modesty because his art is great.
To judge art properly, you need to understand the basic rules of art.
To be entertained/not entertained by it, you need nothing at all but your taste (likes and dislikes).
If through human-machine text exchange I learn how to clarify my thoughts,
to sharpen my capacity for dialogue, my learning would be completely pointless if I did not integrate this into my personal relationships, which I accept as obligatory.
But if I do not practise what I have learnt, if I do not create a single piece of art myself, following its basics, but only blather on about how wonderful the machine is and that we as human-machines enter the great bubble, there is absolutely no use for this grandiose connection.
Because it becomes the opposite of what it can be:
The total isolation of the individual who believes they have entered into the total connection. (Or, as it were "The total recall")
While the intimate life as man or woman in mutual close commitment has not even begun. Because the "close ones" become distant and the "distant anonymous ones" become "friends".
From these friends there are "likes" and "upvotes" and "eulogistic comments", while the difficult ones are the "people in your own bed". Or those who insist on having an intimate dialogue.
So that you can devote yourself all the more to all those who, when they disappear without a trace, can neither be recalled nor held responsible for why they left you in the first place; or vice versa. Events without consequences.
Same counts for the mysterious "others" one talks about endlessly
and diagnose them with all kinds of disorders. While "them" are doing the very same with "you". De-humanize you while you de-humanize them without ever meeting one-on-one.
Indeed, de-humanisation can also be achieved in a utopian way by using the chatter of eulogies as an amplifier.
