• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    The parallels to film directing are uncanny. Idk why people consider that an art either. Not sarcasm, film directing isn’t art for the exact same reason AI images aren’t art.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        How far does the artist have to be removed from the art before they’re no longer considered an artist?

        Is it even meaningful to ask if something is art, when anything can be art and art is subjective? It seems more important to ask who a given tool is helping.

        • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not suggesting that the director has full responsibility for the art. They are part of a team, and the creative style of a director heavily influences the finished product. You can tell who directed a movie just by watching it. There are very important creative decisions and directions that point the team of more specialized artists in the right direction.

          This is not analogous to AI art. That would be like the director of a movie telling a team of interns to cut together clips of other movies as best they see fit, within a general outline of the script. A person using AI to generate art isn’t part of the creative process in the same way; they tell a machine what to do, and decide whether to rerun or tweak the prompt after seeing the result. This takes some small modicum of creativity, but it isn’t creating art. It’s fine for fun, or to use as a stand in tool, or to mock-up designs, but it will never have the creative direction of a human being, or stand on the same level with true masters, regardless of how well it can copy their style. It can’t understand the art.

          Directing is an art form of its own. The cinematography, the pacing, the set design, acting, and so much more is all influenced by the director’s decisions. It would be like saying a conductor or a music producer isn’t an artist. Easy to say if you don’t have an understanding of the art form, but dead wrong. There are a ton of creative choices at all levels made by directors, and there’s a reason we’ve been using them in one way or another since we first started performance art. I’ve worked under and beside directors in the past, and I have only the utmost respect for what a good director can do for the art.

          A bad director however… I might agree with you.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This still seems very analogous to me.

            For example, when you say

            they tell a machine what to do, and decide whether to rerun or tweak the prompt after seeing the result

            Replace “machine” with “film crew”, “rerun” with “do another take”, and “tweak the prompt” with “provide notes”. If they’re giving notes to a computer or a person doesn’t really change the nature of their work, only the language they use to provide those notes.

            Just like there are bad directors, there are bad AI artists.
            And just like I’m sure there was a surge of bad directors when digital video made lowered the skill and cost bar to film making (see: YouTube), so to is there a surge of bad “artists” now that AI has lowered the skill and cost bar for aesthetic image creation.

            I don’t think that some AI art produced by some random idiot is really art, just like I don’t think that making a backyard YouTube video makes you a director. But I don’t want to automatically discount something as art just because it was fully or partially made using AI.

            But like I said, I don’t actually think this is an important question. If something is art is a question that everyone has to answer individually, and there will simply be no demand for things that people don’t view as art.
            Instead the question is about who does AI help? Does it help people who might otherwise be unable to bring their creative ideas/vision to life? Or does it help a bunch of corporate overlords lay off a bunch of creative staff so that they can get big bonuses and pay their shareholders big dividends?

            • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              If you think that this:

              Replace “machine” with “film crew”, “rerun” with “do another take”, and “tweak the prompt” with “provide notes”. If they’re giving notes to a computer or a person doesn’t really change the nature of their work, only the language they use to provide those notes.

              is what a director does? You have no clue what you’re talking about. They’re far more involved in the creative process on every level than you understand.

              Your question about who AI helps is a valid one. I agree that that’s what’s important about AI use. I use AI in my work, but not to replace human beings, but as a tool to make easy mock ups or test ideas. I find trying to replace human creativity in a way that replaces jobs or the human spark that makes art, art, abhorrent. AI art cannot exist without humans to train on, so humans cannot be fully replaced, but I hope to never see a day where AI takes the positions of well compensated artists leeching off the work of unpaid or underpaid humans.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      “This artform that I don’t have a hope in hell of ever understanding is invalid… because I say so.”

      Better stop watching movies and tv and only ever go to your local playhouse for entertainment.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That would also make a corporate exec meddling with the production to meet their expectations as artists…

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yup. That’s why I’m skeptical of directors are artists.

        Or, more accurately, I don’t think you can get a clear black and white answer about if someone is an artist or something is art.
        It’s probably more like a grey area, a sliding scale.

        I think we’re looking at this question wrong anyways. Anything can be art, this is just a tool and in the hands of an artist it will contribute to the creation of art.
        The question is: is this a net benefit for society? Is it helping new/hidden artists create art that they otherwise couldn’t? Or is it making the life of the artist harder by fucking up the job market? Both?