I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.
while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?
No, the thing that the author was trying to express has far greater validity than whatever the reader makes up. If that wasn’t the case, AI art, where the author lacks any intent, wouldn’t seem so lifeless.
So often I have friends read a book or watch a movie and say “I don’t really get it, it doesn’t make sense, I didn’t really like it” and then some time later they’ll come back and say “actually, I read the Wikipedia article about it and now I understand. The author actually intended it to be about [xyz]”
Um, what? If those themes and ideas were not evident in the original story, then what does it matter what the author intended? Surely the author also intended to write a cohesive and understandable story (and evidently failed, for you). Surely the author intended to convey those themes in the story itself. You didn’t enjoy the movie, you enjoyed reading the Wikipedia article about the movie.
If author intention actually matters to non-meta media analysis, then that totally undermines anything the author actually does to convey the ideas in the work itself.
If (to make a specific example) my friend watches Mamoru Oshii’s Angel’s Egg and concludes only from the Wikipedia article about it that it’s abstractly about Oshii’s loss of religion, then that totally ignores everything in the movie that does or doesn’t convey those themes just to create a shallow interpretation based on what the author was allegedly trying to do.
I get what you’re saying and I make that same criticism sometimes, but
Nobody outside of historians would be able to interact with like 80% of historical art if supplemental information wasn’t valid.
I’m not prepared to say that death of the author is entirely invalid, or even that the viewer has to accept the author’s intention, only that understanding or at least sensing that is a vital aspect of art.
I mostly agree although rather than saying author intention is a vital aspect of art I would say it can be, but that the raw, uninformed experience is almost always more important
That presumes you can read the author’s mind. It’s impossible to tell with 100% certainty what an author meant to say. You can make assumptions and some can be more plausible than others and people can agree that one interpretation seems more valid than another but that’s it. When a work of art is released into the world, the author has no authority over its meaning.
A good artist of course can make certain intentions very obvious and control, to a certain degree, what the recipient feels. That’s what you’re perceiving as missing in AI generated pictures.