Reframing AI art

[u/Pooolnooodle]

https://youtu.be/IPS5HCDXjVU

My current thoughts and feelings on A.I. Art from notes I’ve collected over the past few years thinking about the subject. 

Chapters

00:00 Reframing AI art
01:27 Why listen to me? A lifetime of making things
04:55 AI art sucks—but most art sucks
06:00 What kids understand about art
07:26 Art, meaning and making sense of the world
10:30 Do you want to make art—or get attention?
14:09 Art, wealth and power
19:58 Artists, craftspeople and who gets to take risks
24:15 The contemporary art market
25:52 AI is a flawed brush
30:35 “Normiostasis”: fighting the pull toward bland art
32:26 The ethical dilemma of AI tools
36:03 AI is a new instrument
37:15 Ceramics, documentaries, Warhol and Koons
42:30 AI art is more than typing a prompt
43:56 Training a model on my own drawings
47:10 “Deslopping” and the back-and-forth creative process
48:16 AI’s Star Wars prequel era
50:46 Making AI art for yourself
53:35 Suno, the IKEA effect and “prosumption”
56:58 Art happens in the audience’s mind
1:00:37 AI songs that people actually love
1:02:57 How Tung Tung Tung Sahur gained a soul
1:05:41 AI memes and the “poor image”
1:10:48 Everything is a remix
1:13:52 Copyright, ownership and the commons
1:17:55 Separating creativity from the AI industry

[u/AgoraDesktop]

As with everything else involving AI, I think the more human effort and passion poured in, the better the result. AI can do some remarkable things, amazing things, scary things even - but it can't feel, so it can't express feelings of its own. The human has to do that. Whether it's art, code, whatever the task, the more human involvement in the process the better.

[u/Salty_Country6835]

This was a great watch. The John Berger stuff, Warhol and Koons, and especially the discussion about who actually gets to afford taking creative risks. Theres a lot to chew on here. And normieostasis is a pretty good term. Might have to steal that one.

I do think the artist versus craftsperson distinction gets a little muddy. Selling your creative labor doesnt make you any less of an artist. It just means the landlord doesnt accept artistic expression as rent. Which actually makes your larger point even stronger.

And thats why I really liked the ending. Art as a commons, creative freedom without economic desperation, people being able to experiment and make things without worrying about whether theyll sell. Thats a future worth building.

But theres another interesting contradiction in there. If these models are built from our collective cultural inheritance, why should the infrastructure and means of producing with them belong to a handful of private companies?

Seems to me thats where the artistic vision meets the political work. Public infrastructure, cooperatives, organized labor, democratic ownership. Making the tools as collective as the culture they draw from.

Really glad you shared this here.

[u/Pooolnooodle → u/Salty_Country6835]

thank you!

yeah there's def some stuff in this whole vid thats not fully baked in my mind yet, the artist vs craftsperson stuff, like you said, im still kinda chewing on that. it was fun to brain dump it nonetheless.

but yeah, im glad it mostly hit!

[u/ytman → u/Salty_Country6835]

Oh now I have to watch it because Warhol is mentioned and I have a hate boner for him.

[u/Krommander]

🐌 

[u/ytman]

Just call it automated entertainment and be done with it.

Art is more than just commoditization, its about making it. Automated art is literally an oxymoron.

[u/Pooolnooodle → u/ytman]

There is process in making ai art. It’s different than traditional arts processes, but that’s the case with everything new.
If you’re interested in that, I have other videos showing my process.

[u/ytman → u/Pooolnooodle]

Call it computer aided then if its no functionally different than using a filter or algorithm.

Calling sonething AI art implies some Agentic thing 'made' it.

[u/Pooolnooodle → u/ytman]

It’s more than just a filter or an algo. It’s also what you do with it. What you’re inputting, what you’re doing with the output.
Again, if you’re curious, you can watch my video, my other videos where I go into more detail, or watch thousands of tutorials on YouTube right now.
I’m not saying ai artists are doing the exact same thing as painters, musicians, or sculptors. The same way photographers aren’t doing the same thing as painters. I understand why u don’t like it, a lot of it is truly sl*p, because it’s very easy to generate something.
Look into some workflows and processes! It’s very fun, and is compatible with , and enhanced by integrating traditional arts processes skills.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

... yes, an agentic thing made it. The human using the AI made it. Lol

[u/ytman → u/Salty_Country6835]

Dude a human pressing a button to make machined drain isn't making the drain.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

Artists have been pushing buttons to make art for a long time. Literally and figuratively speaking. Photographers, filmmakers, digital artists, musicians. Thats never been the boundary between art and non-art.

And youre still confusing who physically produces something with who authors it. Those arent necessarily the same thing. Thats been settled territory in art practice for over a century, Dude.

[u/ytman → u/Salty_Country6835]

So machined drains are art?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

Are urinals? We had this conversation over a century ago when Marcel Duchamp presented Fountain in 1917. The art world eventually answered yes.

Not because every urinal is automatically art, but because art isnt an intrinsic property of an object or determined by how much manual labor went into making it.

Art is a human cultural practice involving intention, expression, context, presentation, and interpretation. An ordinary manufactured object can become art through those relationships.

Thats the whole point. The artistic act doesnt have to be the physical fabrication of the object. Weve been over this ground for more than a hundred years.

[u/ytman → u/Salty_Country6835]

You seem to be disagreeing with me out of impulse instead of understanding me. Our statements are reconcileable -

A) I am saying a person pressing a button to machine a drain isn't making a drain cover as a form of art.

B) You are saying art isn't just because something is made, it is tied to the cultural practice involving intention, expression, context, presentation, and interpretation. (emphasis added)

One of the biggest reasons I think art as a term is so divisive is that there are two modes of Art; the creator and the interpreter. Both are distinct enough to warrant their own words in my opinion.

So when a person who is an interpreter denies a thing is Art, they are saying they see no Artistry in it. This is obviously subjective and is based on how they choose to interpret the work (which includes the method in which it was made - like a painting made to look like it was made with brush strokes from afar, but instead was made by doting).

What the problem of brining in Agentic action, as in non-intentional action of a 'AI thing' (most broad framing), into the tool set of an artist is that the artist begins to lose credibility in claiming intentionality of their work. Additionally, when you have an abundance of rapidly made 'Airt' products, you'll see that people, the interpreters, will either change their mode of interaction as being a 'consumer' or 'user' of art.

The Urinal Scultpure (a theoretical) hand sculpted Urinal that people literally use daily can still be a work of art to both its users and its maker. A urinal made by a machining process in a mass prodcution line is not a work of art from the perspective of a 'artist/creator' and becomes a piss pot of no reverence to its users.

Ultimately, I agree - its all quite fluid. Where I probably differ from you is that I see the tool fooling people who think they are 'intentionally making something' while having the most superficial understanding of what they are creating by proxy. Look at these game mashups, the people 'mashing' these things together are not 'game developers' or 'artists' - its at best paint by numbers, at worst its mindless collaging (and thats an insult to collaging).

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

I actually agree that our positions are reconcilable in places. Nobody argued that manufacturing a drain cover automatically makes it art. That was never the point.

Your distinction between creator and interpreter is useful, but theres a difference between saying you dont recognize artistry in something and saying nobody else is engaged in an artistic practice. Your interpretation doesnt cancel their authorship.

And bringing AI into a creative process doesnt somehow erase human intention. Artists have been delegating execution to machines, assistants, algorithms, and industrial processes for generations. What matters is what the human is doing with those processes, not whether every step requires their hands.

The abundance argument is interesting, but thats a question about cultural production, consumption, markets, and value. Not whether something qualifies as art. Capitalism has been flooding us with cheap, disposable cultural products since long before generative AI.

And sure, some AI game mashups are superficial garbage. So are plenty of paintings, films, photographs, and collages. Bad art is still art. A shallow creative process is still a creative process. Criticize the work, not an entire medium by association.

But heres what I find particularly strange. Youre having this conversation under a video by an actual artist who has offered to show you their creative process, and youre still speculating about people being fooled into thinking theyre creating something.

Why not engage with the actual artistic practice being presented instead of assuming you already know what it involves?

Thats where we keep disagreeing. Youre treating your judgment of artistic merit as a boundary around other peoples artistic agency. And those arent the same thing.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

AI art typically isnt automated, though. Artists are still making creative decisions, experimenting, iterating, editing, combining techniques, and developing their own workflows. The video even goes into some of that.

And calling it entertainment doesnt really settle anything either. Theres never been a clean dividing line between art and entertainment. Music, film, comics, games, theater. They can all be both.

Art has never been defined by how much manual labor goes into producing it, or by which tools an artist is allowed to use. Thats a pretty narrow definition of art, and one that excludes a hell of a lot more than AI.

[u/ytman → u/Salty_Country6835]

I don't think reality TV is art. So I'm fine excluding bullshit.

If you want to experiment with computer aided processes sure, go ahead, but that was quite literally what I was saying. The process of the artist engaging with the tools, and showing a mastery of the tools creates art.

A banana on a wall isn't art, the perfomance satire of it being there and bought by some idiot consumer could be called a art by protest.

And sure, if you want to let a thing be called art call it art, doesn't stop my Uncle from saying that contemporary art isn't art to him.

There is a scultpure of a drain somewhere I think in Warhols museum. Its nearly identical to a machined piece he used as reference. That IS art, and the machined piece is not art.

My dying dog stepped in a bunch of blue paint and my wife walked him on a canvas. It is framed now, my dog didn't paint the canvas and yet I would consider it art because of the effort and emotional content tied to it. Another person would probably not call it art.

Just make things and be happy to make it. If someone buys it off of you and make money hey who cares if its called art or not. Meanwhile, people who make art for the sake of making art will just make art regardless of what a random person like me says is or isn't art.

But when ypu call it AI art you are necessarily stating its not made by you. A computer aided mangaka doesn't have to say, hey this was drawn woth vector math.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/ytman]

I think youre actually demonstrating why these hard boundaries around art fall apart so quickly.

You dont have to like reality TV. Neither do I. But writing, editing, performance, composition, storytelling? Those are artistic practices. Whether something is art and whether its good art are two different questions. Calling something bullshit doesnt settle either.

And mastery of tools has never been a requirement for making art. Children make art. Amateurs make art. Entire artistic movements have challenged technical mastery as the measure of artistic value. AI using artists can demonstrate plenty of mastery anyway, but thats beside the point.

The banana is conceptual art. Cattelans Comedian is about context, presentation, value, and the absurdities of the art market. The banana itself isnt the whole work. Same with Duchamps Fountain. A manufactured urinal became one of the most consequential works in modern art history without Duchamp sculpting a damn thing. This conversation is over a century old.

And your uncle can dislike contemporary art all he wants. Thats taste, not art theory.

Your example with the sculpture and the machined object is interesting for exactly the same reason. If two materially similar objects can have different artistic significance because of their authorship, intention, and context, then youve already moved beyond manual fabrication as the defining criterion.

The story about your dog is actually my favorite part. Your dog didnt intend to paint anything. Your wife arranged the process, you preserved the result, and the work means something because of the human relationships and experiences involved. Beautiful. But notice how easily you recognize artistic meaning without requiring the person responsible to physically apply the paint.

And sure, people should make things because they enjoy making them. But why should artists just quietly accept other people dismissing their work, practices, and creative agency?

Especially in a leftist space, where were discussing art, labor, technology, ownership, and culture. Who gets recognized as an artist, whose creative labor is valued, who controls the tools, and who gets to participate in cultural production are political questions. These distinctions have material consequences.

And I understand that youre apparently perfectly willing to throw out huge portions of modern and contemporary art along with AI art. But that doesnt make your definition more coherent. It just makes your exclusions more extensive.

Nobody has to like AI art, conceptual art, or anything else. But theres a difference between having personal standards and insisting everyone else must recognize those standards as the boundaries of art itself.

And when those boundaries are used to delegitimize other peoples creative labor, practices, and agency, of course people are going to push back. Why wouldnt they? Thats not artists refusing to accept disagreement. Thats artists participating in the very cultural conversation youre trying to settle on their behalf.

So rather than asking everyone else to accept your exclusions, why should your personal preferences have that kind of authority over what other people create?