it's not 'AI art has no soul' because soul is subjective and creating art is not necessarily a divine spark of inspiration, sometimes human made art is empty of feeling and meaning and that's okay.
it's not 'AI art is ugly' because human made art doesn't need to be pretty, it's still art, no matter if you're starting or if you intentionally make ugly things. It's still okay.
The problem, with AI art (besides the copyright theft, the environmental issues, the artists losing their jobs..)
When a human makes something, every part of the creation is a decision made. Why this line, why this color, why this word, why this stitch, why this note.
They may be good decisions, bad decisions, it doesn't matter. The end result is something with thought, and this is why we appreciate art. There is the surface, and underneath, there is an ocean of decisions made by the artist.
Yes, they will type prompts for a general idea. And they will pick a result.
But there is no thought about poses, colors, lines, backgrounds, details, negative space, lighting, texture, framing, etc.
Becoming a good artist means to understand these decisions and align them to make the result you want.
AI art will pick through millions of those decisions made by other people and will stick them together without meaning or reason, so they lose their intended purpose. This is why people think AI art is empty, that it has no 'soul'. Because there is no thought process behind it.
We should stop comparing human and AI art by using words like "better" or "worse". People will always have different opinions.
But as a human, I am more interested in things made by other humans, because I can observe all those tiny decisions, I can relate to some, be surprised by some, dislike some, it's all good.
Art is people communicating.
AI art has nothing to say.
prguitarman
baratheonpilled
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
yousharknotpass
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
discoholicmusic
