"AI Art" as a medium arguement

[Nikodile]

For me, it's kind of hard to define this as art at any capacity as I feel it's like the equivalent of commissioning an artist to make you art and you try to explain how you want it as best as possible - we definitely don't call the commission request art, we call the finished commission the art. As a "medium", I guess you can say it is as you envisioned something and want something else to make it for you, one however usually involves theft while the other usually involves proper compensation.

In general though, it's a very gray area to me cause where do you draw the line? If you were to ask people 10-20 years ago (even now) if electronic music was art, they'd say something along the lines of "Did you play an actual instrument?" or "The computer made it, not you" - which are obviously wrong, but we get to a point where it starts to be gatekeep-y.

The biggest issue to me currently is the fact that AI art is actively scraping art that doesn't belong to it, which is theft. I know you can "opt out" or not use the art service in general, but they are making it harder and harder to just be a normal artist with these things. At the end of the day, I really think the art aspect of AI will mostly be for corporate use, I feel as though most people get sick of generating art after their #1000+ prompt.

[xixxii]

I really hope your just trying to be objective, ive seen multiple replies like this and im not gonna lie im not liking what im seeing, as it seems like your defending it.

I didn't want to state my reasons in order for things to stay unbiased but I guess i'll have to put mine foot forward. So i'll state now and out in the open and say that I despise AI art with my whole chest. That being said...

While I will take your stance to a degree, I dont disagree AI art isnt a medium. By all definition, AI Art is a medium. But that's the keyword: definition.

AI Art is a medium, but whether it is a good medium is ultimately a different question. This medium (as it currently stands) runs and feed off of stolen artwork, with no actual generation occurring. The "generation" that occurs is based off of several stolen artworks that have been stolen. Works that have been scalped from the internet and morphed into mechanical madness that spews out colors and shapes that resembles art of a humans.

Is there much sense in discussing this again? Do you think that AI art is a medium in itself (rather than just one for creating art)?

edit: Cleared the post up a bit. Hope that came in time ;)

i thought discussing this was the point of the thread! discussing what the meaning of art is and whether AI art is a medium or not?  i think it's interesting to talk about and @Zombiethederg asked what people think about whether or not AI art is a medium of art, so i said what i think? and was trying to chat about that with other people, since that's what i'm used to doing on forums. did i misread something or commit a faux pas?

i'mmmmm not really sure if i'm meant to respond to additional comments, since it seems like i've totally misread the point of the thread? i'm not very good with distinguishing between rhetorical questions and non-rhetorical questions, sorry! (none of my questions are or have been rhetorical, i am sincerely requesting answers and find what people have to say interesting.) if you could clarify, that would be great. i'm happy to keep chatting because i think it's fun and interesting, but i do not find it fun and interesting to make people upset!

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

i thought discussing this was the point of the thread! discussing what the meaning of art is and whether AI art is a medium or not? 

No harm done, I also just thought I would respond to you and didn't intend to sound rude at all!
But: The question of the OP was "is AI art a medium", not "is AI a medium of art" - and indeed, I find the question of the topic much more worthwhile than the (for me, and I think you as well) pretty clear question whetever AI is art or not ;).

[Zombiethederg]

i'm happy to keep chatting because i think it's fun and interesting, but i do not find it fun and interesting to make people upset!

Im sorry, I really shouldn't have reacted that way to be honest! I was a bit upset (due to thinking you were defending it, which you probably arent now that im re-reading) which is probably why I came off that way, and im very sorry about that!!

I've kind of turned my brain off when it comes to this thread to be honest as there was ALOT that was said and I am still combing over it, but im not upset at you or anything!! Just bringing up my own points and trying to engage in discussion (which im realizing I may have gotten out of hand with!!)

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

When you say this, a question comes to my mind. Can you name any examples of good art that was created unethically, lazily, and thoughtlessly? Stolen and soulless? Sure, bad, ugly and boring are appropriate descriptors of things that can be art. Cruelty Squad, one of my favorite pieces of art, is a great example of that (except for the boring part).

The work of Hirst comes to mind, among others.

[xixxii]

No harm done, I also just thought I would respond to you and didn't intend to sound rude at all!
But: The question of the OP was "is AI art a medium", not "is AI a medium of art" - and indeed, I find the question of the topic much more worthwhile than the (for me, and I think you as well) pretty clear question whetever AI is art or not ;).

Im sorry, I really shouldn't have reacted that way to be honest! I was a bit upset (due to thinking you were defending it, which you probably arent now that im re-reading) which is probably why I came off that way, and im very sorry about that!!

I've kind of turned my brain off when it comes to this thread to be honest as there was ALOT that was said and I am still combing over it, but im not upset at you or anything!! Just bringing up my own points and trying to engage in discussion (which im realizing I may have gotten out of hand with!!)

aha, okay! great! no worries, no harm no foul. i'm sorry to have made you upset, zombie! i think it is not always clear that i am not trying to ask Pointed Questions to make people feel bad, maybe i should add a disclaimer to my signature or something
i don't mind if folks are fired up, i just didn't want to like.... keep on chatting like "haha what a fun little chat, la la la!" if everybody else was like "who's this jerk picking fights?!?!?!?! wtf???????"

for additional context: i think large language models are interesting and fun toys which are not useful in most ways and the few ways they are useful are not unique (chatbots and stock photos already exist!); i think it is unethical and depressing for anyone to try and profit off of things that were shared freely with them, including massive datasets like the common crawl; i think that the absurd computing+electrical costs are truly unreasonable and that that money and electricity should (morally and logically) be used elsewhere and not on a silly toy; i wish that we lived in a world where more automation and less work meant more time for people to enjoy life and less time working (alas); i think unrefined AI is more fun and interesting than highly-refined AI, and that its jankiness is the fun part; legality/illegality does not play a role in how i personally judge the value/ethics/goodness of a thing.
i don't think ai art needs defending and am not trying to defend it - i am more just interested in how people talk about it and how it shows things that they think about art in general! since - as @ThunderPerfectWitchcraft said! - my definition of art is very very broad, i think hearing from people with more specific definitions is interesting!


now for some yammering! sorry to add to any overwhelm with Too Many Words.

When you say this, a question comes to my mind. Can you name any examples of good art that was created unethically, lazily, and thoughtlessly? Stolen and soulless? Sure, bad, ugly and boring are appropriate descriptors of things that can be art. Cruelty Squad, one of my favorite pieces of art, is a great example of that (except for the boring part).

hmm, well, "good" is a pretty fuzzy term, so first i will establish what makes something good to me. if something inspires a strong emotional reaction in me, i am reasonably sure this emotional response was intentional (or at least not unwelcome), and i enjoy the strong emotional reaction that i am having, then that to me is good art!

personally i enjoy and think lots of things that are generally considered "bad" are good, haha.
i really like ke$ha's album animal - listening to it makes me pumped up and chipper! but the conditions under which it was made are reprehensible and it is not especially unique, high-effort, or thoughtful. it wasn't music she enjoyed making in any sense, the writing is pretty lame, the use of auto-tune is really over the top, it's kind of the pinnacle of trashy overproduced pop. music as a product made to be sold.
the yugioh duel monsters 4kidz dub is also lazily-made, scribbles over original designs, carelessly modifies huge chunks of characterization and story without respect or regard for the creators' intentions or desires. it's emotionally engaging, i enjoy it immensely, and i think the story is good!

on the other hand, i think that roy lichtenstein's work (now typically considered "good" as well as "art", though not uncontroversial) was created unethically, lazily, and thoughtlessly, and think it counts as stealing. i also think that andy warhol's work (similarly not without controversy) is lazy and soulless, especially his soup cans! i think it's bad art. but other people think it's good art! it is influential, and expensive, and famous, and (i guess?) fun to look at; i assume some people must enjoy the feelings it gives them, though the only feeling it gives me is "perplexed" and "kind of annoyed." 

When we say something is "art" we are not referring to the fact it exists. We are referring to the process. Painting is an art. Photography is an art. The human toils, the hours spent, the tears cried, the paper torn. We are not referring to the product of art, the painting in front of us or the photo of a cliffside.

i think that's an interesting way to define art! a very nice idea, i think. different from mine, but certainly reasonable and, as they say, valid!

If I came up to you and said I painted a red sunset by typing some words in and clicking a button for 5 minutes, your first reaction would probably be "that's not art." Which is natural. The process is dull. Easy. Not art.

actually, my first reaction would be, "that's neat! what for? are you working on a project or was it just for fun?" (well, actually, my first first reaction would be, "ARGH! SOMEONE IS TALKING TO ME!" but for the sake of the hypothetical i will be confident!)
if you shared that with me, i would assume it's because you were proud of it and wanted to share, so i would try to be nice! sometimes people i think are lovely share their art with me and i think it sucks big time or i don't get it at all, but it's important to me to try and meet people where they're at and hear them talk about their work and find something nice to say about it anyway. i like hearing people talk about why they like something, even if i don't like it myself!

Personally, I think your wrong. I think if the process of creating art involves stealing, laziness, thoughtfulness, and soullessness, its not art. I don't think its reductive to think that way either. Art is meant to be enjoyed at the end of the day. How can I enjoy art if I know the water and power drained from the land that made this pointless piece? How am I able to view it and enjoy it knowing the countless artists who had their style ripped, stolen, torn apart, and put back together again to make it?

that's fair! i think we just disagree on this point - well, multiple points! - but i think that's fine.
for me personally, feelings like despair, anger, and frustration are valid readings of a piece of art; if something makes me feel frustrated and upset, then that's my response to the art - maybe it was intentional (in which case i probably think it's good art) and maybe it was unintentional (in which case i probably think it's bad art), but either way. the thing has been presented and i have reacted to it, which is the purpose of art to me!

I dont have anything to say with this one really since you were asking a question but i'll just respond with "yea. I do need an art piece to be made legally in order to consider it art." lol

see, i think that's interesting! because laws can change, so if something becomes legal then its status as art can change too, right? or something could be legal if made in one country and illegal if made in another - so, theoretically, something could be art in the US but not in Europe! sticky situation. (additional context: my personal values do not hold the law to be inherently ethical. some things that are illegal are ethical, some things that are legal are unethical, and vice versa! i don't want to get too off-topic, though.)

I like to think that all four are an important aspect, but you do have a point on that, and in some cases there may not've been a mix of all four things. Although yeah i'll conceed that love may not've been put into some art historically, I feel like there's a distinct difference in typing in a prompt and generating a couple of hundred images and trying to find the one that looks the least bad VS pouring your time into making art yourself.

oh yes! i absolutely agree that there's a difference. i find it hard to put into words what specifically about it is different, though; it's something i've been puzzling over. LLMs are weird and they're new! they do so much, even more so than other tools of mass production.

I think a GOOD art piece needs all 4 of these things. I think a bad art piece has none of these things. But these aren't things you can put to scale, which makes them hard to argue for AI art as a medium.

AI Art cuts out 2 of these things. Time and Energy. (Well. Specifically it cuts out the need for YOU to use energy but you get what I mean.) So then that raises a question of "do we count AI Art as a separate thing since it technically cuts out 2 components of art?". But that would also require us to quantify how much Effort and Love is required to make an art piece.

I think is hard to quantify ANY of these things, or how much is required to make art. BUT I think what we can say is that an art piece shouldn't remove the ability to use these things. A piece of art should try to have some of these things, but for a piece of art to not REQUIRE some of these things, I think, doesn't make it a piece of art.

ah, i actually like this phrasing a lot - that it "shouldn't remove the ability to use these things" ! i definitely agree with that and think that's a very useful thing to keep in mind. like, in order to put energy into a piece of AI art, you have to take it into photoshop and start tinkering with it yourself, because the image generator can only generate images and regenerate images.

i guess i still feel like since some people (reportedly) feel that they can in fact realize their creative vision via the medium of the image generator, it is a medium, even if it is very limited. i don't really get it, and i do not think it is especially valuable, but it does serve that function!

[VelvetSoul]

Whether we're talking music, visual art, or writing; I think AI needs to be viewed as nothing more than another tool in your tool belt. I think the big issue with AI is that the people who tend to turn to it first and most I guess "loudly" for lack of a better word; are the sort of people who view AI as more of a "do it for me" button.

The truth is, simply put; that AI has existed for a long time, it's not so much that it's something new as much as it is that it's newly available to everyone as opposed to only those who could afford to use the specific programs that had it before. Since it's so easily available most people who want a quick and easy "do it for me" button are going to use it and then often take the first piece of slop it spits out and say "this is it, I made art!"

I think if we use AI like we use any other tool, it absolutely can assist with the creative process, I often say "if you're using AI correctly, I shouldn't know you've used it at all." Which unfortunately gets twisted to mean "hide the fact you're using AI" which isn't what I mean.

What I actually mean by that is that, I used a home trained AI, meaning I specifically trained the AI model myself; ethically, on my own art. I did this because by doing so I could prompt it to give me a concept I may not be able to visualize as well since sure, Aphantasia is a thing. When you couple something like low Aphantasia scale with ADHD it can be difficult to keep ideas in your head when you're working. But if I reference something too far out of my own drawing abilities I found myself becoming frustrated because I couldn't get it to look right. So the solution was pretty simple, I'd just have my own home grown AI show me something in my own style, and then I'd use that as a reference.

This means the AI isn't producing the "art" it's not making a finished product nor even a first draft, it's there as a tool to produce a reference that actually visually represents something I could feasibly draw myself. Which makes it easier for me to sort of visualize how I could go about drawing stuff. This genuinely did help me to draw, and there was nothing AI about the end result. Obviously you shouldn't copy a reference 1 to 1, and now I've been able to branch out and use references that aren't in my style as I've gotten better.

I could see someone doing this sort of thing with writing as well, or maybe even music. As someone who studied music theory and even played in a band I could see where it might be difficult to understand a lot of things if you don't approach music from that angle, some people are going to struggle with things like chord progression, or even something as simple as knowing how to make drums sound good without being over the top. Drums are important, I say; with no bias what so ever... I am a drummer. REGARDLESS my point with this is that using AI as a sort of assistant to give you an idea of something that you could then take and work with and make into your own by putting real time and effort and work into, isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

I don't mind enabling "less creative" people to become creative individuals, some people need that aid to help them get started; I totally understand where someone could use AI to get specific ideas and the like. However I don't agree with the use of AI as a "do it for me" button and I absolutely do not agree with the way that things like OpenAI are training their models. Not only does it muddy the results but it's entirely unethical.

I'm a strong believer that when it comes to this sort of thing, harmless use of AI is fine; if it's all in good fun I don't really care. But I dislike when someone says "I made this" when it was generated by AI, you prompted it; but you didn't create it; and like that's fine. I once asked a friend of mine why he said he created art made by an AI, he told me he claimed ownership of it because he had made the prompts and hit the generate button and actually ran the program. That's, in my opinion; a very narrow minded way of looking at it but I kinda got where he was coming from. So I asked him to give me an idea of what to draw that night, he gave me some ideas; I drew one of them and then proudly presented it to my friend group stating he had made it. The next morning he DM'd me about it asking why I gave him credit for my art. I told him very clearly "you told me what to draw, and you hit send on the message right? Isn't that why you claimed ownership of the AI art you made even though a machine actually created the image?" I'm thankful to have friends who understood the intent behind that and didn't see it as some kind of an attack. It wasn't meant to put him down, it was meant to explain how there was no difference. At the end of the day we both knew I had drawn that art, just like we both knew that a machine had created what he claimed to have made. He still creates images and the like with AI, but now he's very open about it being just a sort of fun hobby he does and he will often use terminology like "AI generated this image using these prompts and was running these models and LoRAs!" Which just feels a lot more honest.

This is all to say that I don't believe any creation made solely from AI SHOULD be a Medium, it is in the most technical form of the word; a medium is simply the means of creating a piece of art. If we solely go off that definition, then sure AI is the means by which someone creates something therefore it is the medium by which the art is made. That to me, is fairly cut and dry. I think the big reason we see a lot more discussion around whether or not AI art is in fact ART is because whether or not AI was used to create something would define the medium, but whether or not it's a medium of art is a different story and I think since yea, sure; we have definitions to go by for the first issue there. That one isn't really a heavily debated topic. I'd argue anything could be a medium so long as it's used to create something, and by create I do literally mean "bring something into the world where it didn't previously exist." AI can do that, and again if someone just generates an image and doesn't bother to edit it or use it for something grander, then the AI itself was solely responsible for actually creating the image; by definition the AI is the medium by which that image exists. I agree with a lot of what I've been seeing in this thread in regards to the idea that for something to truly be art it needs a human touch. It needs time and effort and care put into it, there needs to be genuine thought. No matter how well a machine can simulate thinking, an AI cannot think; it can't tell me it decided to generate this image of a flower and use those specific colors because it thought it would evoke a sense of loneliness and bittersweet memories of summer or something. It's an AI, it has no actual experience with these things, it doesn't experience emotions, it has never experienced summer; therefore what it's trying to sell me on is a lie. Even if the individual generating the image through the AI had those ideas in mind, the art being made in my opinion should have been made by a human hand and not an AI generation.

Personally I don't mind everyone having their own opinions on AI, I'll never really agree with the way mass AI has taken over, and I dislike the general way AI companies handle training their models with no concern for morals or ethics. However I do wish people would stop fighting each other over it. The very first line of this thread being a sort of defensive "please don't come after me for this" says a lot, you know? Even on a forum like this where we have civil discussions about stuff, we don't really see hate being thrown around; there's good moderation and rules against that sort of thing. There is still a sort of felt need to say "please don't hate me for this" before being able to talk about whether or not AI is even a medium.

As a final closing note I think the thing I always try to keep in mind is the idea of "hate the player not the game" but like... with 90% less sass and 90% more real world application. What I mean is that like I said; AI has been around for a long time and there's a lot of fields outside of art where it's SUPER useful! I saw an AI recently that was taught how to detect sign language and translate it into written word; that's really cool! However when I see people stealing other people's art, or generating inappropriate things from people's selfies; everyone gets mad about the AI not the actual user behind it. I don't think "killing AI" is the solution, that's not going to stop bad people from doing bad things; it's just going to make them use other means for it. We need to turn our focus from the AI to the user, and understand that the actual person using this tool for wrongdoing is the problem; not the tool they're using.

But this is all just my two cents, I really don't mean to ruffle any feathers here so please don't take any offense to the way I perceive things. If anything, I'm throwing my thoughts in here because I think discussion is the primary method of learning from others; I can only see things from my own perspective, but through discussion and conversation I'm able to better understand your perspective; and that does me the most good if our perspectives don't align because if they did then I'm not really being offered new information, just a reinforcement of the thoughts and information I already have.

[garystu]

Wouldn't you agree that a image made with a pencil is inherently different from one made with a brush?
Also, if I take a AI generated image and print it, is it still digital art? ;)

The medium of lead pencils is graphite. The medium of brushes is usually paint, although brushes can be used with other mediums. Speaking of, fingerprinting, palette knife painting, pouring paint directly out of the tube onto canvas, are all paintings. The medium of AI is digital.

Being "inheriently different" of genre and technique doesn't matter, medium is about the media used.

A print is a derivative of another work, its medium is the printer ink. But that means nothing for the medium of the source work. You can make a print of a digital photograph of a painting, and the source work was still a painting. You can make a print of digital art, and the source work was still digital. The print itself is not digital art, but the source work was.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

The medium of lead pencils is graphite. The medium of brushes is usually paint, although brushes can be used with other mediums. Speaking of, fingerprinting, palette knife painting, pouring paint directly out of the tube onto canvas, are all paintings. The medium of AI is digital.

Being "inheriently different" of genre and technique doesn't matter, medium is about the media used.

A print is a derivative of another work, its medium is the printer ink. But that means nothing for the medium of the source work. You can make a print of a digital photograph of a painting, and the source work was still a painting. You can make a print of digital art, and the source work was still digital. The print itself is not digital art, but the source work was.

Still, I'd argue that the tool used influences the medium in itself: If I create a image with finger colors, its message and perception will change, even if the difference to a picture made with brush can't bee seen.
Even more clear, if I use a trumpet, the medium would, if we apply the logic described in your post, be air? I'd argue that the medium that is produced is trumpet music, and it is something different from an oboe, even if I manage to make my trumpet sound like one.
Or, to take a very classic example: A leaflet is another medium than a book or a poster, even if they all use paper and ink.

Regarding the printer ink: But you can see digital art basically only as reproduction, since its core essence isn't perceivable without another medium - usually, the medium that is used to perceive AI art is probably a LCD screen - but, the moment I think about what I see on the screen, its mode of creation might begin to matter, making a scan from a book to something different than a .txt, or a AI generated image - or not?

[crash-stop]

I see A.I as very much a tool. There are a lot of artists I know who use it, such as Distorted Reality, Rob Sheridan ( one of the og glitch artists), Domenico Dom Barra, Ugur Engin Deniz, 4e1st and quite a few others  . I'm all for any tool which enables people to be creative and express themselves. I was personally fascinated by some of the first tools released publicly such as ganbreeder but in the end got bored with them, beyond the novelty factor they just dont do it for me. I've seen a lot of low effort A.I art or 'prompt engineering' as some have called it and as an admin in one particularly big facebook group there have been a lot of discussions about whether to allow these images in - finally we  seem to have settled for the idea that there has to be something else other than the original generated image because lets be honest most of them are generic glossy nonsense, they are a great starting point but in themselves not particularly interesting

As a supporter and user of creative commons licences and believing in Lawrence Lessigs ideas of 'remix culture' and a user of appropriated sources in my own work , both digital and and analogue ( collage) I believe material can be used and reused at will within certain parameters but the big caveat for me with A.I  is training data , I know of quite a few people who have trained their own models on their own work but the big corporations basically scraping everything for profit essentially disregarding copyright and attribution is to my mind morally egregious -  its an enclosing of the commons for the 21st century and they will use it to hoover up opportunity's and work which could have gone to real people, especially egregious is the 1984 aspect where they will churn out endless books / content / music putting countless artists out of work, that's the doomsday scenario. Personally I hope people can see through that and realise that beyond the novelty aspect this new A.I generated stuff is not that interesting or satisfying - we crave the human not the artificial ( and I say that as an artist who works exclusively with digital media and makes no physical work ) -  Like NFTS previously I think the whole things going to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and the massive ecological damage training and maintaining and using these models incurs.

And its also disingenuous  of those pushing it to call it A.I , it isnt , as someone else called it , its a 'Stochastic parrot' an advanced predictive text , it doesnt think , it isnt intelligent it is just a stupidly complicated form of algorithm - a sorting sieve .

[garystu]

Still, I'd argue that the tool used influences the medium in itself: If I create a image with finger colors, its message and perception will change, even if the difference to a picture made with brush can't bee seen.
Even more clear, if I use a trumpet, the medium would, if we apply the logic described in your post, be air? I'd argue that the medium that is produced is trumpet music, and it is something different from an oboe, even if I manage to make my trumpet sound like one.
Or, to take a very classic example: A leaflet is another medium than a book or a poster, even if they all use paper and ink.

Regarding the printer ink: But you can see digital art basically only as reproduction, since its core essence isn't perceivable without another medium - usually, the medium that is used to perceive AI art is probably a LCD screen - but, the moment I think about what I see on the screen, its mode of creation might begin to matter, making a scan from a book to something different than a .txt, or a AI generated image - or not?

Yea, tools used influence the medium.

Musical instruments aren't described as mediums, and you've given one reason for that.

There is a catch all term for books, leaflets, posters, and other print media. It's print media.

I agree that you can see digital art basically only as reproduction, and I do think that's very interesting. A lot of art movements have considered production in their form, or artwork made to reflect production. That's all good stuff. The tools of art production do matter, for a number of reasons.

[larvapuppy]

I think we can all have fun being enlightened and considering everything under the sun to be art, but that makes the word "art" completely meaningless. If everything is art, nothing is art. Whether or not something is art isn't interesting to me, because thus far as a species we have failed to define exactly what art is. A better question is... Does it have value? Is it interesting?

In the case of "AI" generated images, for me, the answer is usually no... As we all know, the images take little skill or thought to produce (the idea that coming up with usable prompts is a skill is laughable)... Even if the technology behind the images is impressive, the images themselves are often bland. I'd argue that the technology has caused much more harm than good. Sure, you can iterate upon the generated images to make new art, but that's not any different from collage art or photomanipulation, except you don't need to search for or curate your source material, thus it's much less impressive. Sure, that makes it easier, but...  Do we want to surrender all of our skills and effort to a machine, or do we want to continue bettering ourselves and being able to make amazing things with our own hands and minds?

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

Yea, tools used influence the medium.

Musical instruments aren't described as mediums, and you've given one reason for that.

But the music produced with them is!

There is a catch all term for books, leaflets, posters, and other print media. It's print media.

Yet, they vastly differ from each other - every of these subgroups communicates a different thing; yet, if I would reproduce an exact copy of one (not distinguishable for you by any means) using a pencil, it would make only a difference for you as soon as you knew about this - this, however, would change your reception of the medium. Even changing the substance that is used as a base for a print color to something that is considered as noble (or gross) influences our reception, but only if we notice it.

Can you see where I want to go? The medium exists only on the site of the recipient - nothing is inherently a medium, but only us regarding it as one. This is also true for "AI art".

I agree that you can see digital art basically only as reproduction, and I do think that's very interesting. A lot of art movements have considered production in their form, or artwork made to reflect production. That's all good stuff. The tools of art production do matter, for a number of reasons.

And following this: There is no clear line between tool and medium. A lightbulb is always tool and medium at the same time, and a brush is a tool and a medium to transmit a message.

[garystu]

Need to link this article about AI and copyright quick: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0


begin reply

But the music produced with them is!

Yet, they vastly differ from each other - every of these subgroups communicates a different thing; yet, if I would reproduce an exact copy of one (not distinguishable for you by any means) using a pencil, it would make only a difference for you as soon as you knew about this - this, however, would change your reception of the medium. Even changing the substance that is used as a base for a print color to something that is considered as noble (or gross) influences our reception, but only if we notice it.

Can you see where I want to go? The medium exists only on the site of the recipient - nothing is inherently a medium, but only us regarding it as one. This is also true for "AI art".

And following this: There is no clear line between tool and medium. A lightbulb is always tool and medium at the same time, and a brush is a tool and a medium to transmit a message.

In terms of music, the distribution media is called a medium. No other aspect of music is called a medium.

These words do have contextual definitions to a degree. Yeah.

If I sound a bit shy on it, I remember people dismissive of digital art itself. Who would insist tools like Photoshop and Flash were basically co-authors to any digital piece made in them. "Digital art isnt real art, and Photoshop made that not you. All you did was push buttons". I'm sorry I can't find any examples of this attitude, it was left behind in the 00s and its hard to search that far back. To me, pushing back on considering different digital art programs as distinct mediums is to hand artistic decisions back to the artists: A program didn't make digital art, an artist did. Anyway that's why I'm shy on labelling AI a medium.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

In terms of music, the distribution media is called a medium. No other aspect of music is called a medium.

Music can certainly be considered a medium. Examples (just from a quick search):

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/musicresearch/scott/the-medium-of-music-as-a-means-of-understanding/
https://medium.com/@robinlee_48716/music-as-a-medium-for-expression-cultural-tension-aa8fc7ab14cf

and it is only logical: Music expresses and transports ideas.
Please don't take it as an affront: It seems to me that your definition of medium is incomplete!

If we take McLuhan (I don't want to "pull his authority" here, but this might help), every medium is a "repackaging" of another, more "primitive" (in the sense of technically preceding) medium. If we take it this way, this might be a possible chain:

Image on Screen > AI Image -> Digital Image -> Photography -> Picture -> Idea (of an object that is to be depicted)

I hope this is comprehensible ;). Do you agree?