• Cherry@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    No and the hyperbole around this gives AI authority that it does not deserve. I love art, and one of the things that has peeved me off in the last 10-15 years is how many times I have stood in a gallery and all around me are people with a phone out snapping a pic to say I have been there.

    There is only one of that item. One, and in real life if you take the time to view, you can appreciate the delicate lines, the brush strokes, the variation of colour and technique, the grain of the canvas that have stood the test of centuries, and you can marvel that it was once held by its creator. It has the ability to stir something inside you.

    Pure art still holds. as another posted alluded digital art is where it changed. It is nothing more than endless reproduction, I am not criticising digital art, it is a movement, and and employer but with it you lose uniqueness and compromise authenticity. It’s hard to hear but its the nature of the format. AI is just another form of mass production and I would argue a graduation of the movement.

    In short, anyone who thinks this needs to step inside a gallery and assess if AI content can achieve and hold credence.

    WBM Link https://web.archive.org/web/20260413102003/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/apr/12/is-ai-the-greatest-art-heist-in-history