It also would be funny of you handle a pencil to a photographer and tell them that if they cannot draw the Mona Lisa they are not allowed to use the camera to just push a button and make a portrait.
C’mon guys let’s bully those Photographer Bros, it’s fun!
You are not a God who decides what’s art and what’s not… sorry
If art is the ability to paint then photography is not art. If art does not require ability to hand paint then AI is art.
Logical inconsistencies are for religions and gods.
… He literally said it was art you buffoon. Not to mention, photography isn’t just pushing a button and getting a result, photography as art takes a lot of effort.
You can agree with me in a more open-minded vision of art.
I consider everything art, even things not made by humans or even living forms. Everything that tickles my mind is art for me, no matter how it was made.
Interesting take. I personally disagree - I define art as the human experience/emotions being expressed exclusively by humans through various mediums. To me, that human element is what makes art “art” as it were. AI might be able to produce approximations of art and some of it might even look quite nice, but I don’t consider it “art” in the way I define the word.
I was thinking about a mountain (I’m sitting in front of one right now).
A mountain is beautiful, so beautiful that many humans have made paintings of it, take pictures, write poems. They have try to mimic the mountain beauty with their tools. But they did not make the mountain. Erosion made it. In reality here humans are just copying something nature made and calling it “their art”, but they did not make those shapes and colors, they did not create the emotions that everyone seeing the mountain feels. They are just replicating it.
Here the artist is just erosion, the wind and the rain, the trees and the snow, not a human being.
If art is just human creativity and expression, why would the media, format or process used for expressing would matter, then? Why classify between art or not arr depending on which computer program would be used to make it?
Everything a human made being used for expressing something would be art. By that definition.
Also including creativity here would be plain wrong, as a great deal of art is representative, not creative. Like my mountain example, humans that represent that mountain on a canvas are not creating anything, humans taking pictures of that mountain are not using their creativity, they are just representing something that was created by something different. As said before, humans did not created the mountain, they are just representing it.
Specially a photographer for instance, would just be pushing a button and getting a exact picture of the mountain that was created by nature. I don’t think if we could say that creativity was used to take that picture.
Are we starting to notice how ridiculous and useless is to try gatekeep art or shall I go on?
It also would be funny of you handle a pencil to a photographer and tell them that if they cannot draw the Mona Lisa they are not allowed to use the camera to just push a button and make a portrait. C’mon guys let’s bully those Photographer Bros, it’s fun!
#PhotographersAreNotRealArtists #GatekeepingIfFun
Photography is art too.
You are not a God who decides what’s art and what’s not… sorry
If art is the ability to paint then photography is not art. If art does not require ability to hand paint then AI is art. Logical inconsistencies are for religions and gods.
… He literally said it was art you buffoon. Not to mention, photography isn’t just pushing a button and getting a result, photography as art takes a lot of effort.
You are just a bully following me and insulting me.Reported and blocked.
You’re the idiot posting this crap everywhere, you can’t get mad when people call you out.
I can’t agree with you if I did my friend will kill me xD. He took photography course in school for 4 years.
You can agree with me in a more open-minded vision of art.
I consider everything art, even things not made by humans or even living forms. Everything that tickles my mind is art for me, no matter how it was made.
Interesting take. I personally disagree - I define art as the human experience/emotions being expressed exclusively by humans through various mediums. To me, that human element is what makes art “art” as it were. AI might be able to produce approximations of art and some of it might even look quite nice, but I don’t consider it “art” in the way I define the word.
I don’t even mean AI here.
I was thinking about a mountain (I’m sitting in front of one right now).
A mountain is beautiful, so beautiful that many humans have made paintings of it, take pictures, write poems. They have try to mimic the mountain beauty with their tools. But they did not make the mountain. Erosion made it. In reality here humans are just copying something nature made and calling it “their art”, but they did not make those shapes and colors, they did not create the emotions that everyone seeing the mountain feels. They are just replicating it. Here the artist is just erosion, the wind and the rain, the trees and the snow, not a human being.
It sounds like you’re conflating art and beauty.
Art is about human creativity and expression. It doesn’t have to be beautiful, and beauty doesn’t have to be art.
If art is just human creativity and expression, why would the media, format or process used for expressing would matter, then? Why classify between art or not arr depending on which computer program would be used to make it?
Everything a human made being used for expressing something would be art. By that definition.
Also including creativity here would be plain wrong, as a great deal of art is representative, not creative. Like my mountain example, humans that represent that mountain on a canvas are not creating anything, humans taking pictures of that mountain are not using their creativity, they are just representing something that was created by something different. As said before, humans did not created the mountain, they are just representing it. Specially a photographer for instance, would just be pushing a button and getting a exact picture of the mountain that was created by nature. I don’t think if we could say that creativity was used to take that picture.
Are we starting to notice how ridiculous and useless is to try gatekeep art or shall I go on?