Azzy

I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.

Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

The arts or creative arts are a vast range of human practices of creative expression, storytelling, and cultural participation. The arts encompass diverse and plural modes of thinking, doing, and being in an extensive range of media.

This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.

The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.

What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.

You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.

To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.