/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6421352
>A tablet does not create art "on its own", it would create nothing without being operated by a human.
I know, that's what I'm saying in my last sentence. You're agreeing with me. What we disagree on is the artistry the machine generates.

Everything in the file it creates for your artwork has predefined limits for its presentation. Whatever you force it to create is then within these limits, and is defined by the machine. That's why I'm saying it's the artist in that sense, because it's the one that is ultimately creating the different parts of your artwork and sewing them together.

>>6421358
AI art is literally the definition of a shortcut in that it streamlines and shortens the process of creating something most people would deem art. The problem with your logic in this post is that "the actual process of creating" is not a one size fits all thing. I'm confused on this part. Being artists yourselves, don't you understand that you can't define what is and isn't art to someone else? You're acting like all art is the same thing created in the same way. And to answer your question, my point from the previous post is that in both the AI and tablet examples the machine is creating the art for you.

>>6421360
>An AI cannot be creative, thus it cannot make ar
Assuming this is true, which I disagree with, the problem with this reasoning is that the human using the tool *can* be creative. I think I understand what you mean in the rest of the post, and I understand that AI art is definitely not appealing to a lot of artists, even as only a tool.