1. 1. In the Articles by both Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both give some great viewpoints about A.I. generated work that I appreciated. In this particular artist who made this submission that had everyone talking, I do agree his work should be considered art. To me art is the time that you invest to put forth a vision that you had in your mind and made it physical. That is what this particular artist did. In both articles both writers explained the hours the artist put into his ideas and what he went through to choose his final entry. He took the time to build something from his thought process to create something so original that no other artist physically painted. My answer remains yes in this instance of A.I generated art can be considered Art.

   2. I do believe the Artist do have a fair point. Especially taking the time with their hands to go through hours of a creating a template and painting it.it or building it. Basically, bringing it to life. So, it’s fair if we are talking about the hand work of an artist. But in my opinion, they are being sore losers. When you have talent in any form, it’s best not to compare yourself to others. If your great you create a lane of greatness that’s your won. A.I generated or handmade doesn’t matter. The person who made it so matters the most because no mind is the same. So, I commend anyone how takes the time to create a physical version of a vision they had. Not everyone can do so even if they put the physical time in or used A.I. the difference will always be the human mind behind it.

2. 1. In the Articles by both Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both give some great viewpoints about A.I. generated work that I appreciated. In this particular artist who made this submission that had everyone talking, I do agree his work should be considered art. To me art is the time that you invest to put forth a vision that you had in your mind and made it physical. That is what this particular artist did. In both articles both writers explained the hours the artist put into his ideas and what he went through to choose his final entry. He took the time to build something from his thought process to create something so original that no other artist physically painted. My answer remains yes in this instance of A.I generated art can be considered Art.

   2. I do believe the Artist do have a fair point. Especially taking the time with their hands to go through hours of a creating a template and painting it.it or building it. Basically, bringing it to life. So, it’s fair if we are talking about the hand work of an artist. But in my opinion, they are being sore losers. When you have talent in any form, it’s best not to compare yourself to others. If your great you create a lane of greatness that’s your won. A.I generated or handmade doesn’t matter. The person who made it so matters the most because no mind is the same. So, I commend anyone how takes the time to create a physical version of a vision they had. Not everyone can do so even if they put the physical time in or used A.I. the difference will always be the human mind behind it.

3. 1. Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both share great ideas and perspectives in their articles regarding A.I. and its relationship with art. Initially I disagreed with the belief that A.I. generated artwork should be looked at and considered as art. Art for me has been an outlet to express my own feelings and ideas that maybe couldn’t be put into words. A crucial part when creating an art piece is the process that it takes to do it. Imagine how much time I could save if I could physically write some of the artwork that I’ve done into an A.I. generator, That would be amazing! But because of the feelings and passion that I put into each of my work, I wouldn’t even know where to start. Though I feel the way I do about my own art, I do see how you can still look at it as art. It follows all the same “principles” and “guidelines” of what art is when you look at the end results from a surface level viewpoint. But comparing that process to the “regular” art creation process can uncover a variety of differences between them.

   2. I believe that the artists argue a very fair perspective. Some of them may be exaggerating a bit, but its hard to say because of how passionate and dedicated some are to maintaining the authenticity of creating art. The concern of A.I. taking over specific jobs is a fear amongst a variety of occupations, making these concerns and worries completely reasonable. I think as long as artist realize that art is always going to be changing and new technology that is introduced into the art world doesn’t take away from the love and appreciation individuals still have for “human created art”. As a result of this people should be open to appreciating this new form of A.I generated art as another form of art and human expression.

4. 1. I think ai generated art can definitely have a place in art, but I don’t think it should be compared to handmade art. The way the article describes the making of both images it makes it seem like it took more work than just picking an image. Especially the art Jason Allen made which took more than just picking one image he adjusted it with photoshop to make an image he had in his mind come to life that in itself is art no matter the tools he used.

   2. I think the artists have a point to the extent that it seems a little unfair having to use ai because it can make the idea of making everything yourself a little outdated. But I don’t think the artists should be too worried because its just another innovation that can make art even better and influence more creativity and make people who aren’t so good at drawing or painting have a chance to make something to come to life.

5. 1) Art can be anything I think using skill and a creative imagination. It’s been developed throughout the year in many different ways and aspects. Using A.I. you have be creative with the way you write your prompt as well as an understanding of the vision you want for the piece. So after reading the two articles by Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta they explained Mr Allens intentions in using A.I., and the process of which he did so. For these reasons I agree that A.I. should be considered as another aspect of art. Mr Allen spent around 80 hours working on his entree piece, its not like he typed up anything, took the results and submitted it. Then after careful evaluation he picked his favorites and edited them more using other programs. So with that being said A.I. generated art should definitely be considered art.

   2) Artist’s most certainly have a reason to worry about the use of A.I.. When I think about handcrafted, I think about the time, skill, and patients that are needed to bring their image to life. The artist point of view tells us how A.I. could potentially take jobs from illustrators and commissioner, which in some may be their source of income. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the situation. A.I. generated art will not put an end to other forms of art. Each peice of art will have its own targeted audience. So I do believe artist have a point, but it is exaggerated.

6. Art is very subjective. At this point anything can be art. Three dots on a piece of paper may be considered art to someone. If you can explain what it is or how it has inspired you “voila”! We have art. Even though AI consists of generated images, one would have to put their own ideas into words to produce said images. Therefore AI generated images of ones ideas may very well be art.
   To say artists’ concerns on AI generated art is exaggerated would be unfair. I cannot invalidate one’s views, with everyone being entitled to their own opinion. You also don’t know how much time and effort one has put in to master their craft. However, the world is very progressive. New and improved innovations are happening around us everyday. I do feel Mr. Allen did his research. He became enthralled with the midjourney program and created hundreds of images and got it down to a select three. In his own right putting his time and effort into his work producing a successful outcome. He also did not cheat contrary to what other contestants believed. He made it very clear exactly how his work was created by submitting it under his name Jason M. Allen via midjourney.
   Although there are concerns about AI generated art replacing human artists, I will say if you have a talent, any talent for that matter no one can take that from you. That is yours and only yours. You have an intricate eye for whatever thoughts you have floating around in your mind, and only you can replicate it. That being said, no tool or computer can replace your mind. When they invent mind reading technology then we are screwed.

7. AI generated art is fairly new and to some considering it art is controversial. Personally, I believe it is art. Art is a form of expression and AI gives the tools to do just that. While others consider AI cheating, I think wanting to create something and watching it come to fruition is the process around art. People have called AI “a high tech form of plagiarism” but isn’t all art inspired by something? Art is multi dimensional.

   I understand why artist are concerned with the rapid growth in popularity of AI. I don’t think their worry is exaggerated. I believe to some extent the worry is misplaced. Change is scary. This is their livelihood, passion and in some, their life’s work. AI has the potential to shift and wipe out the need of them. On the other hand, technology and art is forever changing and evolving. Everyone, artist included, should be part of adapting and learning these changes to ensure their value. Fear of change should not stifle growth of great artists. AI is tool that might be more beneficial than some think.

8. 1. With the situation this article describes in mind, I feel that A.I generated art should not be considered art. Art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, however, A.I generated art simply takes a phrase and creates an image out of it, taking no skill or effort at all from the one “creating” it. Furthermore, A.I art tools use a machine learning algorithm that scans images across the internet to produce an image, which can be argued is a form of plagiarism. This devalues artists and the hard work they put into their pieces.

   2.I think that artists’ do have a point about concerns about this innovation. Based on the situation with Allen’s piece winning the Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition, it was made clear that not even the judges were able to recognize that the award winning art was generated through A.I tools. This shows that although not perfected, A.I is coming really close to fully replicating human work and creativity. As this technology becomes more sophisticated the more it poses a threat to the future of artists careers. If Allen was able to enter A.I generated art into a competition, win the $300 award prize, and mark said pieces for $750 each, there’s no telling what other ways A.I can deceive us or what the future of A.I holds.

9. 1. Art is a way of expressing feelings and emotions through skills and figures, taking into account this, I think that AI generated should be considered art since this helps and facilitates artists when generating the basis of their works and then with other tools, they modify them and add details, which does not lose the essence of expression of ideas and feelings. We must also take into account that day by day the world is changing with new updates and new technological interventions, so I think we must take advantage of and update ourselves with these new technologies making proper use of them.
   2. I think that the concern of artists is not exaggerated since they have several specific points, among the most important would be the time dedicated to their works, since some artists take days and a lot of effort to elaborate them in detail, and seeing that an artificial intelligence facilitates this process, they could feel that it is unfair and that all their effort was in vain. Another point could be the profitability of their work since artists would fear that their skills are no longer needed and better resort to the help of artificial intelligence which does not benefit them. However, I think that it is only a matter and time to adapt and accept the new tools, as happened with the digital camera that after years it became a important tool in the field of art.

10. 1. According to the articles, digital art should not be called art because according to the artists, AI does the work for us and also takes away the main idea of the process of creating a work from scratch, but they forget about the process that despite the fact that it advances much faster is expensive, so in my opinion digital art should be considered art only if the original ideas are created by the artist and not only does it with AI but also that the design carries an editing process of the artist, as well as Jason Allen since this way he showed his main idea of what he wanted to express through his art to people and let them know the process that he carried out, also although it seems easy to use artificial intelligence to create art, we do not know the work that it can generate.

    2. I think that the concern of artists is not exaggerated but it has neutral ideas because in a certain way unlike the camera which is now a tool, AI has many more uses so it not only speaks of a painting and sculpture, but also that artists thanks to AI have enough capacity to skip processes, since AI can illustrate and the artist only modifies it and that is why many illustrator artists tend to be afraid that AI will take their place and thus lower the demand in this branch of study, on the other hand we do not know how much it costs to edit the illustration to the point that the artist shows what he thought with AI and the fact that he is seeing details and using tools that many of the times we do not know is complicated and we know how much it cost artists to learn how to use them correctly.

Comments are closed.