Did they look like this?
Elias Marrow
Prompt jockey not artist.
They said they wondered “why such a poor quality AI piece was hanging there without being labelled as AI”
Lol
I hate the debate over “what is art”. Honestly I think the best answer I could give to the question is “something that was ruined by a bunch of idiots asking ‘what is art’”.
That said, and not wanting to go into that discussion, calling this guy an “artist” seems like a mockery. He’s not an artist, he’s just some idiot with double sided tape.
im not sure i agree.
i’ve heard similar arguments against rap music that it’s not actually music or that producers aren’t musicians if they sample. people always try to diminish new forms by being elitist
It’s funny because trip-hop landed in pretty much elitist, conceptual album category for snobs and luxury products’ ads, with sampling being one of it’s core features. Useless gateekeping and/or mischaracterising the ‘art’ word as something well-defined.
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second.
Jackson Pollock was just some idiot with a paintbrush. John Cage was just some idiot with a piano when he wrote 4’33". “I could have done that.” Sure, but they did. Having the concept and then executing it is as much of the art as the finished product.
Those artists at least had a recognizable and identifiable style. It was easy to mimic yes, but they became icons for the identifiable style. If Altman snuck this in to the museum I’d give him some credit for it I suppose, but the style already exists and isn’t novel or identiable to a particular artist. Other people have snuck crap into museums too. There’s no novelty or creativity or unique iconic style here. It’s just sludge.
And here we are talking about it.
If I take my pants off and walk down the street people will talk about me. Seems like a low bar.
If.
Sure, but they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism
Disumbrationism was a hoax masquerading as an art movement that was launched in 1924 by Paul Jordan-Smith, a novelist, Latin scholar, and authority on Robert Burton from Los Angeles, California.
Annoyed at the cold reception his wife Sarah Bixby Smith’s realistic still lifes had received from an art exhibition jury, Jordan-Smith sought revenge by styling himself as “Pavel Jerdanowitch” (Cyrillic: Па́вел Жердaнович), a variation on his own name. Never having picked up a paint brush in his life, he then painted Yes, we have no bananas, a blurry, badly painted picture of a Pacific islander woman holding a banana over her head, having just killed a man and putting his skull on a stick. In 1925, Smith entered the banana picture under a new title of Exaltation in New York’s “Exhibition” of the Independents at the Waldorf-Astoria. He made a suitably dark and brooding photograph of himself as Jerdanowitch, and submitted the work to the same group of critics as representative of the new school “Disumbrationism”. He explained Exaltation as a symbol of “breaking the shackles of womanhood”.[1] To his amusement, if not to his surprise, the Disumbrationist daub won praise from the critics who had belittled his wife’s realistic painting.
More Disumbrationist paintings followed: a composition of zig-zag lines and eyeballs he called Illumination; a garish picture of a black woman doing laundry that he called Aspiration, and which a critic praised as “a delightful jumble of Gauguin, Pop Hart and Negro minstrelsy, with a lot of Jerdanowitch individuality”;[2]: 111 Gination, an ugly, lopsided portrait; and a painting named Adoration, of a woman worshipping an immense phallic idol, which was exhibited in 1927.
https://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_disumbrationist_school_of_art/
Jordan-Smith did too, though, and his work doesn’t qualify. I think that one has to both do and maintain a straight face for the rest of one’s life.
Except this is missing the executing part. Prompting isn’t work.
You’re missing it. It got sneaked into a museum and hung on the wall. That’s an extremely important part of it.
Indeed, the art is the reverse heist.
wow, it seems like it’s printed on printer quality paper. really amplifies how those who use AI for “art” don’t give a flying fuck about art
Or quality.
Tom Greene did it much better on his show.
Unsurprisingly, it’s crap.
Marrow was interested in “how public institutions decide what’s worth showing, and what happens when something outside that system appears within it”.
He said using artificial intelligence to create it was “part of the natural evolution of artistic tools”, adding he sketched the image before he used AI.
“AI is here to stay, to gatekeep its capability would be against the beliefs I hold dear about art,” he said.
[…]
The artist, who said similar stunts he had carried out at Bristol Museum and Tate Modern were not “approved, sanctioned, or acknowledged”, denied it was vandalism.
“The work isn’t about disruption. It’s about participation without permission,” he said.
“I’m not asking permission, but I’m not causing harm either.”
It’s like the same “logic” AI companies use when they take copyrighted content without permission: claim you’re not causing harm so you don’t need permission. They don’t see the harm, so from their perspective it’s fine, even if the creator doesn’t want them taking their work.
Railing at the institution as being gatekeepers might reveal the flaw in their logic. People or institutions are entitled to decide what belongs in their collection and what does not. Random outsiders are not entitled to be a part of that collection. They can be invited in if the curators are interested in their work, but the curators are generally not required to add them just because they’ve made something. The artist can create their own collection and invite others to be a part of it, but they’re not entitled to be in anyone’s collection. They also can’t just go and take something from someone else’s collection without permission, and even taking a photo of someone else’s work and placing it in their collection would at the very least be bad form. The other artist is just as entitled to decide where they do or don’t want their work displayed.
With encryption and encryption backdoors I often use the illustration that I put a lock on the door of my house, not because I have something to hide, but because I have things valuable to me that I want to protect. Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn’t mean I give the police a key to my house or let them add their own lock to my door. I wouldn’t want to come home one day and discover a random policeman had let himself in and was making copies of all my documents and photos just to make sure I wasn’t doing something bad. I’d be even more upset if I came home and discovered a policeman from another country had let himself in because he’d gotten a copy of the same key, or a thief was doing the same because he’d gotten a copy of the key.
Building off that illustration, I might have a collection of art in my house. This guy is not entitled to come into my house and look at my art, nor is he entitled to come into my house and put a picture on an empty space on my wall just because he thinks it should be there. Railing against gatekeepers keeping his slop out to me seems as ridiculous as him being mad that I won’t open my door and let him put a picture on my wall. He might not be damaging my walls, but just forcing his way in against my wishes is something I would view as harmful.
Headline should be: Person sneaks example of vagrant copyright infringement on a scale not previously seen into National Museum Cardiff gallery.
An artist sneaked an AI-generated print on to a gallery wall (…)
Isn’t it “snuck”, and not “sneaked”?
Anyhow, I’d agree with both parties: AI generated art can be considered a form of art, but not in the same league. Just like you have people who perform sports with “artificial enhancers” are separated from the naturals.
Snucked
Snook
In British English it is sneaked
Sneaked is the traditional form as the past tense of a regular verb, dating back to at least the 1500s, whereas snuck only appeared as an irregular form in the 1800s and it’s not clear why. It’s very unusual for a regular verb to become irregular. Snuck is more common in US English than British English, although sneaked and snuck appear in both variants. Sneaked would seem more correct especially for British English.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
