Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Probably one of the most important topics in 2026, it's a bit long but here's what I have to say on the matter ~

Files

My Official Stance On AI (The Definition of Art)

Probably one of the most important topics in 2026, it's a bit long but here's what I have to say on the matter ~ Support is always appreciated but never expected ~ Thank you so much https://www.youtube.com/@TheRoyalSkies/join ========================================================== #3danimation #art #artist

Comments

Simone

I couldn’t agree more. Really. My definition of art ended up becoming this, quite a few years ago: Art is the process and the outcome through which a possibility becomes a form, any form, capable of evoking any feeling through the form itself. I tend to think that time, effort, consciousness, intention, and all the other things surrounding art define the artistic process or the artist, not the art itself. All the noise around AI and art is just that: noise. We’ve had versions of this argument before. When photography appeared, there was serious debate over whether something produced through a camera could even be considered art, while painters were figuring out at the same, what this new medium meant for their own work. Art has always been fluid and it always will be. Anything that serves the process and helps bring the outcome into existence is ultimately just a tool. A pencil can be used to write Anna Karenina, it can also physically hurt someone and hold my hair up, if needed. The tool gives us almost nothing about the meaning of what resulted. Thank you for sharing that video. It was really insightful.

New Hive (RetroChug)

Nah, if your entire process and result is ai, you suck. AI should at most be a concept. Then you draw the concept yourself. It should strictly be reference material. Any videos, images, etc made by ai generarion isn't and cannot be art. The algorithm plagiarize for you off existing material. Its up to you to make it unique.

Simone

I completely agree. I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn’t talking about taking a raw AI output and presenting it untouched as art. I was talking about whether the use of AI in itself, reference or not, disqualifies an outcome from being art, not that any raw AI output is considered art automatically.

BadMonkey167

Wow... I paused after your art definition and will save my AI comment for part 2. That first part regarding the definition of art was very profound and transcendent. A layman might never reach that conclusion and define art entirely differently based on their own perspective. A banker thinks art as investments, an insurance agent as a liability, a plumber might see it as a waste of time until they come across an exceptionally well crafted sewage system. Art is so subjective that maybe it's not a matter of, "is something art" or "is that art?" But maybe it's a measure of pull based on 3 things. Significance, Audience, and Appreciation? I'm still ruminating on it, but notice I didn't identify "Artist". Sometimes the artist themself is an audience, witnessing their own creation. Is that weird? To suggest that at times an artist is either entering a fugue state and only serves as a translator to the chaos. A bad witness of sorts, hallucinating false evidence to captivate an unssen jury. Or when we say, "we are our own worst critic" is evidence we are our own audience. Maybe that is what art is? A witness that carries forth the intent from the circumstances of creation. A lone tree can be art, no? The struggle of growing bark, branch and leaf within the limitations of its genetic code and environment. Ok, I'll watch the part on AI next.

blackskye

AI is closer to being a mechanic or plumber than being an artist. You're taking material already created by someone else and putting the pieces together. There is skill but it's not the same as creating something original.