If art is subjective, why do so many say AI art isn’t ‘real’ art?

[didgimon96]

I was thought to believe that art is subjective, and yet I hear complaints and criticism from animators and actors and artists on stable diffusion models generating images and videos of animation that are better than human made ones.

The human made animation industry is a long history of labor abuse and strikes and poor treatment of animators by their bosses. What stable diffusion models do is completely streamline through the human process it takes to generate an animated or not movie, by using matrices and vector mathematical equations, to learn about given data and how it should be applied or implemented based what the prompter gives it.

People always say that ai could replace humans and lead to job losses, of you ask me personally I think AI should take over the stressful and Laborous jobs that people naturally wouldn't want to do anyways like construction or landscaping or customer service representative, especially as the technology improves over the years and gets to the point where it performs better than humans.

[msc545]

Because “art is subjective” and “anything called art must be accepted as art” are not the same claim.

When people say AI art is not “real” art, they usually mean one or more of these things:

They associate art with human intention. A model has no experience, emotion, or personal need to communicate. Critics therefore see the image as a product generated for a person, rather than an expression created by an artist.
They value the act of making. Traditional art involves learned skill, physical decisions, revision, frustration, and sustained effort. Prompting can appear to bypass much of that process, even though serious AI-assisted work may involve extensive iteration and editing.
They object to the training process. If a system learned from artists’ work without permission or compensation, people may regard its output as ethically compromised. Strictly speaking, that concerns how the work was produced, not whether the result is art.
They fear economic displacement. “It isn’t real art” can function as a protective boundary around a profession whose members feel threatened.
They confuse authorship with classification. An AI-generated picture can be an artwork while the model itself is not an artist. The meaningful authorship may belong to the human who conceived, selected, arranged, altered, and contextualized it—but authorship becomes weaker when someone merely enters a generic prompt and accepts the first result.
The technology is new and culturally disruptive. Photography, recorded music, synthesizers, collage, digital painting, and sampling all encountered versions of the same objection.
My view is that AI-generated imagery can be art, but not automatically. The decisive question is less “Was AI used?” than “Did a human make purposeful aesthetic or expressive decisions?” A beautiful accidental output may be an interesting image without representing much artistic authorship. A carefully conceived AI-assisted work can plainly be art.

So the disagreement is not really about whether taste is subjective. It is about what people believe art requires: a compelling object, human intention, skilled labor, personal expression, ethical production—or some combination of them.

[MartinKlingac]

There's a big difference between automating a stressful industrial job and automating human culture. AI models don't 'streamline' the artistic process; they bypass it entirely by regurgitating the work of actual human artists who built the training data

[FreyaRed]

AI art is art, just after few hundred pictures created by AI there comes some fatigue caused due repetitive nature of this type of art. AI just takes what exists already, there is nothing new AI can generate. Art developed like everything else due new things and natural selection of it, because everything new isn't necessary good and desirable.

[Kvass]

Because it's not!!! Only my art is real art.😂😂

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

What is art, as a philosophical concept, is as much a question as it is an answer.

And I like questions better so here are a few...

• Is art defined by the intent of producing art?
• Is art defined by audience?
• Is art defined by its result?
• Is art defined by authorities in the matter?
• Does art imply craftsmanship?

[NathanDavis]

simply because art is actually artworkand AI gives you slop... which is also, stolen... from the rea, actual artwork

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I like that, to not forget that AI does not generate art from scratch, it simulates artworks and art styles previously recorded in a database. So it doesn't produce something new, it remixes the old in more or less subtle ways

[DryGermanGuy]

My art teacher used to say "art comes from ability". So, if all you did here was to press a few buttons, there is no ability of yours involved and therefore no art.

[strateguy632]

because art was a SKILL. both modern art wiggles and a. i. are not any skill.

[NoDecision]

Not any more real art than a movie is real life.

[MrChinaski]

It's a toy because I use it as a toy.

Art is similarly defined.

[fishbone77]

because it's not made by a human.

[Anonymous]

Source?

[didgimon96]

For what?

[Anonymous]

Source?