Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art

In May 2024, someone added the template "Unbalanced", with this edit summary "Unbalanced, basically no information regarding its "positive" reception. Lead seems devoid of examples?". I removed the template to make the article cleaner, and opened this discussion instead.

Democratizing and facilitating artistic creation seems like a mostly positive thing, whereas the article looks indeed mostly critical of AI art, particularly the "Impact" section. So I suggest adding some positive aspects or adjusting the tone to balance things out. Alenoach (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:I very much agree with you. I think the article fails WP:NPOV and this is also because its examples are not good, they are neither illustrating high-quality AI art nor use-cases. I tried to correct this in my first edit that Asparagusstar reverted by adding some other examples and explaining use-cases enabled or widely prevalent with the use of AI art. For now, I'm focusing on getting the article in line with reliable sources and the broad public understanding of the term "Artificial intelligence art" which refers to any kind of (especially sophisticated) AI art, which includes music. Further improvements would be needed I think but adding positive examples of AI art usage like vitalization of small genres & art movements and making artmaking capability available to many people was {{tq|adding some positive aspects}}. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::This is Prototyperspective making clear they are going to continue to insist on including their multiple self-generated files into this article. This is biased, self-promotional, conflict of interest editing. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The files currently in the article were also generated by the user who added them (and it's the same for similar articles). It's not self-promotional and there's no conflict of interest (there is no link or any other interest I have with these), I welcome replacing them with better files if there are some like it that also illustrate the positive use-cases. Lastly, I didn't only add files I created but also many other ones. The artricle is currently biased and does not really inform about positive or somewhat unique/novel/widespread use cases of AI art tools. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::::If there is bias or missing content - it should be fixed with sourced prose, not with self-generated samples. That's just WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::No, it's not. Not here and evidently not elsewhere including AI-unrelated articles. Furthermore, Commons users even often recommend generating images on-demand. As said, the files currently in the article are biased and were to a large part added by the user who generated them. {{tq|it should be fixed with sourced prose}} Agree (that should be done as well). I also added some text but hadn't finished and/or the issue was not fixed with my edit, just mitigated a bit. When the article is about art and the examples are not illustrating the art well but entirely misrepresent it, then that's is biased. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

To help address this negativity, I've split the history section into "Artistic history" and "Technical history." There were a lot of "positive aspects" of AI art that were lost inside the long list of technical releases. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The section ‘1950s to 2000s: Early Implementations’ could benefit from more female artists examples. Electric Dreams at Tate Modern has some good female artists from this period for a reference to add diversity to the representation. Thoughts on adding more women in this context? Zcwajel (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:That is definitely a good idea. Is there an artist you are suggesting? It has to be an artist working with artificial intelligence art, not just more typical 1950-2000s electronic/computer art. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Lynn Hershman Leeson, Lillian Schwartz and Rebecca Allen are good historic examples. More recently Holly Herndon, Stephanie Dinkins, Hito Steyerl & Sofia Crespo could be added. I also added Jake Elwes for more queer/gender non conforming representation although it's been removed (their work has been widely exhibited and was one of the early artists working with machine learning from 2015). Glad to see Sougwen Chung there but feel it could be expanded. Zcwajel (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It looks like you may have a conflict of interest, which I have left you a message about on your talk page. Asparagusstar (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Pittsburgh/Intro_to_Technical_Writing_(Spring_2025) | assignments = Itsdannycheng | start_date = 2025-02-10 | end_date = 2025-03-10 }}

— Assignment last updated by Prmurthy98a8 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP25_-_Sect_202_-_Thu_(Spring) | assignments = Nz25 | start_date = 2025-01-22 | end_date = 2025-04-30 }}

— Assignment last updated by Nz25 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated images can't be called "art" because for something to be art it must evoke and represent an emotion, and a machine cannot represent something that it doesn't have. I get it's the common name, but it's a misnomer. And if this isn't enough of a reason why the title should be changed, then I will evoke WP:NPOV and say that having a title that creates polemic clearly breaks that rule. 31.4.238.190 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:to be simultaneously fair and unfair, the question of whether or not ai art can be counted as art beyond its name isn't something wikipedia should or can answer. see wp:scope for more info on that, or wp:wiae if you're feeling spicy consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)