With encouragement from family and friends, I felt confident in taking the name, artist. This article gave me permission to call my creations, “art”. I’ve always, always, always taken photographs and called myself a photographer. I’ve given away prints of my photos over the years but when I accepted the name “artist” and found a digital process and bought a computer with enough power I am here, I’m able to bring my visions to life.

Please read this article for reference to what I’m talking about, I don’t need to recreate the wheel to get the point across. 😉 Back to bringing my visions to life.

We live in an age of amazing new visual art created with artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The recent wave began with neural stylization apps and the trippy, evocative DeepDream. Many fine artists now work with neural network algorithms, creating high-profile works appearing in major venues.1

Together with these new developments comes the hype: technologists who claim that their algorithms are artists and journalists who suggest that computers are creating art on their very own. These discussions usually betray a lack of understanding about art, about AI, or both.

This column explains why today’s technologies do not create art; they are tools for artists. This is not a fringe viewpoint; it reflects mainstream understanding of both art and computer science. There is a long tradition of computer-driven procedural art, and all of it is ultimately made by people, even when they use software branded as AI. It is possible this could change someday, that our software gets so good that we assign it authorship of its own works. As I will explain, I believe this is unlikely.

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/5/244330-computers-do-not-make-art-people-do/fulltext