the banana to the wall is satire, AI imagery is not.

The banana had to be taped to a wall by a human who thought taping a banana to the wall would be funny

The banana taped to a wall will be remembered long after any single piece of AI slop is forgotten.

Who would win? Millions upon millions of AI slop vs 1 lil banana

Banana wins anytime.

the banana taped to a wall is significantly more valuable than AI art because the banana didn't waste gallons of water for a shitty image that one dude sees because he didn't prompt engineer correctly and the anime girl has a horn for an eye. Besides that, it has also gained value for being a meme, it is achieving what art is (art is a form of communication, and AI art only has a meaning that the viewer imbues it with, not one that a creator put into it), and there's a significantly lower supply of bananas tapped to walls than there are of AI images (especially when you put it relative to demand- everyone wants to make an AI image maker, nobody wants to buy AI images). Thus the banana is in a league of it's own when you compare it to AI art, and AI art would never be able to compete with the banana because of the aforementioned cost

Ultimately the mental fortitude to push the definition of art with a banana bought from a supermarket vs. the first generation of programmers wondering if they can recreate an image using 1s and 0s and noise maps. I guess one is creativity by defying norms, the latter is a merely a technical innovation. After all, the invention of the camera or the internet isn't seen as an art on its own.

I'd go so far as to say that AI art isn't technological innovation. The neural net that does create said images is the innovation, so the "Art" has to stand on it's own. And while the art does stand... it also doesn't run in the same way that my favorite art does. it simply isn't communicating an idea like good art does

At least banana taped to wall was original n made pple think....

...and also eat it.

It had nutritional value at the moment it was eaten ; )

A banana taped to a wall is not art.

AI generated imagery is at least an ATTEMPT at art.

what do you define as "art"? because I define it as a means of very complicated communication, and AI art doesn't communicate anything. The banana was placed there by someone for some reason, and thus it has something to communicate (even if it is just "haha, I taped a banana to a wall")

Art is, to me, in this case , anything drawn, sculpted or painted that is in a form that can be considered a picture.

This excludes Banana Taped to a Wall.

The definition does not care what created the drawing, whether it be human, animal or machine.

A cat stepping in paint and then walking across a canvas is art. So is AI generated imagery.

As they say, ART IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

The banana taped to the wall would fall under sculpture or installation which is s form of sculpture. But this question above isn't asking for what is considered art, it is explicitly asking which one is more valuable. We already are assuming that the definition of art includes both.

The banana taped to the wall IS art, someone had to have the creative idea to think of doing it in the first place. Whether or not it is good art is another question. And whether or not it is more valuable than an AI generated image is also another question.

Generally I think yes, it is not going to win me over the basis it is necessarily "good" art. I tend to think of Michaelangelo's David as being one of the pinnacles of the art world.. but ultimately it took more creative thought than what is needed to use anything like Stable Diffusion. Using Stable Diffusion doesn't even need a human to do anything, you could very easily train a monkey to type a list given to it and you would get the same result regardless. (This assumes all variables being equal except you and the monkey). You could possibly train a monkey to tape a banana to the wall, but it is not likely to get the same result even if you kept the variables the same.

The example you gave of a cat walking on a canvas is kind of not much different than what zoos will sometimes do with their animals and I would still consider that more valuable than an AI generated image. An AI generated image is literally just the result of an black box algorithm that the programmers do not understand what sort of associations have been built into it. That if given the exact same initial conditions (including the same machine/computer) the image will be exactly the same every time.

AI image generation takes 0 creative input and if anything limits ones creative potential because you might thing you are being "creative" with your prompts but that is not really any different than trying to communicate with an actual artist. You are still off loading a lot of the creative work onto someone or something else. You have an idea, but with either you will only know what you are shown. But if you are going to be an artist, then relying on AI is only going to stunt your potential because it will be limited by the limitation of an algorithm rather than your imagination and what style you want your art to fall into.

Is AI art, art? Some say it is and some say it isn't, but that isn't the important question nor the one that is being asked.

To me the banana have more value because some person went on the idea to tape a banana to a wall. It's nothing special or artistic in my eyes, but it's more creative.

AI can make art imagery, but the lack of human creativity makes AI artwork "empty". Using AI to help you you drawing is different because you are the one who is making the drawing/painting/artwork. AI can be a helpful tool in that sense.

Also, that it's about money when it comes to AI.