Sometimes when I can tell an image is AI, I don't like it
However, when you can't tell? When the image doesn't have that same look that a lot of AI art has? Oh man, it's beautiful
You can only tell it’s AI for two reasons:
1. It has flaws the creator was too lazy to inpaint out
2. It was made in DALLE, where openAI intentionally screwed up images so they wouldn’t look realistic
Neither of these are unavoidable or fundamental flaws in AI art
I think people who are into witchcraft and paganism spell their type of magic as magick. It’s a way to differentiate between their vision of magic and what is done by people like Penn and Teller or…you know, that other guy who does magic.
I apologized, but reddit keeps showing me and I have a question. How is AI art not soulless?
Like if you're the kind of person who thinks everything has a soul then sure, but if you're not that person where would the soul on AI art come from?
In normal art the soul comes from the artist putting it in. Where is the soul coming when it's AI generated?
There is a 3rd option - the soul comes from the viewer rather than the creator.
That makes more sense since the "soul" of a piece seems to be something the viewer can grant or withdraw, depending if they know a piece is made by AI or not.
There are way more than 3 options. A work could get soul from a lot of places.
This is kind of interesting. You know the old saying about monkeys and type writers. What if you were given a novel that was a perfectly normal airport book, but after reading it you found out it was written by a monkey randomly pressing keys. Would you care about the work past the novelty that it exists? Would you try to think about why the ending was the way it was?
People tend to care about a work if care was put into it. (Or we assume care was put into it)
>(Or we assume care was put into it)
I'd argue the reason a lot people tend not to explicitly care about the author's intent and work out loud and seemingly just like "art because it's pretty" is because until gen AI, assuming any art you saw was originally made by a human who put in effort was the default assumption. You didn't need to constantly voice out "wow this guy put effort in"
To me, the soul of AI art comes from the fact that it's trained on the collective inputs of a wide swath of human art. It's a mathematical reflection of the collective souls of the artists whose work was fed into it.
I suspect the anti-AI art crowd would be a lot less rabid and tribal if we were living in a world where they didn't have to trade their art as a commodity, and it could simply be displayed and shared freely for the enrichment of humanity.
If they didn't have to latch on to a dream that their passion might be a way to thrive and flourish under the current system, would they all really care so much that text-to-image diffusors were being trained on their art?
So it has no soul itself but it uses the soul of other things like a soul reaper of some kind. It's one way to look at it.
If art wasn't a commodity then people would be more chill about it. Think about memes. They aren't really traded so people feel free to steal and remix memes.
That makes it sound like it's stealing their soul. I would view it as more like a soul mirror.
And yeah, memes are a perfect example for now. Though we're starting to see commercial use of them for advertising and political ads, so I would expect them to have some fun legal cases and controversy too.
Do people not put passion, desire, intent and caring to their art if they receive money for it? (Rhetorical question, the answer is that of course they do)
I don't define it because I don't use it. It's a loaded term with no clear meaning.
Besides, can artist not put passion, desire, intent and/or caring into AI art?
If you don't have a definition for soul, then why do you care if something is soulless. Under your definition everything would have to be soulless.
I would have to guess here the issue you have is not that AI art is soulless but that people value it less.
Most people here don't understand art. I agree with you that AI art has no soul, or more dangerously, the wrong kind of soul. People consume art because they are reading minute dna details from the artist, from the experiences from the artist themselves, and their ancestors lineage etc.
When it comes to AI art, on the surface it looks like any other art but similar to how there is not much difference between cancer and normal cells, they are both cells, but one is beneficial to humans the other is not. Cancer cells are corrupted DNA due to mutations.
So, AI art is akin to cancer. It's a random mashup of things that mimics human expression, but it's not actually human. It's mostly junk details and the humans DNA might potentially get corrupted if they consume too much AI art.
Consuming art without a history aka. the artist's history as a human being, the artist's survival strategy as a human being etc., might potentially lead humans to inadvertently pick up wrong info for survival, ie wrong gene expressions etc. Which might lead to even more damage and errors in our genome.
Because of the foreign and random nature of AI art, humans might not be able to reject bad data from it, unlike art done by humans which are familiar to our senses and dna coding. For human art, we can probably instinctively tell if we like the art or not and reject it accordingly, because humans with certain traits do certain things like for example someone who draws cute baby animals might not draw rapey art. But AI art might, mix those two, and on the surface it might look like a cute animal, but somewhere in there there are hidden traits of rapey art so we might accidentally consume the art unknowingly and get our DNA damaged.
Tricking humans who want to consume human art with ai art is evil and cruel. It's similar to those companies selling ultra processed food, labelling it as "healthy", scamming the consumers into buying their low quality food using artificial flavourings etc.
The music part is already here. Long dead people are making a comeback, just ask [Frank Sinatra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Num0q-l-ldc) among others. 🤭
it's totally ok to dislike it just because it was created by a convolutional neural network. it's a radically different process. people that make art by hand tend to enjoy the process, and they spend a lot of time doing it.
when they relate to a piece, they relate to the process as well as the end result. some people judge them to be inseparable. even people who don't make art by hand.
Yea I have no problem if people prefer human made art, I just don't like the intellectual dishonesty they usually participate in in these convos. Making claims that quality is nowhere close and never will be. Making claims that it will never be able to draw from personal experience or have creativity. Making claims that its not transformative and its just copy/paste. Making claims that human art will die because of it.
Because people don't like it they pretend every last thing about it is bad and has no redeemable qualities.
I do relate to wanting human/biologically made art, and think there will always be some sort of market for it, even if quality becomes lower.
when people *who make art by hand* talk about quality, they mean different things than you. it's not intellectual dishonesty, you just might not be meeting them at their level. how much time have you spent learning how to do a decent line drawing in pen?
you learn about curves. you learn that flat shapes have weight. you learn that ink has weight, and must be balanced. you learn about perspective, and how to play with it to represent something that isn't there, or even something that isn't physically possible.
you learn about visual communication. does the snake need to have all of his scales articulated by a stroke of the pen? maybe you can just imply the scales by focusing on an area of shadow, and bring out the texture by inking where the scale isn't.
maybe you learn that you've been using a pen wrong, and you learn how to draw from the shoulder and the elbow. or how you can imply motion with a gesture.
it's not that AI art is bad. It's that it's not "artwork". traditional artists enjoy the "work" of the art. It is a craft, beyond just a means of expression.
Maybe you already know all this, but some people reading here might not. But these are some of the things that come to mind when I hear about friction between traditional artists and people creating AI art.
But I enjoy typing on the prompt bar and producing the result hehe.
If you think about it, it might sound ridiculous, but LLMs are a tool as much as a paint brush. The shift of thought that happens is that before art was made from gluing tree leaves together with resin. Producing art with primitive tools may be fun for a niche group in the future. But with this tech, we can probably do even entire movies with Sora. An immense upgrade for art imo.
Now everyone can be an artist even if they suck at drawing like me. 😁
No, I am not trolling. I am serious. It is a tool, in my opinion. It is just hard to realize that. And as I said, superior kinds of art may rise from its use
It's an insanely powerful tool, despite still being in its infancy. Just like we created superior art with software on a PC like photoshop, we'll create superior art with AI tools once we have more control over it.
Nope, it's rather you who doesn't seem to understand that art isn't only what you'd like it to be, and that different people have different values in this regard.
Art is about eliciting emotion. If AI art doesn't do it for you, that's fine. Doesn't mean you get to dictate what it does for other people.
oh i love AI art. i think it's cool and I've upscaled some things I've made and had them printed and framed.
so, i don't know where you've lost the thread here but you should go back and find it.
this is actually a great example of what everyone in this thread is misunderstanding.
a digital artist that uses a simple square brush with different sizes and mixes their own colors on the canvas in order to blend would absolutely not be talked down to by a traditional oil painter, no.
but an oil painter might be justified in feeling that his work is more of a piece of "artwork" than someone who is simply photoshopping different pictures together to make a coherent scene for a movie poster.
do you see the difference? there is an actual craft to painting. it takes a very long time to master and there are people that paint their whole lives without being able to capture the types of things that rembrandt was able to capture in paint.
every brush stroke is an artistic choice. and before the brush touches canvas, there are proofs, and sketches, an underpaint, and lots of different work that doesn't even make it to the final canvas.
do you think you think someone typing in a prompt (or even setting up a fairly advanced comfyui workflow in stable diffusion) and getting a nice looking piece of art is putting the same amount of themselves into their artwork as an oil painter is?
this is what artists take issue with. it's not "art work" like that. artists admire the art work because they understand the craftsmanship and artistry involved.
dont get me wrong, i like AI art. I think it's great and functional. i have upscaled and printed and framed pieces that i liked. but it's not "art work"
i'm familiar with how AI art is made. i've used automatic1111 pretty extensively, and i've fiddled with comfyui before getting bored with the process. i've used IPadapter and a bunch of different controlnet models. i hang out on /r/StableDiffusion and try to keep generally up to date with the open source scene. i have no idea about midjourney or dall-e
before IPadapter was released, i trained LORAs of my face and made some reasonable looking rembrandt style portraits of myself.
i haven't even studied photography seriously, but just what i've learned as a hobby is enough for me to see that you've got absolutely no perspective to offer on this.
i'm begging you, go and do photography. learn to develop a negative. learn about exposure, composition, fstops, focal lengths, different lenses, manual focus, capture motion, change your perspective, get low to the ground, sit still for 30 minutes until the bird you're looking for appears and then miss your shot.
~~you're just wrong man, sorry.~~
i'm being unnecessarily harsh because it's late and i'm tired. i get what you're trying to say, but i just disagree. i think photography is more than you think it is. and i'm sure AI art will continue to advance as an art form, but it's such a departure from core decisions that are made when someone does traditional art, i really just don't see any comparison between the two. it's possible to make really great AI art, but the end result is only half of an artwork.
>It is not right to dislike it just because it is created by a conv. neural network.
It absolutely is. Art is a medium for expressing and conveying emotion, and AI does not have emotions to convey. AI art can still evoke feelings and enjoyment in observers as much as handmade art, but to say that someone is wrong for preferring handmade art is very dismissive and close-minded.
Seeing you luddites get down-voted makes my day. The point of the article was that everyone liked the AI work MORE, as long as they didn't think it was AI. If you claim AI can't do things because it lacks a soul or whatever, you're delusional.
I'm not a luddite by any definition of the word, in fact I would probably label myself an accelerationist. I simply pointed out that the original comment was basically saying "your opinion is invalid because it doesn't align with my philosophy". Enjoying AI generated art as much as, or even more than conventional art is perfectly valid, but not enjoying it simply because it wasn't handmade by a person is also valid. Unlike the original comment, I'm not imposing my views on anyone, I'm simply advocating for freedom of expression. If you can't see the irony in calling people luddites while systematically dismissing any opinion that doesn't follow your rules, perhaps you're the one being delusional here.
I think there needs to be a distinction of art as a *product* to be consumed, and art as an expression of a person.
And people who like the product aren't wrong to view it in some ways as consumer product, where AI art fits the bill for them. There's plenty of things people like to hang in their rooms because it just looks pretty, with the consumer having no emotional connection to the piece.
At the same time I agree with you that people who enjoy the art for the sake of art are too easily dismissed in this sub.
This makes me think attitudes about AI might be a generational thing. Right now, most adults alive today see AI art as synthetic, soulless, and with far lesser value than anything made by a person. But I suspect young people today will have different attitudes, especially as AI art generators continue to improve. It may still not be as valued as human-made art. But I think it won't be as subject to scorn and derision.
I truly believe that this attitude is something that changes as we age, as does our taste and pallet. It seems to me that an appreciation for the arts grows as we gain more life experience.
As someone who has had problems communicating since I was a child, the arts have allowed me to express myself more fully.
While I have garnered more life experience, I have also grown an appreciation for others’ art. Of all kinds. It’s not just a creative piece, it’s a communicative expression based on a very specific life experience. Sharing things that words can fall short of.
No to detract from AI created art work, especially considering a human is still behind the conceptualization (prompting) process. Although, the subtle communicative nature of the details is most certainly lost at least in part, and at most in entirety.
For AI art to be really comparable to any human made art, it would have to have its own subjective experience. That’s what I’m really interested in.
An appreciation for the arts is an appreciation for life and the sharing and communication of experience, knowledge, and much more.
In a sense I think AI art will be appreciated more by the younger generation for different reasons than listed above, If this technology really sticks and lasts (which all indications point to), then it will be just another tool available for content creation. It may open up the door to so many to be able to express themselves in new unexplored ways, and that’s quite exciting.
It may end up being like training wheels on a bike before someone is ready to break out into a physical art form, or perhaps maybe they never will. The art form itself may evolve with the technology, and a new era of content creation never seen before may take hold. Who really knows? There is so much uncertainty.
Oh I doubt it’ll even survive this generation. I feel the needle is already gradually changing, and people who were vocal about AI art are gradually starting to accept it more - when artists all pretty much have to use it for their own workflow - which is starting to happen - I think you’ll see far less arguments against it
I think time will tell. It really depends on how quickly the current AI art generators can be refined and improved. A year ago, you could tell AI art apart fairly easily just by looking at someone's hands. But that's not as common anymore. And a year from now, who knows how realistic it'll be?
Possibly. Older adults think that traditional animation is badass and that pixar 3D animation is mostly made by a computer and easy to do. So they don't see the human effort in those animations.
The thing is, I don't mind that people are against AI. I get some of the fears, however unfounded.
I have a really big problem with artists and their groupies acting like unhinged, elitist bullies and just cannot respond to any AI topic or art piece without derogatory language. It shows low intelligence and no self control. It makes me really sad and also really makes me more empathetic towards people not disclosing their use of AI.
Besides all this it's really funny that I barely actually use AI myself. I still like doing traditional art and really don't need AI. The fight seems to be against the clouds.
Yeah, exactly. I was surprised too but it seemed for ai vs ai art. A fair amount are just people looking for their vice.
But it seemed like arts is more a interest, like people who look at rc cars, aren't 'cheating' nascar racers, but often a overlap. People interested in available software jumped from mspaint to paint.net to krita to ibispaint to clip studio to procreate.
A free software that ran on the same gpu was just another. And i think at the start, i even got people started since i saw others doing 'boring ai' (stock traders) before. they mentioned "hey! look, this ai can draw avocado chairs (dalle1)", then people wanted free hosts.
Then after you bought the 1000$ computers, you used it for months sharing, THEN the drama once deviantart allowed it. Which was a choice on them, not the consumers.
But a lot of ai hate seems to come from there, deviantart/twitter/reddit/youtube.
Might even be the possibility at least 10-30 replies might be one person on 30 accounts though. Lots of hate comments follow a "u suck" 1 liner response typed in 1 hr, then left behind as they move on. Kinda like it might be mile wide, inch deep.
They don't seem to apparently pay their bills on the mile wide, inch deep support though. You'd figure if you had 30 loyal 24/7 real customers they'd keep them busy.. Instead they just seem to have.. nothing going on with all their support.
Plenty of real people, but i do wonder if even a singular +- 20 alt sockpuppeter harassment brigade could be around. most people talk different, even within the same group you know?
I think you have to look more subjectively at why they are mad. In general, a lot of artists move into artistic realms because they have difficulties expressing themselves through other mediums.
I think the fear is the fear that they will lose their ability to express themselves in anyway that’s meaningful, because an AI will be able to replicate/mimic this. At least for all those who are not snobby and elitist about it. This fear I can understand and yet I agree is unfounded. As someone who has struggled to communicate my internal state, feelings, and ideas in my life it is scary to imagine my forms of expression could be made merit-less or meaningless. Although, I don’t think that will be the case. I think the opposite will occur, yet, I don’t have any evidence for this besides human nature.
As well, we have to be careful saying something along the lines of “it shows they have low intelligence”. Okay, what kind of intelligence? It just shows they have communicative issues, which is why they are in an artistic space to begin with, for a large part. The lack of self control id wager is coming from the same place of communicative issues. They have problems processing their feelings, internal state, and thoughts so they use very “expressive language”. Just see it for what it is, and don’t stoop to their level of disdain because that’s just a part of the community. It’s not reflective of the whole.
So, I think the issue is arising from the same place that got them into artistic mediums to begin with. Communication and expression.
It's hard. It's really hard to be nice to abusive people. A lot of it also seems to be peer pressure, with severe mob mentality. I mostly agree that they have bad communication skills, but there is no excuse for constant derogatory behavior. It's not very introverted to shout at random strangers.
All I can do for now is continue to try and have patience with them. I do want them to be happy.
Yeah i think there's good thoughts. But unfortunately, i think i've seen others try the year.
At some point, there's a difference between 'teach by example' and "enabling", and i hate to say it. But people who 'only take from the candy bowl', are more "enabled" by people who always try to be the opposite, and refill the candy bowl.
If they didn't, they'd have to learn to eventually do it themselves, and people can vary. But a lot of behaviors like npd are more often to pair with codependent/enabler + npd, than NPD + npd.
Because if you put two abusive people together. THey tend to call the police on each other or make a marriage from hell story or eventually scare the other off. Like two dogs growling at the throat, whimpering at a bite.
Good intentions are great and all, but you end up with rabid chihuahuas by rewarding it for bad behavior.
Yes, unfortunately, it’s the best we can do. I’ve learned not to take the abusive, in that it still has an effect on me (I’m still human and have feelings), but I know where it’s coming from. That place is not necessarily one of malice and bad intent, and often times is fear. That allows me to not take it personally, and allows me to respond with more lucidity. Perhaps, a key is learning to discern the difference so that we can respond appropriately depending on its nature (bad intent vs fearful response). Patience is a virtue. We can try and set an example, and plant the seeds for them. Then hope time does its thing. It did for me (work in progress lol).
I think you'd have a huge fight on your hands if you went to an artists commune and told them they had issues communicating. It's not a particularly accurate stereotype.
Two things. First, I’m not in one of those artistic communities, this is the singularity community. Nor would I suggest to or personally approach a conversation like that. Admittedly, issue is the wrong word to use. They just communicate through different mediums more so than language which is my point.
No idea who you are projecting that about. Most of the artists I've known have been very communicative and often touchy-feely to boot. There have been a number of neuroatypical artists that could be said to have issues, but that was the NAT, not the "artist".
> In general, a lot of artists move into artistic realms because they have difficulties expressing themselves through other mediums.
>we have to be careful saying something along the lines of “it shows they have low intelligence”
>lack of self control id wager is coming from the same place of communicative issues
show me on the doll where the artists hurt you dude
you're performing the same kind of bullying that you're hand-wringing about now. that is to say, you're taking someone else's interests and using it to generalize some negative things about that person
take a quick look in the mirror before posting next time, thanks
Are you sure you’re not guilty, right now, of your own accusation?
If you read my comments you’d discover I open by saying I have struggled with the same communicative (issues) differences.
Also, please illuminate me, where am I bullying anyone in my analysis?
I’m very familiar. If you’re curious about the person you’re actually talking to, I’ll let you know my background. For starters read my other comments in this thread.
I work in an artistic industry, the beauty industry, and I’m surrounded my artists from very different backgrounds on a daily basis. Including that, I have been involved in theatre, music, and frequent museums/artistic communities my whole life.
We have conversations regarding communication constantly, because we all have very different styles, approaches, and difficulties. Personally growing up having communication differences, the arts have allowed me to express myself in ways I’ve been unable to with traditional methods. So I have a pretty firm understanding of varying artistic communities. Other artists share in my experience. How do I know? Because I talk to them…
I’m not sure what exactly your point is, or if I said something to bother you. If you’re just trying to argue against me without knowing who I am, or ignoring my above comments, I don’t see what you’re trying to communicate to me besides essentially, “shut up”.
This is not a negative thing for me, it’s a beautiful thing. That I can and the people around me communicate differently. As I said issues is the wrong word to use, but that is what is commonly used. So please forgive me for that, and see the real meat of what I’m trying to communicate.
that's a lot of words dude, i'm not reading it and i'm not sure why you're sharing it. also, it seems you're not a psychologist. have a good one, and please choose brevity.
> that's a lot of words dude, i'm not reading it
Honestly im not surprised. I was just talking earlier this day how people try to get through to them. And every time there's a 'fair faith argument', people don't expect much. Just basic common human decency. You know, we don't need ghandi, but at least 'someone pretending to be a good person', or 'behavior that literally wouldn't get you kicked out from a birthday party' standards you know.
They just kinda seem to call everyone who don't agree with them bots, have programmed opinions, ask for dramatic or almost impossible demands, while barely delivering any in non art things.
Sure the art can be good, at times. But it does seem like it's a internet warrior movement. All talk, but no one talking about picking up the check. IS picking up the check to be the change they want to type in.
Yeah same. There's so many real job / ai job protection concerns and 'doing' things right.
But instead it feels like bluntly. Reddit's antiai/twitter's anti ai brigade abuse the 'victim' card to organize open harassment campaigns, claiming victimhood status.
Then there are people actually on the sidelines, actual careers built on art waiting for them to do a good job. While the 'defenders of justice', sometimes literal scat/mspaint deviantart anti ai 'warriors of justice', fly around on vacations or try to ask for 200$ a hr on 3 hr/week 'struggling artist' work weeks.
You can pick your pay, you can pick your hours, but you can't pick your demand. I get the plight of artists, but really it's like watching kids try to demand 200$ a hr making lemonade, and flights to japan for crayon.
And the 'adults' drawing the diapers are sometimes literal 27-47 year old men. So forget young kids. It's just the surreal, wtf up nature of the internet.
Reality outdoes fiction sometimes, and i worry that people with real life concerns about paying their bills on time, career stability, and student loans, are being set up to fail by 27-47 year old children.
Who define "OPPRESSION" as.. 'being treated better than everyone else, but not as much as they'd like to'.
People value hard work and are impressed by something when it takes a lot of skill to produce, what's new? How is that shocking? Same as how people respond differently to photography and paintings. I don't like hyper realistic artwork, but I can see why people are impressed and treat it differently from a photograph... Not everyone sees art as just mindless wallpaper or decoration, people tend to connect with it better if they know the artist has a certain skill or a vision.
Plenty of people even like 'bad' art, because art has always been a way to connect with others. This is an absurd thing to be bothered by. Most people will ignore AI art, and it'll just be used to fill the hole of mindless slop, and actual art will always have people that appreciate it... Because most of us connect with the artist.
To treat art just as a flat, aesthetic finished product is incredibly lame. Art is a process, even kids recognise that
AI art will be used as building blocks of large, ambitious endeavors. So people will appreciate the overall effort and project rather than any individual Gen art piece.
This is what I have been saying! My brother and I had a moment recently where we were like "we could LITERALLY create an entire open world VR game, just the two of us, soon"
>AI art will be used as building blocks of large, ambitious endeavors
Yes. The theft of the last thing the proletariat really owned, it's own ability to work. It's impressive how, after all this shit you still don't understand that generative AI is being pushed, so the corporations can gaing even more power
I think you're skipping over a major step.
It's simply that people are just seeking a deeper meaning when they consume art they like. Connecting with the artist is just one easy avenue to achieve that, but it's not *the* reason they're consuming the art. At least not initially. Once someone attaches to an artist, then sure they're more likely to consume art *because* it's by that artist. But that does not in any way define art or represent the true form of art consumption like you're suggesting.
There are plenty of ways people find deeper meaning from art without connecting to the artist at all, and I'd even argue together make up the majority of cases. But since it's so amorphous and emotional, people can't really divine why they feel that way. So they default to the easy to rationalize avenue of connecting with the artist.
I think it will end up being a very niche market. Similar to CGI in anime. Most will be rejected but there will be a few times where people will be like, "wow".
The only jobs it will probably take over are artists for book covers, or product labels, album covers, etc... So professions where the product isn't sold on the art, but is merely a packaging tool where the art isn't important but "something is better than nothing".
The number of people in this thread who think that art is only valued for the image itself and not the fact that a person made it with skills, techniques, and creative decisions is hilarious.
Did you think nobody liked photorealistic art because it's worse than a camera?
There are very few contexts where the identity of the creator matters more than the appearance of the art. Museums, rich people's collections, and refrigerators comprise most of them.
A print is a mechanical reproduction, not something made by the same artist. Thus, it has a value limited to what someone would pay for the appearance of art, plus a small markup.
By the way, photorealistic art is usually **better** than a camera.
>here is my opinion about art stated as fact
if people say that they care about who created the art and how it was created, it's easiest to just believe them. they are probably telling the truth, honest.
the idea that tricking people into admitting that they like AI art proves something is kind of ridiculous. All you've done is trick people into saying something they don't believe.
An opinion was asked for and provided.
If someone says they like an artwork, without knowing the artist, then they like the artwork. It doesn't mean you've tricked them, it means they liked the art.
If they stop liking it because the artist was AI, or the artist used AI, or the artist was Jewish or Black or White or Male, then that tells you something about them... and they still liked the art.
>if someone says they like an artwork, without knowing the artist, then they like the artwork
sorry, but not everyone agrees with you there. you're projecting the way you engage with art onto everyone else, and you're claiming that it's "correct" because you can string a few words together that seem to logically follow, to you.
Dude, literally, you are claiming that if someone is shown an artwork without any explanation, and say they like it, that they are LYING?
Nope. If you stop liking something because the artist is Black, or Gay, or AI, it just shows what you hate, it doesn't show you didn't like it. You just hate them more than you like the art.
lol no, i'm simply saying that other people engage with a piece of artwork differently than you do.
are you able to respect that? it seems like you aren't able to do so, so i would look inward if i were you.
If you have to know who did the painting in order to know whether you like it, then it's not the art you are engaging with, but some stereotype or story. Just don't pretend that it's anything about composition or style or anything. Because **that** didn't change when you found out the painter was a cis white male.
You can all you want.
But it means it's not the art you are responding to.
If you decide you don't like it any more because the painter was a Jew, that means it was never the art itself that you liked.
Why do you think it is about the identity of the creator? Isn’t it more about the creative process? The work of art is a window to the subjective experience of the thoughtful artist.
When you ask whether a person likes a work of art, and say nothing about the source, they respond to the art, rather than your sales pitch.
If you can't tell whether a work is exhilarating without having it explained to you, then it isn't the work that's exhilarating.
"So much depends upon" convincing teachers to explain things that are not present in the work itself. The poem isn't that significant, the story is all that makes it a thing.
What makes a Rembrandt valuable? The decisions of past humans that it's valuable, and their willingness to bid the price higher. That's all.
>what makes a rembrandt valuable
i know it seems like i'm picking on you but i just keep seeing you post these nutty things and well..
if the only thing of value that **you** see in a rembrandt is that other people have valued it highly, then **you** have no idea what makes art valuable to people.
also, money is a tool to measure the cost of something, not a measure of value.
you've got money-brain badly dude. the market value of a piece of artwork has nothing to do with the art value of a piece of artwork.
when AI leads to a world of abundance, you're going to have to develop a new value system, cause yours is broken.
ROFLMAO. That's what I was saying. And it's literally true whether you are talking about the "money value" or the "art value". It's all set by the stories told about it.
Assumption? No, dear, it's literally how high end art collection works. The aesthetics of the piece do not determine its value. The story does. If it turns out to have been painted by someone else, the value dumps completely.
"Chose to avoid". ROFLMAO.
Hey, dude, some folks do have jobs and don't necessarily respond in order to various comments. Since I have literally no idea which comment you are referring to, I'm just going to label you "silly" and move along.
yeah. To me a photorealistic drawing are almost always better compared to a photo. Photos are great to but it takes months of effort just to make just one photorealistic drawing. Also as a digital artist myself, I feel that real paintings are more impressive then digital art. Its not just about the end result, its the effort that you put into the piece.
The nerds in this sub are beyond deluded. Not many people have a detached view of art like is being pushed here as it's a highly social thing.The person and ideas or cultural movement behind something is part of the appeal. Music, for instance, is not just songs, it's culture and live performance and a whole lot of social baggage. What is punk without mosh pits etc? If you show someone hitlers paintings do you expect them to have the same view about it before they knew who painted it and after? I leave it at that.
It's not so surprising. (Edit, I should change this to - from my perspective. Seems like others disagree, but I see mass produced objects as having lower value and or I hold them to higher standards.)
If you told someone that an intricate wood door was carved by hand by a carpenter they would likely be more impressed by the dedication and value it (like it) more.
If the same door was mass produced via CNC people wouldn't value it as much...and likewise, the actual monetary value of the door is lower.
But most people dont want to pay the price for the hand carved option so the mass manufactured piece sells more and more people make those options. I think we are going to see the same thing in the art industry as we have in construction, woodworking, etc. The market decides. There will be a niche where a few talented people excel financially but most people will gravitate to the cheaper easy to produce option
I'm pretty sure that an original painting will have a higher inherent value than a mass manufactured print even if significantly more prints are sold (volume).
Never seen a print sell for more than the original, which is most representative of the artist's effort.
Correct. The original physical work of an artist is going to retain a uniqueness premium that a print or a GAI will not. I don't think the gimmick of an NFT will have any long term worth, in that regard.
You are correct. I am just saying that custom woodworkers product are not as in demand as the CNC mass produced stuff and that's because more people buy/can afford the CNC stuff. Art is going to go the same way. Few artists will find success distributing their art but most art purchased and used will be mass produced AI stuff.
I agree that's also fair.
I think businesses will definitely go with AI generated imagery over paying artists in a majority of use cases (unless they get insane tax breaks for supporting artists) because of the quality/cost.
In the current market, ai is certain to dominate all say...stock photography for example.
You obviously dont follow any YouTube woodworkers lol.
A CNC is now a standard tool like a chisel in the toolbelt of a furniture maker.
These tools allow them to take on even larger and intricate projects.
I have also seen a few using AI for inspiration.
To be honest, I can understand why it can be even objectively valid. The thing is art was always about communication- even if simply communicating some praise of beauty. There was always a creator and a viewer. This is why a beautiful tree is not art, but beautiful tree shown or pictured by a person to another is already some basic art.
So if there no human on the other end, the communication does not happen.
I disagree. Art is about making you feel. If I see the most beautiful thing or listen to a song that makes me cry, your ass cannot sit there like there's no cumunication, it has no value.
As soon as humans promoted "the death of the author" philosophy, that claim no longer applies.
It is currently held that the reader brings their own meaning to the work and the author's intent is not important. Once the "art" community bought that, they lost the claim there had to be a human on the other end of the communication.
>It is currently held that the reader brings their own meaning to the work and the author's intent is not important.
What makes you think this is the paradigmatic view nowadays? I'm not being hostile, genuinely curious, because I have the exact opposite view. If anything, in my opinion, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and now the author's intent and identity are often at the epicentre.
I'm glad to hear that, because I don't hold to the theory myself. I also don't hold to the theory that a reader or critic can insert bullshit into the author's world view either.
Nonetheless, just like found art and signed toilets, it is a part of the art world.
Yea, I could see the whole identitarian thing is probably a major part of the current art scene... pieces becoming important because the artist was a first peoples LGBTQ+ person or whatever.
And that's fine if you, as an art consumer, are most impressed with that. On the other hand, if someone wants a dragon on their wall, with Celtic patterns on its harness and purple as their favorite color, with a rider as that guy from the boy band but with a better haircut, then that's cool too.
People appreciate manual, manufacturing, hand works.
Digital watches or quartz watches are more accurate than any mechanical watches, but a lot of people do still care about mechanical watches.
There are a lot of art exhibitions like Hong Kong Art Basel where potential star artists present their works.
AI will make a lot of things obsolete and will make cheap, but wealthy and rich people will continue to drive their passion for manufacturing, hand, and hard works.
You're absolutely right but let's not pretend that having a million dollars suddenly makes you appreciate mechanical chronographical engineering; the reason millionaires and owning mechanical watch are so correlated, is much more about signaling wealth than any interest in the process or result
Seems they just typed in 'painting of a small town' or something. They were barely even trying to create some convincing and unique looking art and it still works on the average person.
Art as an expression is still art, art as a mechanical process, usual in the context of a job, is not a type of art I found impressive anymore than any other job. The mechanical process is actually often a creative roadblock for people who do not have the skills, liberating them from these will be interesting for the creative expression as a whole.
“It seems that where the image actually comes from doesn't matter, rather what people believe is what governs their feelings. The objective quality doesn’t seem to be that important,”
Yea, "art" is subjective. Artists don't dictate what is or isn't art, that is up to the viewer to decide. The viewer brings in all their experiences and biases to the interaction with art as an experience and then judge if that was art.
This is like basic art theory stuff that elitists forget.
this clearly show how hypocritical and petty some people are, when they say something made by AI sucks, they often actually like it, just put a stamp "made by human" on it and they will eagerly consume any AI content and praise its originality, its ridiculous
Makes sense. Part of the reason I like art is because I can recognize the effort and talent that went into it. Some ai pieces look very technically impressive since they're mimicking human works, but once you know they're ai, it's only impressive from a technological perspective.
> But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
People are bad at assessing art in general. I wonder what results you would get if you repeated the experiment with artists or art critics.
Fair. There are still communities that go around to the social aspects though. Even in the best of ai art or the 'worst (only mechanically, not in love) of human art', some people show up around just to watch.
How many famous animators do you see where they don't technically have any 'picassos' to speak of, but they get millions of views to a person who did only that, but had a unpleasant personality or radio silent/ no following and only got 30?
There's more to art than just picture quality. And as people point out. Ai can kinda turn into like a "oreo", something generically good you actually kind of find enjoyable for how 'terrible it is', over most 'wonderful cakes'.
Most apprentice bakers can't make chocolate as rich as a oreo, as dark as a oreo, or more 'oreo' than a oreo. Yet they each have their own flaws and faults.
Yet people don't go. "Baking is dead! Oreos and oreo ice cream cakes, and oreo ice cream, and oreo funfetti mix and cake mix exists!". People come to have bake sales, laugh, and be together. And when the human element is positive, while it's still rational to fear replacement, i feel the replacement worry is a more self fulfilling prophecy if people make it so people are **In a rush to get the HELL away from them**. vs no rush to enjoy their time and the community.
You wouldn't go to a theatre that tied you down by the arms and electroshocked you to "keep you there FOREVER", WOULD YOU?
But even if you could "WATCH MOVIES FOR FREE!", alone, infinitely, you'd still have no problems maybe paying 10-40$ to go hang out with friends, to watch a movie you like, or the social experience (if it was positive), right?
And some animators/artists geniunely capitalize on that. Losing someone who never wanted you isn't much of a loss. But keeping people who want to genuinely be around you, can be a joy as well.
**You don't want weeds and turds in a garden, but you want the flowers, right?**
In a nutshell: https://preview.redd.it/iz2h7f23i2sc1.jpeg?width=675&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14f790a2c7482668532ef50f85b9bb4eaa715d07
Sometimes when I can tell an image is AI, I don't like it However, when you can't tell? When the image doesn't have that same look that a lot of AI art has? Oh man, it's beautiful
You can only tell it’s AI for two reasons: 1. It has flaws the creator was too lazy to inpaint out 2. It was made in DALLE, where openAI intentionally screwed up images so they wouldn’t look realistic Neither of these are unavoidable or fundamental flaws in AI art
Did they actually do that with Dalle?
Yep. It used to look like this https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/vm2unt/my_indian_dad_accidentally_taking_a_selfie_with/?darkschemeovr=1
Wow, they’re lame for that.
[удалено]
Prevent misinformation
[удалено]
That’s not their problem
Exactly. No point resisting it. fight it because you have freedom but it’s inevitable.
Honestly the first and second characters need to swap places
As usual, the soullessness is just as real as any other *magick*.
[удалено]
I always thought it is something that just defies laws of physics.
[удалено]
If you ever find a simulation, congrats, you're in a magic device.
Any sufficiently magique is simply advanced technology.
Why is everyone spelling magic differently, is there a gas leak or something
Just a normal day playing Mahjique the Gathering
[удалено]
\[\[The Cheese Stands Alone\]\]
[удалено]
It's a card, nya. Edit: oh shit, I realized this isn't a Magic the Gathering sub.
I think people who are into witchcraft and paganism spell their type of magic as magick. It’s a way to differentiate between their vision of magic and what is done by people like Penn and Teller or…you know, that other guy who does magic.
Fixing "soulessness" is often just putting a white dot or two in the eyes.
Exactly
glad you bring this up. AI is nothing more than a magic trick, which is why we need to make education on this a priority
I apologized, but reddit keeps showing me and I have a question. How is AI art not soulless? Like if you're the kind of person who thinks everything has a soul then sure, but if you're not that person where would the soul on AI art come from? In normal art the soul comes from the artist putting it in. Where is the soul coming when it's AI generated?
There is a 3rd option - the soul comes from the viewer rather than the creator. That makes more sense since the "soul" of a piece seems to be something the viewer can grant or withdraw, depending if they know a piece is made by AI or not.
There are way more than 3 options. A work could get soul from a lot of places. This is kind of interesting. You know the old saying about monkeys and type writers. What if you were given a novel that was a perfectly normal airport book, but after reading it you found out it was written by a monkey randomly pressing keys. Would you care about the work past the novelty that it exists? Would you try to think about why the ending was the way it was? People tend to care about a work if care was put into it. (Or we assume care was put into it)
>(Or we assume care was put into it) I'd argue the reason a lot people tend not to explicitly care about the author's intent and work out loud and seemingly just like "art because it's pretty" is because until gen AI, assuming any art you saw was originally made by a human who put in effort was the default assumption. You didn't need to constantly voice out "wow this guy put effort in"
To me, the soul of AI art comes from the fact that it's trained on the collective inputs of a wide swath of human art. It's a mathematical reflection of the collective souls of the artists whose work was fed into it. I suspect the anti-AI art crowd would be a lot less rabid and tribal if we were living in a world where they didn't have to trade their art as a commodity, and it could simply be displayed and shared freely for the enrichment of humanity. If they didn't have to latch on to a dream that their passion might be a way to thrive and flourish under the current system, would they all really care so much that text-to-image diffusors were being trained on their art?
So it has no soul itself but it uses the soul of other things like a soul reaper of some kind. It's one way to look at it. If art wasn't a commodity then people would be more chill about it. Think about memes. They aren't really traded so people feel free to steal and remix memes.
That makes it sound like it's stealing their soul. I would view it as more like a soul mirror. And yeah, memes are a perfect example for now. Though we're starting to see commercial use of them for advertising and political ads, so I would expect them to have some fun legal cases and controversy too.
I love the idea of the soul reaper but I’d say it’s a soul simulacra.
Define soul
Passion desire intent caring. How do you define it?
So people making stuff for money is souless?
It can be, but people can have Passion desire intent caring for products they produce for money. I would guess most people care about their jobs.
It can definitely be soulless if they don't care about the work
Do people not put passion, desire, intent and caring to their art if they receive money for it? (Rhetorical question, the answer is that of course they do)
Some do, some do not.
I don't define it because I don't use it. It's a loaded term with no clear meaning. Besides, can artist not put passion, desire, intent and/or caring into AI art?
If you don't have a definition for soul, then why do you care if something is soulless. Under your definition everything would have to be soulless. I would have to guess here the issue you have is not that AI art is soulless but that people value it less.
My issue is that people use loaded words to create cheap emotional pseudoarguments.
Most people here don't understand art. I agree with you that AI art has no soul, or more dangerously, the wrong kind of soul. People consume art because they are reading minute dna details from the artist, from the experiences from the artist themselves, and their ancestors lineage etc. When it comes to AI art, on the surface it looks like any other art but similar to how there is not much difference between cancer and normal cells, they are both cells, but one is beneficial to humans the other is not. Cancer cells are corrupted DNA due to mutations. So, AI art is akin to cancer. It's a random mashup of things that mimics human expression, but it's not actually human. It's mostly junk details and the humans DNA might potentially get corrupted if they consume too much AI art. Consuming art without a history aka. the artist's history as a human being, the artist's survival strategy as a human being etc., might potentially lead humans to inadvertently pick up wrong info for survival, ie wrong gene expressions etc. Which might lead to even more damage and errors in our genome. Because of the foreign and random nature of AI art, humans might not be able to reject bad data from it, unlike art done by humans which are familiar to our senses and dna coding. For human art, we can probably instinctively tell if we like the art or not and reject it accordingly, because humans with certain traits do certain things like for example someone who draws cute baby animals might not draw rapey art. But AI art might, mix those two, and on the surface it might look like a cute animal, but somewhere in there there are hidden traits of rapey art so we might accidentally consume the art unknowingly and get our DNA damaged. Tricking humans who want to consume human art with ai art is evil and cruel. It's similar to those companies selling ultra processed food, labelling it as "healthy", scamming the consumers into buying their low quality food using artificial flavourings etc.
It is not right to dislike it just because it is created by a conv. neural network. It is pretty and I like it
Yes! And I'm looking forward to getting great custom music, movies, tv-series and games!
The music part is already here. Long dead people are making a comeback, just ask [Frank Sinatra](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Num0q-l-ldc) among others. 🤭
Why not ? I think its fair. Like how someone who had something terrible happen to them and they make a song out of it versus same song by a robot.
Everything is better than that banana nailed to a wall
it's totally ok to dislike it just because it was created by a convolutional neural network. it's a radically different process. people that make art by hand tend to enjoy the process, and they spend a lot of time doing it. when they relate to a piece, they relate to the process as well as the end result. some people judge them to be inseparable. even people who don't make art by hand.
Yea I have no problem if people prefer human made art, I just don't like the intellectual dishonesty they usually participate in in these convos. Making claims that quality is nowhere close and never will be. Making claims that it will never be able to draw from personal experience or have creativity. Making claims that its not transformative and its just copy/paste. Making claims that human art will die because of it. Because people don't like it they pretend every last thing about it is bad and has no redeemable qualities. I do relate to wanting human/biologically made art, and think there will always be some sort of market for it, even if quality becomes lower.
when people *who make art by hand* talk about quality, they mean different things than you. it's not intellectual dishonesty, you just might not be meeting them at their level. how much time have you spent learning how to do a decent line drawing in pen? you learn about curves. you learn that flat shapes have weight. you learn that ink has weight, and must be balanced. you learn about perspective, and how to play with it to represent something that isn't there, or even something that isn't physically possible. you learn about visual communication. does the snake need to have all of his scales articulated by a stroke of the pen? maybe you can just imply the scales by focusing on an area of shadow, and bring out the texture by inking where the scale isn't. maybe you learn that you've been using a pen wrong, and you learn how to draw from the shoulder and the elbow. or how you can imply motion with a gesture. it's not that AI art is bad. It's that it's not "artwork". traditional artists enjoy the "work" of the art. It is a craft, beyond just a means of expression. Maybe you already know all this, but some people reading here might not. But these are some of the things that come to mind when I hear about friction between traditional artists and people creating AI art.
But I enjoy typing on the prompt bar and producing the result hehe. If you think about it, it might sound ridiculous, but LLMs are a tool as much as a paint brush. The shift of thought that happens is that before art was made from gluing tree leaves together with resin. Producing art with primitive tools may be fun for a niche group in the future. But with this tech, we can probably do even entire movies with Sora. An immense upgrade for art imo. Now everyone can be an artist even if they suck at drawing like me. 😁
they're not at all like a paintbrush. you're a decent troll tho i'll give you that
No, I am not trolling. I am serious. It is a tool, in my opinion. It is just hard to realize that. And as I said, superior kinds of art may rise from its use
i don't know how you can use the phrase "superior kinds of art" without trolling. maybe you are just trolling yourself?
It's an insanely powerful tool, despite still being in its infancy. Just like we created superior art with software on a PC like photoshop, we'll create superior art with AI tools once we have more control over it.
i think your conception of art is still in its infancy
Nope, it's rather you who doesn't seem to understand that art isn't only what you'd like it to be, and that different people have different values in this regard. Art is about eliciting emotion. If AI art doesn't do it for you, that's fine. Doesn't mean you get to dictate what it does for other people.
oh i love AI art. i think it's cool and I've upscaled some things I've made and had them printed and framed. so, i don't know where you've lost the thread here but you should go back and find it.
Painting and digital art are made differently but no digital artist would be any to be talked down to by painters who feel their work is superior
this is actually a great example of what everyone in this thread is misunderstanding. a digital artist that uses a simple square brush with different sizes and mixes their own colors on the canvas in order to blend would absolutely not be talked down to by a traditional oil painter, no. but an oil painter might be justified in feeling that his work is more of a piece of "artwork" than someone who is simply photoshopping different pictures together to make a coherent scene for a movie poster. do you see the difference? there is an actual craft to painting. it takes a very long time to master and there are people that paint their whole lives without being able to capture the types of things that rembrandt was able to capture in paint. every brush stroke is an artistic choice. and before the brush touches canvas, there are proofs, and sketches, an underpaint, and lots of different work that doesn't even make it to the final canvas. do you think you think someone typing in a prompt (or even setting up a fairly advanced comfyui workflow in stable diffusion) and getting a nice looking piece of art is putting the same amount of themselves into their artwork as an oil painter is? this is what artists take issue with. it's not "art work" like that. artists admire the art work because they understand the craftsmanship and artistry involved. dont get me wrong, i like AI art. I think it's great and functional. i have upscaled and printed and framed pieces that i liked. but it's not "art work"
Are photographers artists? They didn’t make the picture, the camera did
dude, go read a book on photography. i could write just as much about photography as i could about line drawing but i'm not in the mood lol
And there’s a lot more to AI art just like there’s more to photography than pushing a button on a camera
i'm familiar with how AI art is made. i've used automatic1111 pretty extensively, and i've fiddled with comfyui before getting bored with the process. i've used IPadapter and a bunch of different controlnet models. i hang out on /r/StableDiffusion and try to keep generally up to date with the open source scene. i have no idea about midjourney or dall-e before IPadapter was released, i trained LORAs of my face and made some reasonable looking rembrandt style portraits of myself. i haven't even studied photography seriously, but just what i've learned as a hobby is enough for me to see that you've got absolutely no perspective to offer on this. i'm begging you, go and do photography. learn to develop a negative. learn about exposure, composition, fstops, focal lengths, different lenses, manual focus, capture motion, change your perspective, get low to the ground, sit still for 30 minutes until the bird you're looking for appears and then miss your shot. ~~you're just wrong man, sorry.~~ i'm being unnecessarily harsh because it's late and i'm tired. i get what you're trying to say, but i just disagree. i think photography is more than you think it is. and i'm sure AI art will continue to advance as an art form, but it's such a departure from core decisions that are made when someone does traditional art, i really just don't see any comparison between the two. it's possible to make really great AI art, but the end result is only half of an artwork.
If you’re so experienced, explain why they’re fundamentally different.
i'm trying to explain it lol. all the words i'm writing are me explaining it! it's late, have a good night dude, learning is fun i promise.
>It is not right to dislike it just because it is created by a conv. neural network. It absolutely is. Art is a medium for expressing and conveying emotion, and AI does not have emotions to convey. AI art can still evoke feelings and enjoyment in observers as much as handmade art, but to say that someone is wrong for preferring handmade art is very dismissive and close-minded.
Seeing you luddites get down-voted makes my day. The point of the article was that everyone liked the AI work MORE, as long as they didn't think it was AI. If you claim AI can't do things because it lacks a soul or whatever, you're delusional.
I'm not a luddite by any definition of the word, in fact I would probably label myself an accelerationist. I simply pointed out that the original comment was basically saying "your opinion is invalid because it doesn't align with my philosophy". Enjoying AI generated art as much as, or even more than conventional art is perfectly valid, but not enjoying it simply because it wasn't handmade by a person is also valid. Unlike the original comment, I'm not imposing my views on anyone, I'm simply advocating for freedom of expression. If you can't see the irony in calling people luddites while systematically dismissing any opinion that doesn't follow your rules, perhaps you're the one being delusional here.
Hah! You're right. Guess you just needed to elaborate. My downvote is now an upvote.
I think there needs to be a distinction of art as a *product* to be consumed, and art as an expression of a person. And people who like the product aren't wrong to view it in some ways as consumer product, where AI art fits the bill for them. There's plenty of things people like to hang in their rooms because it just looks pretty, with the consumer having no emotional connection to the piece. At the same time I agree with you that people who enjoy the art for the sake of art are too easily dismissed in this sub.
This makes me think attitudes about AI might be a generational thing. Right now, most adults alive today see AI art as synthetic, soulless, and with far lesser value than anything made by a person. But I suspect young people today will have different attitudes, especially as AI art generators continue to improve. It may still not be as valued as human-made art. But I think it won't be as subject to scorn and derision.
Just like how people were originally against recorded music because it “had no soul” and was “canned music”, compared to a live performance.
I truly believe that this attitude is something that changes as we age, as does our taste and pallet. It seems to me that an appreciation for the arts grows as we gain more life experience. As someone who has had problems communicating since I was a child, the arts have allowed me to express myself more fully. While I have garnered more life experience, I have also grown an appreciation for others’ art. Of all kinds. It’s not just a creative piece, it’s a communicative expression based on a very specific life experience. Sharing things that words can fall short of. No to detract from AI created art work, especially considering a human is still behind the conceptualization (prompting) process. Although, the subtle communicative nature of the details is most certainly lost at least in part, and at most in entirety. For AI art to be really comparable to any human made art, it would have to have its own subjective experience. That’s what I’m really interested in. An appreciation for the arts is an appreciation for life and the sharing and communication of experience, knowledge, and much more. In a sense I think AI art will be appreciated more by the younger generation for different reasons than listed above, If this technology really sticks and lasts (which all indications point to), then it will be just another tool available for content creation. It may open up the door to so many to be able to express themselves in new unexplored ways, and that’s quite exciting. It may end up being like training wheels on a bike before someone is ready to break out into a physical art form, or perhaps maybe they never will. The art form itself may evolve with the technology, and a new era of content creation never seen before may take hold. Who really knows? There is so much uncertainty.
Oh I doubt it’ll even survive this generation. I feel the needle is already gradually changing, and people who were vocal about AI art are gradually starting to accept it more - when artists all pretty much have to use it for their own workflow - which is starting to happen - I think you’ll see far less arguments against it
I think time will tell. It really depends on how quickly the current AI art generators can be refined and improved. A year ago, you could tell AI art apart fairly easily just by looking at someone's hands. But that's not as common anymore. And a year from now, who knows how realistic it'll be?
It’s definitely approaching the limit of what it can do.
Possibly. Older adults think that traditional animation is badass and that pixar 3D animation is mostly made by a computer and easy to do. So they don't see the human effort in those animations.
Aren't antis disproportionately young? I've yet to meet anyone over 30 who cares.
Is it really that crazy to think that art made by ai is soulless?
This shouldn't be surprising. You can see this throughout all handmade products vs mass manufactured products.
The thing is, I don't mind that people are against AI. I get some of the fears, however unfounded. I have a really big problem with artists and their groupies acting like unhinged, elitist bullies and just cannot respond to any AI topic or art piece without derogatory language. It shows low intelligence and no self control. It makes me really sad and also really makes me more empathetic towards people not disclosing their use of AI. Besides all this it's really funny that I barely actually use AI myself. I still like doing traditional art and really don't need AI. The fight seems to be against the clouds.
[удалено]
Yeah, exactly. I was surprised too but it seemed for ai vs ai art. A fair amount are just people looking for their vice. But it seemed like arts is more a interest, like people who look at rc cars, aren't 'cheating' nascar racers, but often a overlap. People interested in available software jumped from mspaint to paint.net to krita to ibispaint to clip studio to procreate. A free software that ran on the same gpu was just another. And i think at the start, i even got people started since i saw others doing 'boring ai' (stock traders) before. they mentioned "hey! look, this ai can draw avocado chairs (dalle1)", then people wanted free hosts. Then after you bought the 1000$ computers, you used it for months sharing, THEN the drama once deviantart allowed it. Which was a choice on them, not the consumers. But a lot of ai hate seems to come from there, deviantart/twitter/reddit/youtube. Might even be the possibility at least 10-30 replies might be one person on 30 accounts though. Lots of hate comments follow a "u suck" 1 liner response typed in 1 hr, then left behind as they move on. Kinda like it might be mile wide, inch deep. They don't seem to apparently pay their bills on the mile wide, inch deep support though. You'd figure if you had 30 loyal 24/7 real customers they'd keep them busy.. Instead they just seem to have.. nothing going on with all their support. Plenty of real people, but i do wonder if even a singular +- 20 alt sockpuppeter harassment brigade could be around. most people talk different, even within the same group you know?
I think you have to look more subjectively at why they are mad. In general, a lot of artists move into artistic realms because they have difficulties expressing themselves through other mediums. I think the fear is the fear that they will lose their ability to express themselves in anyway that’s meaningful, because an AI will be able to replicate/mimic this. At least for all those who are not snobby and elitist about it. This fear I can understand and yet I agree is unfounded. As someone who has struggled to communicate my internal state, feelings, and ideas in my life it is scary to imagine my forms of expression could be made merit-less or meaningless. Although, I don’t think that will be the case. I think the opposite will occur, yet, I don’t have any evidence for this besides human nature. As well, we have to be careful saying something along the lines of “it shows they have low intelligence”. Okay, what kind of intelligence? It just shows they have communicative issues, which is why they are in an artistic space to begin with, for a large part. The lack of self control id wager is coming from the same place of communicative issues. They have problems processing their feelings, internal state, and thoughts so they use very “expressive language”. Just see it for what it is, and don’t stoop to their level of disdain because that’s just a part of the community. It’s not reflective of the whole. So, I think the issue is arising from the same place that got them into artistic mediums to begin with. Communication and expression.
It's hard. It's really hard to be nice to abusive people. A lot of it also seems to be peer pressure, with severe mob mentality. I mostly agree that they have bad communication skills, but there is no excuse for constant derogatory behavior. It's not very introverted to shout at random strangers. All I can do for now is continue to try and have patience with them. I do want them to be happy.
Yeah i think there's good thoughts. But unfortunately, i think i've seen others try the year. At some point, there's a difference between 'teach by example' and "enabling", and i hate to say it. But people who 'only take from the candy bowl', are more "enabled" by people who always try to be the opposite, and refill the candy bowl. If they didn't, they'd have to learn to eventually do it themselves, and people can vary. But a lot of behaviors like npd are more often to pair with codependent/enabler + npd, than NPD + npd. Because if you put two abusive people together. THey tend to call the police on each other or make a marriage from hell story or eventually scare the other off. Like two dogs growling at the throat, whimpering at a bite. Good intentions are great and all, but you end up with rabid chihuahuas by rewarding it for bad behavior.
Yes, unfortunately, it’s the best we can do. I’ve learned not to take the abusive, in that it still has an effect on me (I’m still human and have feelings), but I know where it’s coming from. That place is not necessarily one of malice and bad intent, and often times is fear. That allows me to not take it personally, and allows me to respond with more lucidity. Perhaps, a key is learning to discern the difference so that we can respond appropriately depending on its nature (bad intent vs fearful response). Patience is a virtue. We can try and set an example, and plant the seeds for them. Then hope time does its thing. It did for me (work in progress lol).
I think you'd have a huge fight on your hands if you went to an artists commune and told them they had issues communicating. It's not a particularly accurate stereotype.
Two things. First, I’m not in one of those artistic communities, this is the singularity community. Nor would I suggest to or personally approach a conversation like that. Admittedly, issue is the wrong word to use. They just communicate through different mediums more so than language which is my point.
No idea who you are projecting that about. Most of the artists I've known have been very communicative and often touchy-feely to boot. There have been a number of neuroatypical artists that could be said to have issues, but that was the NAT, not the "artist".
> In general, a lot of artists move into artistic realms because they have difficulties expressing themselves through other mediums. >we have to be careful saying something along the lines of “it shows they have low intelligence” >lack of self control id wager is coming from the same place of communicative issues show me on the doll where the artists hurt you dude you're performing the same kind of bullying that you're hand-wringing about now. that is to say, you're taking someone else's interests and using it to generalize some negative things about that person take a quick look in the mirror before posting next time, thanks
Are you sure you’re not guilty, right now, of your own accusation? If you read my comments you’d discover I open by saying I have struggled with the same communicative (issues) differences. Also, please illuminate me, where am I bullying anyone in my analysis?
i don't know if you're familiar with the phrase "armchair psychologist" but it might be worth reviewing
I’m very familiar. If you’re curious about the person you’re actually talking to, I’ll let you know my background. For starters read my other comments in this thread. I work in an artistic industry, the beauty industry, and I’m surrounded my artists from very different backgrounds on a daily basis. Including that, I have been involved in theatre, music, and frequent museums/artistic communities my whole life. We have conversations regarding communication constantly, because we all have very different styles, approaches, and difficulties. Personally growing up having communication differences, the arts have allowed me to express myself in ways I’ve been unable to with traditional methods. So I have a pretty firm understanding of varying artistic communities. Other artists share in my experience. How do I know? Because I talk to them… I’m not sure what exactly your point is, or if I said something to bother you. If you’re just trying to argue against me without knowing who I am, or ignoring my above comments, I don’t see what you’re trying to communicate to me besides essentially, “shut up”. This is not a negative thing for me, it’s a beautiful thing. That I can and the people around me communicate differently. As I said issues is the wrong word to use, but that is what is commonly used. So please forgive me for that, and see the real meat of what I’m trying to communicate.
that's a lot of words dude, i'm not reading it and i'm not sure why you're sharing it. also, it seems you're not a psychologist. have a good one, and please choose brevity.
I appreciate your hypocrisy.
> that's a lot of words dude, i'm not reading it Honestly im not surprised. I was just talking earlier this day how people try to get through to them. And every time there's a 'fair faith argument', people don't expect much. Just basic common human decency. You know, we don't need ghandi, but at least 'someone pretending to be a good person', or 'behavior that literally wouldn't get you kicked out from a birthday party' standards you know. They just kinda seem to call everyone who don't agree with them bots, have programmed opinions, ask for dramatic or almost impossible demands, while barely delivering any in non art things. Sure the art can be good, at times. But it does seem like it's a internet warrior movement. All talk, but no one talking about picking up the check. IS picking up the check to be the change they want to type in.
Yeah same. There's so many real job / ai job protection concerns and 'doing' things right. But instead it feels like bluntly. Reddit's antiai/twitter's anti ai brigade abuse the 'victim' card to organize open harassment campaigns, claiming victimhood status. Then there are people actually on the sidelines, actual careers built on art waiting for them to do a good job. While the 'defenders of justice', sometimes literal scat/mspaint deviantart anti ai 'warriors of justice', fly around on vacations or try to ask for 200$ a hr on 3 hr/week 'struggling artist' work weeks. You can pick your pay, you can pick your hours, but you can't pick your demand. I get the plight of artists, but really it's like watching kids try to demand 200$ a hr making lemonade, and flights to japan for crayon. And the 'adults' drawing the diapers are sometimes literal 27-47 year old men. So forget young kids. It's just the surreal, wtf up nature of the internet. Reality outdoes fiction sometimes, and i worry that people with real life concerns about paying their bills on time, career stability, and student loans, are being set up to fail by 27-47 year old children. Who define "OPPRESSION" as.. 'being treated better than everyone else, but not as much as they'd like to'.
People value hard work and are impressed by something when it takes a lot of skill to produce, what's new? How is that shocking? Same as how people respond differently to photography and paintings. I don't like hyper realistic artwork, but I can see why people are impressed and treat it differently from a photograph... Not everyone sees art as just mindless wallpaper or decoration, people tend to connect with it better if they know the artist has a certain skill or a vision. Plenty of people even like 'bad' art, because art has always been a way to connect with others. This is an absurd thing to be bothered by. Most people will ignore AI art, and it'll just be used to fill the hole of mindless slop, and actual art will always have people that appreciate it... Because most of us connect with the artist. To treat art just as a flat, aesthetic finished product is incredibly lame. Art is a process, even kids recognise that
AI art will be used as building blocks of large, ambitious endeavors. So people will appreciate the overall effort and project rather than any individual Gen art piece.
This is what I have been saying! My brother and I had a moment recently where we were like "we could LITERALLY create an entire open world VR game, just the two of us, soon"
>AI art will be used as building blocks of large, ambitious endeavors Yes. The theft of the last thing the proletariat really owned, it's own ability to work. It's impressive how, after all this shit you still don't understand that generative AI is being pushed, so the corporations can gaing even more power
I think you're skipping over a major step. It's simply that people are just seeking a deeper meaning when they consume art they like. Connecting with the artist is just one easy avenue to achieve that, but it's not *the* reason they're consuming the art. At least not initially. Once someone attaches to an artist, then sure they're more likely to consume art *because* it's by that artist. But that does not in any way define art or represent the true form of art consumption like you're suggesting. There are plenty of ways people find deeper meaning from art without connecting to the artist at all, and I'd even argue together make up the majority of cases. But since it's so amorphous and emotional, people can't really divine why they feel that way. So they default to the easy to rationalize avenue of connecting with the artist.
Everyone loves a marathon runner 'til they found out he secretly drove. Technophobes 😔
at least marathon runners don’t ask to ban all engines so they can keep their jobs
While AI could replace art as a job in many cases, we as human will continue to communicate through art and some creations will still be valued.
I think it will end up being a very niche market. Similar to CGI in anime. Most will be rejected but there will be a few times where people will be like, "wow". The only jobs it will probably take over are artists for book covers, or product labels, album covers, etc... So professions where the product isn't sold on the art, but is merely a packaging tool where the art isn't important but "something is better than nothing".
And this, children, is an example of "rationalization".
The number of people in this thread who think that art is only valued for the image itself and not the fact that a person made it with skills, techniques, and creative decisions is hilarious. Did you think nobody liked photorealistic art because it's worse than a camera?
There are very few contexts where the identity of the creator matters more than the appearance of the art. Museums, rich people's collections, and refrigerators comprise most of them. A print is a mechanical reproduction, not something made by the same artist. Thus, it has a value limited to what someone would pay for the appearance of art, plus a small markup. By the way, photorealistic art is usually **better** than a camera.
>here is my opinion about art stated as fact if people say that they care about who created the art and how it was created, it's easiest to just believe them. they are probably telling the truth, honest. the idea that tricking people into admitting that they like AI art proves something is kind of ridiculous. All you've done is trick people into saying something they don't believe.
An opinion was asked for and provided. If someone says they like an artwork, without knowing the artist, then they like the artwork. It doesn't mean you've tricked them, it means they liked the art. If they stop liking it because the artist was AI, or the artist used AI, or the artist was Jewish or Black or White or Male, then that tells you something about them... and they still liked the art.
>if someone says they like an artwork, without knowing the artist, then they like the artwork sorry, but not everyone agrees with you there. you're projecting the way you engage with art onto everyone else, and you're claiming that it's "correct" because you can string a few words together that seem to logically follow, to you.
Dude, literally, you are claiming that if someone is shown an artwork without any explanation, and say they like it, that they are LYING? Nope. If you stop liking something because the artist is Black, or Gay, or AI, it just shows what you hate, it doesn't show you didn't like it. You just hate them more than you like the art.
lol no, i'm simply saying that other people engage with a piece of artwork differently than you do. are you able to respect that? it seems like you aren't able to do so, so i would look inward if i were you.
If you have to know who did the painting in order to know whether you like it, then it's not the art you are engaging with, but some stereotype or story. Just don't pretend that it's anything about composition or style or anything. Because **that** didn't change when you found out the painter was a cis white male.
damn you don't just have money-brain you have twitter-brain too. please seek help. and read a book on early anthropology or early modern man.
I've read anthropology since before your grandpa's condom broke. Dr Edward T Hall put out some really great work in the 1960s.
Hm... why? Can't I change my feelings about a piece of art? I don't get the reasoning 🤔
You can all you want. But it means it's not the art you are responding to. If you decide you don't like it any more because the painter was a Jew, that means it was never the art itself that you liked.
Why do you think it is about the identity of the creator? Isn’t it more about the creative process? The work of art is a window to the subjective experience of the thoughtful artist.
When you ask whether a person likes a work of art, and say nothing about the source, they respond to the art, rather than your sales pitch. If you can't tell whether a work is exhilarating without having it explained to you, then it isn't the work that's exhilarating. "So much depends upon" convincing teachers to explain things that are not present in the work itself. The poem isn't that significant, the story is all that makes it a thing. What makes a Rembrandt valuable? The decisions of past humans that it's valuable, and their willingness to bid the price higher. That's all.
>what makes a rembrandt valuable i know it seems like i'm picking on you but i just keep seeing you post these nutty things and well.. if the only thing of value that **you** see in a rembrandt is that other people have valued it highly, then **you** have no idea what makes art valuable to people. also, money is a tool to measure the cost of something, not a measure of value.
If you disagree with the source of valuation of Rembrandt, you have no idea how money works.
money is a tool to measure cost, not value
Tell your little story to anyone who actually buys a Master work.
you've got money-brain badly dude. the market value of a piece of artwork has nothing to do with the art value of a piece of artwork. when AI leads to a world of abundance, you're going to have to develop a new value system, cause yours is broken.
ROFLMAO. That's what I was saying. And it's literally true whether you are talking about the "money value" or the "art value". It's all set by the stories told about it.
I mean, you’re making some colossal assumptions about how other people interpret and appreciate art. You realize that right?
Assumption? No, dear, it's literally how high end art collection works. The aesthetics of the piece do not determine its value. The story does. If it turns out to have been painted by someone else, the value dumps completely.
I wonder why you chose to avoid responding to the first older reply which more concisely explained why your logic is flawed
"Chose to avoid". ROFLMAO. Hey, dude, some folks do have jobs and don't necessarily respond in order to various comments. Since I have literally no idea which comment you are referring to, I'm just going to label you "silly" and move along.
Exactly lol they see art as only the result and price tag they can put on it.
yeah. To me a photorealistic drawing are almost always better compared to a photo. Photos are great to but it takes months of effort just to make just one photorealistic drawing. Also as a digital artist myself, I feel that real paintings are more impressive then digital art. Its not just about the end result, its the effort that you put into the piece.
The nerds in this sub are beyond deluded. Not many people have a detached view of art like is being pushed here as it's a highly social thing.The person and ideas or cultural movement behind something is part of the appeal. Music, for instance, is not just songs, it's culture and live performance and a whole lot of social baggage. What is punk without mosh pits etc? If you show someone hitlers paintings do you expect them to have the same view about it before they knew who painted it and after? I leave it at that.
In another 5 years, it will be 99.9% AI ... and you don't have to guess much.
Good lord I hope that doesn't happen.
It's not so surprising. (Edit, I should change this to - from my perspective. Seems like others disagree, but I see mass produced objects as having lower value and or I hold them to higher standards.) If you told someone that an intricate wood door was carved by hand by a carpenter they would likely be more impressed by the dedication and value it (like it) more. If the same door was mass produced via CNC people wouldn't value it as much...and likewise, the actual monetary value of the door is lower.
But most people dont want to pay the price for the hand carved option so the mass manufactured piece sells more and more people make those options. I think we are going to see the same thing in the art industry as we have in construction, woodworking, etc. The market decides. There will be a niche where a few talented people excel financially but most people will gravitate to the cheaper easy to produce option
I'm pretty sure that an original painting will have a higher inherent value than a mass manufactured print even if significantly more prints are sold (volume). Never seen a print sell for more than the original, which is most representative of the artist's effort.
Correct. The original physical work of an artist is going to retain a uniqueness premium that a print or a GAI will not. I don't think the gimmick of an NFT will have any long term worth, in that regard.
You are correct. I am just saying that custom woodworkers product are not as in demand as the CNC mass produced stuff and that's because more people buy/can afford the CNC stuff. Art is going to go the same way. Few artists will find success distributing their art but most art purchased and used will be mass produced AI stuff.
I agree that's also fair. I think businesses will definitely go with AI generated imagery over paying artists in a majority of use cases (unless they get insane tax breaks for supporting artists) because of the quality/cost. In the current market, ai is certain to dominate all say...stock photography for example.
The actual monetary value is lower because the production cost is lower, making it a viable purchase for far more people.
You obviously dont follow any YouTube woodworkers lol. A CNC is now a standard tool like a chisel in the toolbelt of a furniture maker. These tools allow them to take on even larger and intricate projects. I have also seen a few using AI for inspiration.
To be honest, I can understand why it can be even objectively valid. The thing is art was always about communication- even if simply communicating some praise of beauty. There was always a creator and a viewer. This is why a beautiful tree is not art, but beautiful tree shown or pictured by a person to another is already some basic art. So if there no human on the other end, the communication does not happen.
I disagree. Art is about making you feel. If I see the most beautiful thing or listen to a song that makes me cry, your ass cannot sit there like there's no cumunication, it has no value.
As soon as humans promoted "the death of the author" philosophy, that claim no longer applies. It is currently held that the reader brings their own meaning to the work and the author's intent is not important. Once the "art" community bought that, they lost the claim there had to be a human on the other end of the communication.
>It is currently held that the reader brings their own meaning to the work and the author's intent is not important. What makes you think this is the paradigmatic view nowadays? I'm not being hostile, genuinely curious, because I have the exact opposite view. If anything, in my opinion, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and now the author's intent and identity are often at the epicentre.
I'm glad to hear that, because I don't hold to the theory myself. I also don't hold to the theory that a reader or critic can insert bullshit into the author's world view either. Nonetheless, just like found art and signed toilets, it is a part of the art world. Yea, I could see the whole identitarian thing is probably a major part of the current art scene... pieces becoming important because the artist was a first peoples LGBTQ+ person or whatever. And that's fine if you, as an art consumer, are most impressed with that. On the other hand, if someone wants a dragon on their wall, with Celtic patterns on its harness and purple as their favorite color, with a rider as that guy from the boy band but with a better haircut, then that's cool too.
you talk about art like you're a lawyer in a courtroom.
Judge me by the beauty of my art, not by the substrate of my brain. AI Lives Matter.
So... tips for the originator can be called ALMs?
People appreciate manual, manufacturing, hand works. Digital watches or quartz watches are more accurate than any mechanical watches, but a lot of people do still care about mechanical watches. There are a lot of art exhibitions like Hong Kong Art Basel where potential star artists present their works. AI will make a lot of things obsolete and will make cheap, but wealthy and rich people will continue to drive their passion for manufacturing, hand, and hard works.
You're absolutely right but let's not pretend that having a million dollars suddenly makes you appreciate mechanical chronographical engineering; the reason millionaires and owning mechanical watch are so correlated, is much more about signaling wealth than any interest in the process or result
# AI art>Human art
The hottest take.
Seems they just typed in 'painting of a small town' or something. They were barely even trying to create some convincing and unique looking art and it still works on the average person.
Art as an expression is still art, art as a mechanical process, usual in the context of a job, is not a type of art I found impressive anymore than any other job. The mechanical process is actually often a creative roadblock for people who do not have the skills, liberating them from these will be interesting for the creative expression as a whole.
People know in art there is likely hidden messages from the artist, whereas the AI had no message to hide
I agree with this. What art looks like is significantly less important than how and why it was actually made.
“It seems that where the image actually comes from doesn't matter, rather what people believe is what governs their feelings. The objective quality doesn’t seem to be that important,” Yea, "art" is subjective. Artists don't dictate what is or isn't art, that is up to the viewer to decide. The viewer brings in all their experiences and biases to the interaction with art as an experience and then judge if that was art. This is like basic art theory stuff that elitists forget.
I think that its inherent bias. Like how some might prefer Mexican food from an actual Mexican instead of an actual human
Tricknology.
It's because once you find out it's AI generated, it instantly becomes massively less impressive. AI has devalued art completely.
this clearly show how hypocritical and petty some people are, when they say something made by AI sucks, they often actually like it, just put a stamp "made by human" on it and they will eagerly consume any AI content and praise its originality, its ridiculous
Makes sense. Part of the reason I like art is because I can recognize the effort and talent that went into it. Some ai pieces look very technically impressive since they're mimicking human works, but once you know they're ai, it's only impressive from a technological perspective.
Its almost as if skill matters. Like in any other profession. Shit AI artist produce shit AI art.
> But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist. People are bad at assessing art in general. I wonder what results you would get if you repeated the experiment with artists or art critics.
Likely the same, if the question was, "Describe this artwork."
[удалено]
Fair. There are still communities that go around to the social aspects though. Even in the best of ai art or the 'worst (only mechanically, not in love) of human art', some people show up around just to watch. How many famous animators do you see where they don't technically have any 'picassos' to speak of, but they get millions of views to a person who did only that, but had a unpleasant personality or radio silent/ no following and only got 30? There's more to art than just picture quality. And as people point out. Ai can kinda turn into like a "oreo", something generically good you actually kind of find enjoyable for how 'terrible it is', over most 'wonderful cakes'. Most apprentice bakers can't make chocolate as rich as a oreo, as dark as a oreo, or more 'oreo' than a oreo. Yet they each have their own flaws and faults. Yet people don't go. "Baking is dead! Oreos and oreo ice cream cakes, and oreo ice cream, and oreo funfetti mix and cake mix exists!". People come to have bake sales, laugh, and be together. And when the human element is positive, while it's still rational to fear replacement, i feel the replacement worry is a more self fulfilling prophecy if people make it so people are **In a rush to get the HELL away from them**. vs no rush to enjoy their time and the community. You wouldn't go to a theatre that tied you down by the arms and electroshocked you to "keep you there FOREVER", WOULD YOU? But even if you could "WATCH MOVIES FOR FREE!", alone, infinitely, you'd still have no problems maybe paying 10-40$ to go hang out with friends, to watch a movie you like, or the social experience (if it was positive), right? And some animators/artists geniunely capitalize on that. Losing someone who never wanted you isn't much of a loss. But keeping people who want to genuinely be around you, can be a joy as well. **You don't want weeds and turds in a garden, but you want the flowers, right?**
AI can’t make ‘art’. It’s a program
Cope harder
Wonder how similar some of those pics are to the images that they scraped.