AI generated art

[Mon0Zer0]

 

[Elentarri]

Creepy - almost looks like a photo.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Art isn't just pictures. 3-D printers create sculptures. Literature is part of art.

There's a line in the article that says "Microsoft's spreadsheet software Excel, which - he notes - "didn't put the accountants out of work, I still pay my accountants." Micromini's spreadsheet probably didn't replace accountants but Quicken and other programs like that took a lot of work away from accountants and bookkeepers who got their work from small businesses.

"There is a human instinct that comes to an accountant when they have been in the field for years. When you have years of accounting experience, you are able to spot a problem even before it becomes clear in the numbers. Yeah, it is very easy to want to trust a computer over a human, but only about 5% of our thinking is conscious." From Will Accountants Be Replaced by Computers? by Billy Costo. Perhaps a bit too optimistic and maybe even conflict of interest as Mr Costo's position at his workplace is Director of Technology. His statement is in stark contrast to the results that AI medical diagnostic programs are able to achieve because they can come out ahead of the doctors long years of experience in prescribing the best treatment. However, accountants can be used to shift the information so that a better set of numbers are the outcome. Will AI come equipped with a "shady" button?

In the Art is dead dude article it ends with the line, "But policy makers, he says, need to get the rules right, "so nobody feels ripped off", and money isn't just siphoned off from artists and into the pockets of big corporations." That is a big joke. The galleries, collectors, and critics all work together to make sure that the big money goes to the right people, that is artists who have places in the galleries. Its not unusual for an artist to get in a gallery 10 times what they can get on their own. People with money go to galleries, which makes sense, but the galleries probably are the biggest gate keepers in the world. IMO they are far worse than editors and publishing houses.

At the end of the day, it seems like the prime directive of human owned computers is to separate people from their money, and they are very good at doing that. And they don't care who gets the money or how it is done. AI art might be considered to be legitimately forged blank checks. I think people using AI routines will try to wrestle control of the massive rivers of art supporting money away from the people who handle it now.

The rationalization for most people is that a computer can't do my job. Apparently creating art is a "job" that can be done by AI, while for doctors, accountants, writers, etc., their jobs can't be done by AI, making their jobs supposedly secure, in their dreams. 70 years ago there would be floors of workers handling the paper work for any big business. Those jobs are all long gone now. 20 years ago there were still secretarial pools that were needed to handle their bosses paper work and handle all kinds of other jobs. Thanks to computers without AI, one or 2 secretaries can do the work of the entire pool. And part of that load has been shifted back to management as they can schedule their own work or perform other functions, without needing a person to do that for them.

The most likely scenario is that on the creative side, making new things, is likely to be dominated by AI, while the field of physically using/repairing/working on existing things will be dominated by people. Art and creativity will be the rewards the machines bestow on people for their continued support.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

View attachment 90738

This is fantastic!

 

[VRlass]

I am speechless with this one…

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I've just had a book cover image come through done with AI help. This AI method is pretty amazing stuff. The ethical considerations however...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Here's Jim Burns on FB. Most of his posts are set to public.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Here's Jim Burns on FB. Most of his posts are set to public.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

I'm glad to see Jim embracing it. Pat Mills has recently publicised an NFT project using AI illustrations and garnered something of a backlash from John McCrea. There seems to be quite a split in the comics community about it with opinions ranging from "Argh! Armageddon" to mild interest.

Recently I was approached by one of the Saatchi's for his CULTUR Dao projects, but to be honest I'm a little confused as to how it works. Anyway, one of the participants is working on a pipeline for producing comics with AI - something like Novel.ai - the results are very impressive, although it can't yet do hands!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

We live in extraordinary times. Is creativity about to stop being a mostly solo process? I see Group Creativity on the horizon...

 

[Harpo]

We live in extraordinary times. Is creativity about to stop being a mostly solo process? I see Group Creativity on the horizon...

It’s been around for a while. Perhaps there should be a thread for it

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28144

 

[SporgyTheReader]

As a young traditional artist, I absolutely loathe the current use of AI-generated art, as people use it as a substitute for actual art that took time and passion. Resulting in every AI generated "artists'" art being very uniform and lacking any form of uniqueness, this would also fall into the category of art theft as your technically gathering pre-existing art and blending it into a weird amalgamation. I believe the use of AI generated art would be better off as being used as a reference than actually replacing man-made art.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

As a young traditional artist, I absolutely loathe the current use of AI-generated art, as people use it as a substitute for actual art that took time and passion.

It's a bit of a generalisation. There are a tonne of people who are using it unimaginatively, but there are also some real cutting edge uses, such as this:

AI is just a tool. The generic use will sink to the bottom, but people will find new and innovative ways to use the tool to enhance their workflow.

 

[HareBrain]

At the moment, it seems to really fall down when asked to handle perspective.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

It's a bit of a generalisation. There are a tonne of people who are using it unimaginatively, but there are also some real cutting edge uses, such as this:

AI is just a tool. The generic use will sink to the bottom, but people will find new and innovative ways to use the tool to enhance their workflow.

Just because you spend so much time on telling a robot to draw things is not the equivalent of manually making your own piece, it's like me carefully opening a bag of pizza rolls, gently placing it on a plate, and gracefully heating it in a microwave or using a already prepared dish and adding some extra bits and using the bare minimum of effort to make the actual meal and calling it "my cooking"

 

[Wayne Mack]

Though I appreciate the skills of people who paint, sculpt, etc., I enjoy beauty regardless of the personal effort that went into to creating it. I seem to recall similar complaints that photography wasn't art, yet now people are stunned by the images generated by the Webb telescope (and computer processing). Art exists on a spectrum. Judge it by the result, not the process that went into it.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Just because you spend so much time on telling a robot to draw things is not the equivalent of manually making your own piece, it's like me carefully opening a bag of pizza rolls, gently placing it on a plate, and gracefully heating it in a microwave or using a already prepared dish and adding some extra bits and using the bare minimum of effort to make the actual meal and calling it "my cooking"

It's more like you instructing a robot master chef trained by the world's greatest chefs to prepare a dish according to your strict recipe. If the recipe is excellent, the dish will be divine.

One thing to bear in mind is that many of the world's masterworks of art - Davinci, Michaelangelo etc, were not actually (wholly) painted by the artist's themselves but by a team of people labouring under their orders. It's quite common for artists today to not actually design the piece they're working on but to just conceive it (Damien Hirst being a famous offender). One of the most important pieces of the 20th century was a urinal signed "R.Mutt". The separation of labour from art and the effect of mechanical reproduction on the production of art has been something the art world has grappled with for over 100 years.

Collage, photobashing, CG, photography - all of these had their luddite moments and are now fully accepted art forms. Ultimately technology will not simply churn out goods - they will always need a human mind to will them into existence and as long as there is will there will be art.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

It's more like you instructing a robot master chef trained by the world's greatest chefs to prepare a dish according to your strict recipe. If the recipe is excellent, the dish will be divine.

One thing to bear in mind is that many of the world's masterworks of art - Davinci, Michaelangelo etc, were not actually (wholly) painted by the artist's themselves but by a team of people labouring under their orders. It's quite common for artists today to not actually design the piece they're working on but to just conceive it (Damien Hirst being a famous offender). One of the most important pieces of the 20th century was a urinal signed "R.Mutt". The separation of labour from art and the effect of mechanical reproduction on the production of art has been something the art world has grappled with for over 100 years.

Collage, photobashing, CG, photography - all of these had their luddite moments and are now fully accepted art forms. Ultimately technology will not simply churn out goods - they will always need a human mind to will them into existence and as long as there is will there will be art.

The difference between AU generated art and digital forms of art is that digital art takes some level of skill and knowledge to perfect, while for AI, its just you telling some robot to do it for you. Also leading a group of people to aid in your projects is not the same as telling an AI to do your entire work for you, being a project leader is also a skill in and out of itself and I don't consider contemporary art like that signed urinal to be art as its just rich people evading taxes.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

The difference between AU generated art and digital forms of art is that digital art takes some level of skill and knowledge to perfect, while for AI, its just you telling some robot to do it for you.

And photography is just pointing and clicking a button. /sarcasm.

The skill in AI is going to be conceptual (ideas), curative (choosing what to keep and what to lose), compositional (what to juxtapose and where to place objects), mood and lighting (dramatic, cinematic, romantic etc), lenses (wide angle, narrow) and style. It will be about the exact same aesthetic and conceptual choices as photography. As it becomes more complex and more controllable it will require the same knowledge and skill sets as a photographer.

Also leading a group of people to aid in your projects is not the same as telling an AI to do your entire work for you, being a project leader is also a skill in and out of itself

It isn't the same, but this was to counter the idea that all art is the product of singular labour.

and I don't consider contemporary art like that signed urinal to be art as its just rich people evading taxes.

That is pretty poor knowledge of art. Duchamp's fountain was a radical. anti-elite political statement in a time when art wasn't a tax dodge. Duchamp said of his readymades, they were "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." In this he sets out the key component of art: choice.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think the main difference between AI and human art is that in the overwhelming majority of cases human art is created by one person. AI images are effectively created by more than one - many more, in most cases, I suspect, if you count multiple sources as multiple individuals. I note however that a lot of AI art is created by a process of iteration controlled by the artist. That could count as the human side of all this.

 

[SporgyTheReader]

And photography is just pointing and clicking a button. /sarcasm.

The skill in AI is going to be conceptual (ideas), curative (choosing what to keep and what to lose), compositional (what to juxtapose and where to place objects), mood and lighting (dramatic, cinematic, romantic etc), lenses (wide angle, narrow) and style. It will be about the exact same aesthetic and conceptual choices as photography. As it becomes more complex and more controllable it will require the same knowledge and skill sets as a photographer.



It isn't the same, but this was to counter the idea that all art is the product of singular labour.



That is pretty poor knowledge of art. Duchamp's fountain was a radical. anti-elite political statement in a time when art wasn't a tax dodge. Duchamp said of his readymades, they were "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." In this he sets out the key component of art: choice.

At the end of the day, you're just telling a robot what to do, you could just pick up a brush and do it yourself.

I'm gonna stop discussing this, the moment when anyone thinks that complete garbage is art because some snob says it has some "profound meaning" that it has no taste in art, a hobo ****ting in streets of my town is profound. If a signed urinal is considered high in terms of art then the boy's bathroom at my high school is an art gallery, hey if "art is a choice" then I say my damn shoe with gum on the sole is art, you wouldn't know actual art if you would just pick up a damn pencil.