AI generated art

[Mon0Zer0]

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,

The point has gone over your head. Duchamp was railing against the snobs of the time who were defining art according to an elite set of standards. He was saying that art is whatever you say art is and nothing else.

a hobo ****ting in streets of my town is profound.

If it's a work of art it could be very profound - do hobo's not deserve respect? Are you above defecating? What does it say about your town that people are more worried about the feces, than the plight of a down on his luck human being?

If a signed urinal is considered high in terms of art then the boy's bathroom at my high school is an art gallery,

This is exactly Duchamp's point. That what we call art IS arbitrary. There are no transcendent standards, just elite snobs who gatekeep. We can marvel at the ability of someone to render a scene perfectly, but the act of realistic depiction is redundant in the face of photography. Art is the label and meaning we assign to something - and that something can be anything - even nothing.

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.

With respect, there's no need for insults. You may react strongly to the idea of AI art, but it's worth keeping some perspective.

 

[Wayne Mack]

For AI (more precisely Machine Learning or ML) generated art, the primary driver is the selection and quantity of training material used to define what 'good' should be. This is a complex process (involving people's judgement), though it is less complex than a human artist determining what he or she feels is good. AI is simply a labor saving tool, much like many others that people utilize.

 

[THX1138]

View attachment 93089

You can see the various archeological, metallic, and insect shapes and textures (or AI data searches) that have influenced the outcome of the characters costume.

Just looking at each of these aspects on their own, then at the image as a whole again gives a better insight into the programmers understanding of the mathematics of the world around them, and how to guide the AI in its interpretation. That's an art unto itself. Then add to this the artistic eye of the end user (you AI artists out there!) it really becomes a vast collaboration!

Although, and this is just me, (I'm not an art critic at all. So, grain of salt please!) the more I look at it, the 'flatter' the metallic components of the piece tend to become.

 

[Toby Frost]

This reminds me somewhat of the debates over electronic music that happened when I was young. It was sometimes said that people like Orbital, The Prodigy and so on weren't making real music because they weren't really playing instruments. If you do make that argument, you've got to rule out all electronic music, virtually all hip-hop, and a lot of pop. However, I do take the point that the skill of the player can be taken into account when considering how "good" a piece of music is, whatever "good" means.

 

[Danny McG]

This AI generated stuff should apply to books as well ....I'd like a machine that can ask a series of questions and then write a good space opera, based on what I would like to read, not what some scribbler thinks I should read.

 

[Harpo]

This AI generated stuff should apply to books as well ....I'd like a machine that can ask a series of questions and then write a good space opera, based on what I would like to read, not what some scribbler thinks I should read.

Something like this?

AI Book Writer - neuroflash

In this comprehensive wiki you will learn all about Ai Book Writer. Get to know the benefits and application examples.

neuroflash.com

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I took out a basic subscription in order to have some Xmas fun.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Thoughts on AI images...

AI Art & All That

I’ve been very interested in the current debate about AI art, which has kicked off in recent months. I’ve read lots of thought-provoking blogs, Facebook posts and more, which have pushe…

wp.me

 

[Astro Pen]

As a practicing artist I will say that what is absent from AI art is the personal.
By way of example here is a snap of an unfinished ( the mounting board will be dark green) piece I am working on for Christmas.
It is very simple, a mounted collection of pebbles and stones that my partner and I have picked up on our various walks around the country.
(I think most of us do this on country path or beach) Each one encapsulates a place and time.

 

[Harpo]

 

[Aknot]

AI will continue to develop and improve, supporting or even replacing many tasks that humans do. I don’t doubt it and it will, hopefully, improve our lives in many ways. As it is, the creators of those AI solutions need to invest time and money to have them perform well. They, and their employees, do it for a return. If nothing else, for a salary.

My main issue with AI art is that in other fields the resources used to improve the algorithm are thus paid for. With AI art, however, the key resource is stolen. All the work by artists to used to train the models - copyrighted and valuable work - is used without permission and without compensation.

There are AI trained to create music. The music used to train them is paid for and the record labels would go after any tech start up using an artists material without consent. The same should be true for art AI and any tech firm basing their model on unlicensed material should be fined and have a cease and desist ordered until they stop their unconsented use of others work.

For anyone not understanding the meaning of this let’s put it in a writers perspective: a start up uses any published text - book, article, 75 word writing challenge material etc - to train an AI and then charges users for the model. All the stolen texts will increasingly push out the writers, while users paying for it lines the pockets of the AI company.

Current AI art is based on theft and using the models is supporting that. For anyone involved in creative work I would think of “First they came…”

I don’t expect AI art to disappear. I think it’s here to stay and it will hopefully improve how many industries work and benefit artists as well. However, the artists behind all the work used for model training should have their say about that usage of their work and those that agree should be justly compensated. Just as a music artist is. Until that happens I hope any creator discontinues the using the tool and speaks up for the artists.

 

[Toby Frost]

Can you actually create art without a mind behind it, at least being pretty actively involved in the creation?

Say a man commissions an artist to paint a picture of a horse. The horse itself isn't art, although it might be a very impressive specimen of a horse. The man commissioning the art isn't creating art, he's just paying for something. The artist, by painting the picture, is creating art. I would say that that process of creating the art involves making some kind of aesthetic decision (perhaps not conscious, but definitely requiring higher brain functions) as to how to make the picture.

So if I use AI to draw a picture, am I the artist or the man commissioning the picture? I think that I would be closer to the commissioner than the painter. I'd be like a general saying "Capture that hill with a tank" rather than the soldier who actually does the fighting. Which means that the role of the artist would be the job of the AI, but I'm not sure that, being unable to take the decisions and use the taste (or lack of it) that a human brain would do, the AI is making a picture, but it's not creating art.

Of course I might be completely wrong about this, or it might be one of those issues where there is no clear answer.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think a distinction should be made between image and art, but some consider that sophistry. Midjourney et al are in my view making images.

 

[althea]

I have been doing digital art for ten years or so. I have been painting in the usual way for about seven years.
I have been in so many discussions with people who will comment on my "real" art ,but not my digital art.
They don't consider digital art IS art. I would beg to differ. Sometimes it can take days to produce a piece of digital art, with a lot of work and skill involved.
Sometimes I can paint on canvas and finish a painting in an hour or two. Of course it depends on what I am painting.
I know one thing for sure, you can have all the art software going, but unless you have ideas and visions you want to create, you won't get far.
I submit that the value of art has been set by an exclusive, elitist , small group of people who think their views are superior to the majority.
People feel intimidated to say if they like a piece of art, in case they fall foul of the "intelligencia". However and whoever art is created by, it is art.

 

[Vertigo]

My main issue with AI art is that in other fields the resources used to improve the algorithm are thus paid for. With AI art, however, the key resource is stolen. All the work by artists to used to train the models - copyrighted and valuable work - is used without permission and without compensation.

I think this is a little harsh. How is it different from artists that have developed their skills by studying the work of previous artists and being influenced by them. How is that acceptable if doing the same thing with software is theft?

 

[Aknot]

I think this is a little harsh. How is it different from artists that have developed their skills by studying the work of previous artists and being influenced by them. How is that acceptable if doing the same thing with software is theft?

A corporation using copyrighted material without approval is guilty of theft. Legally it’s that simple in most countries. Granted, there are countries that do not abide international copyrights laws. Usually they don’t care much for human rights either…

As a private individual there is everything from fair use etc to your right as a consumer after you’ve purchased something. If you buy an album or pay for a streaming service, you are free to use that music to learn how to play. They key word here is pay.

And as to reference music further; music artists are paid by the same, and/or similar companies, building music generating AI. Their work is not stolen by these tech companies. But that of illustrators, photographers etc is.

So no, it’s not harsh. It’s the fact that artists don’t have the backing of money like the music industry that has allowed this theft to happen without consequences so far.

 

[Vertigo]

A corporation using copyrighted material without approval is guilty of theft. Legally it’s that simple in most countries. Granted, there are countries that do not abide international copyrights laws. Usually they don’t care much for human rights either…

As a private individual there is everything from fair use etc to your right as a consumer after you’ve purchased something. If you buy an album or pay for a streaming service, you are free to use that music to learn how to play. They key word here is pay.

And as to reference music further; music artists are paid by the same, and/or similar companies, building music generating AI. Their work is not stolen by these tech companies. But that of illustrators, photographers etc is.

So no, it’s not harsh. It’s the fact that artists don’t have the backing of money like the music industry that has allowed this theft to happen without consequences so far.

So you are saying any university (they are commercial operations after all) that is using existing works of art to teach their art students should be paying a fee to the artist of that work? And the same would apply to anyone using an existing piece of literature to instruct their literature students?

 

[AllanR]

For anyone not understanding the meaning of this let’s put it in a writers perspective: a start up uses any published text - book, article, 75 word writing challenge material etc - to train an AI

I would expect that this is already happening.

 

[Aknot]

So you are saying any university (they are commercial operations after all) that is using existing works of art to teach their art students should be paying a fee to the artist of that work? And the same would apply to anyone using an existing piece of literature to instruct their literature students?

Yes. Because I’m quite sure all proper school schools pay for the books and material they use. I’m not a legal expert but I would be surprised if most western countries don’t have laws that regulate how copyright material is used in education.

 

[Vertigo]

So what you are saying is that the companies training the AI art programs are stealing the original artworks, rather than using reproductions which they will have bought from someone and who, presumably, will have paid the artist for publishing their work. I doubt these people are sneaking around taking illegal photos of the art for training the software.