Are you truly an artist if you use AI?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лис 2024
- There are a lot of opinions flying around about AI art, some treat it as a new tool for artists and others as a bastardization of what artists can do.
Which is it a lazy attempt to generate bad art? Or a new technology artists can use to make new and better art? What if they are both wrong? Stick around and I'll let you know how I feel about it.
More tutorials ARE coming I promise, but they take a lot longer than these talking head videos and I am trying to be more constant.
Find more about Alec Miller/Royals & Rogues here: linktr.ee/Roya...
Seems straightforward to me. My clients don't consider themselves artists just because they've given me prompts to deliver them something. Should they decide to take my image and manipulate it themselves it would then be a collaboration at best, but they're not the sole artist. On top of that, as an AI "artist" you can literally instruct ANYONE else what to write as a prompt and the result would be the same as if they prompted it themselves no matter the experience of the stand-in. No amount of coaching on my end would enable another individual to produce what I would, let alone an amateur.
Yep, I think that is a decent way to look at it. You are contracting an AI to make art.
Technically, only true if you included specific "seed=XYZ" information. Otherwise, the algorithm will use a random "seed" and the images **will** come out different/unique (though, perhaps similar, or not, depending on the complexity of the prompt), since they started with different "random seeds" by default [in most online generators, etc.].
But, that said, as a prompt engineer you typically don't have any control over the output, the AI will programmatically choose the scene, position, pose, etc., etc.
So, the original argument for "director"/"patron" is **reasonably valid.**
It is definitely a collaborative / co-creative process between the "director/patron" and the AI language interpreter / art generator.
I do think that as the technology improves, it will become a more user-directed, iterative process, through the process of evolving or in-painting/out-painting [using some generated image as the seed for further specific evolution of the image, and then evolution of the output image], etc. To the point where, IMO, it will become more of an "art," of sorts, than simple "passive consumption."
Where rather than simply saying "scene X," maybe one starts with "scene X," but then evolves that to "add house Y," "add chimney on the left of House Y's roof," "add Wizard Z in front of House Y," "move Wizard Z closer to the camera by 40%," "change wizard Z's robes to purple," "give wizard Z a purple hat," "make the tip of Wizard Z's hat a curved curlyQ," "move Wizard Z's arm up," "give wizard Z a wizard's staff with a lighted crystal on top," "Make Wizard Z's staff's lighter crystal purple with purple light rays emanating from it," "make wizard Z's staff's purple light rays wavy," "make Wizard Z older," "give Wizard Z a long white chaotically wavy beard blowing in the wind" etc.
To me, art can be practically anything as long as it's meant to elicit emotion or be beautiful in some way. Beauty being able to range from how someone might find the simple and fleeting rainbow to be beautiful, or the profound yet disgusting process of open heart surgery and what it represents about human prosperity. The quality therein being how effectively it's able to interest you. So abstract painting, video games, photography, video essays, plays, philosophy, etc. are all considered artistic to me.
So it feels so strange and limited when peoples definition of art seems to be excluding ai, instead of how I see it, where even IF the AI is a completely soulless amalgamation of thousands of different images slapped together into a Rorschach blob. How does that at all depreciate how intriguing a given art piece is? If you hung it on a wall and asked someone, unprompted, do you think this is art? I can't imagine many people would say no.
I can't help but remember how throughout history, painters hated cameras, scribes hated paper and writers hated the printing press. Not to say I think AI art will take over like those inventions did, but I do think it's a thing that exists now, and people are going to use it. It's going to develop into it's own thing, and I don't think it's going to be good or bad. I just think it's going to be different.
One thing about AI art that I have found interesting is the style. Being that the AI is piecing together from given prompts they tend to have a look that, while stimulating in it's seeming complexity, is too scattered, and feels like it is regurgitation, because in one sense it is. Also there is the fact that AI are being told to make something that "looks like", they are not creating from originality, and they tend to be non-distinct because of it. In many cases your brain is doing half the work to interpret what the AI has generated, and it works, because there are enough key elements for the art to "look like" X or Y. This being the case perhaps they will offer a challenge to the abstract artist, in a juxtaposition of the way that photography offered a challenge to the portrait artist.
I think if you are an actual physical painter the value of your work is only going to increase in the years to come. That is, until a robot can make physical paintings.
I agree printers should be banned too the people who make money by writing wil lose theip job
@@mine7172 what are you saying?
Calling it a tool is one thing. But people are starting new accounts thinking they're actual artists now. I even seen them "open for commissions". They're not art directors. They are not creative. They are typing words and seeing IF it'll make something that looks cool. It takes next to zero skill. Even an art director has experience and knows how to apply it.
It's cancer. A mutated growth that is going to spread and devalue art. Cameras did not replace paintings. Paintings kept their value or arguably went up in value, because people appreciated the skill and "feel".
Digital art also takes knowledge of what is possible in different programs. Things you can't do with actual paint, all different kinds of brushes and applying filters/FX in a specific manner.
Ever hear of time is money? What company boss is going to hire a concept artist when he can type shit in a program themself and have results in minutes? And even small time artists with small time clients... why spend 20 bucks commissioning someone on an art forum when you can just fuck around with AI AND call yourself "the artist"? "Look what EYE made!!!"
But that's progress. AI will perform surgeries, drive us around, make our food, take care of us in our old age, will know exactly how to please us in bed... We won't have to lift a finger in the future. Why should artists be spared?
I know a few talentless art directors haha.
@@RoyalsAndRogues I know A LOT of talentless art directors jajjaja
I am late to this conversation since it feels like AI-generated art has been becoming an online talking point just recently. I have been pondering what it means for something to be a piece of art and what it means to have value as an artist. The biggest difference between traditional and AI-generated art is intention. If an AI-generated piece of art is built up of hundreds of paint strokes, unless you painstakingly told an AI to perform a hundred brush strokes a certain way, you didn't create those brush strokes, the AI did. Something is only a tool when it requires skills to use it and the intention to produce a result. I hate it when people compare this trend with the digital-art renaissance. A computer/tablet is a tool because it still requires both skill and intention. AI-generated art is a triumph in technology, and I think it's cool, great even, but you can't equate creating an AI-generated piece to drawing a painting yourself.
Now speaking in the grander scheme of things. At the moment, I've seen indie artists talking about having to cancel their commissions because their customers decided to enlist AI instead, not only because of the gap in "skill level" but also from a logistics standpoint. There have also been a lot of arguments around the ethics of copyright and AI-generated works because AI learning depends on "copying" a work in its totality rather than "interpreting" it as a human would do. At the moment, the trend is doing more harm than good because:
1.) It discourages up-and-coming artists from entering the industry knowing that AI is a far better competitor.
2.) It provides less incentive for directors to hire concept artists for projects
3.) People are abusing AI-generated art and selling them off as "real"
4.) People further take for granted all of the fundamentals and details that artists spent millennia mastering
5.) Society as a whole views art as a less and less viable career path
Once we find ways to rectify most (if not all) of the above problems, I think there is a world where artists and non-artists alike can fully embrace AI. I think the big thing is once artists get governments to establish firm regulations of copyright to protect artists (like they do for music), some of the fallout surrounding the topic will die down. I personally think the trend eventually reach a lull state once people wise up to the fact that establishing interpersonal connections is as just a large part of the art world as the art itself. I think the best thing we can do at the moment is continue supporting real artists and let them know they're still wanted, so that we're not looking at a future where even more parents discourage children from pursuing the field.
I've been studying Machine Learning and AI for the past two years with the intention of working on creative AI. From my standpoint I'll say that history will decide whether outputs are considered art and prompt writers are considered artists. It's an interesting debate to have but with the pace in which AI tech advances in every creative field, from writing to music, it'll be difficult to have a solid stance on this when the ground is rapidly moving beneath your feet.
Totally. It's been moving so rapidly and being adopted in so many areas that it's impossible to predict the impact.
Prompt writers serve the role of a client requesting an image be made for them
Having used it and having drawn my own stuff.
It’s essentially claiming you as the commissioner being the artist. We would never call the commissioner an artist for having prompted the one creating the image they desire. It is commonly understood within this context the artist is the on bringing the commissioner’s idea into fruition.
The same scenario is playing out with the Ai.
As for the threat to art, It boils down to over saturation of content and the perceived cheapening value of art / the cost of art thanks to over saturation. This paired with the consumerist mentality that seems to have no limit. A lot , not all, will have much less desire/appreciation to pay for artwork or artwork in general as at a point it’ll just be a given. After all anybody can do it with a fraction of the effort it took me to write this response. That’s hardly something worth valuing in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's going to be interesting to watch play out for sure.
I see it like music or photography. Now that anyone anywhere can make music we get more musicians but music itself is also more popular than ever.
@@RoyalsAndRogues music is screwed next. AI inc is going to try to destroy all of the fun jobs in the next five or so years.
A little of Column A, a little of Column B.
It's definitely a co-authoring.
The human provides a prompt input. The AI interprets the prompt and then generates an image based upon it.
The human controls the prompt, but not really the output. But varying the prompt one can vary the output though, so through iterative prompting, the human can, in fact influence, to some degree, the content or style of the image, etc. It's still early days, so there's no super granular control over stuff like scene composition, character position/pose, etc.
I suspect that over time it will evolve further into something more user-directed, where the user can more directly influence the evolving image with additional prompts, and the AI can use language/image recognition to in-paint or out-paint the image and edit specific portions of the scene, in ever more complicated ways.
Where rather than simply saying "scene X," maybe one starts with "scene X," but then 'evolves' that to "add house Y," "add chimney on the left of House Y's roof," "add Wizard Z in front of House Y," "move Wizard Z closer to the camera by 40%," "change wizard Z's robes to purple," "give wizard Z a purple hat," "make the tip of Wizard Z's hat a curved curlyQ," "move Wizard Z's arm up," "give wizard Z a wizard's staff with a lighted crystal on top," "Make Wizard Z's staff's lighter crystal purple with purple light rays emanating from it," "make wizard Z's staff's purple light rays wavy," "make Wizard Z older," "give Wizard Z a long white chaotically wavy beard blowing in the wind" etc.
We're not quite there yet, but I suspect that someday we'll get there, and the user will eventually take a more direct role in "doing art." Right now the "art" is more in creating the initial prompt and adding modifiers, style guidelines, etc. And then the AI "does everything else." But I think that as it evolves, the user may end up taking a more active role in the co-creator seat, and the current outputs will seem "primitive" by comparison to more "artistically directed/evolved" works where the person is more "artist" than "director," or is, I suppose a melding of both artist and director, making specific decisions involving what seed image(s) to use, how to evolve the images, which specific things to alter (inpaint/outpaint), etc.
Ultimately I think down the timeline companies will have 'hired' their own AI programs that will design for them, be it concept, graphic design, set design, costume design, etc. The 'artist' will be the person entering the 'data' requirements in order to produce the final product. The same way there is a divide between traditional artists using the medium of oil and canvas versus the digital artist. AI will assume the role of the 'artist' for studios.
It’s a pathetically low bar to type a sentence into a searchbox
The divide between traditional and digital artist isn’t the same. They both have a blank canvas to start and have to spend hours or days physically painting using hard-earned knowledge and skills. AI art is typing prompts and hitting a slot play button that combs through tons of pre-existing images/art to frankenstein a collage-like art piece.
AI and it's Art variants is an amazing tool, especially from this future standpoint. If elicits jealousy and fear, but for a small business owner, it's freaking gold!
I don’t think AI art itself is art, since it does not consist of the same amount of human decisions required compared to art made fully by humans. In traditional art, every detail in the art piece is decided and created by the artist. While the details within the AI generated image requires little human involvement. So I think that AI art functions more as a director, and the pictures generated by AI can be used for something that does not require deep meaning. Such as a place filler with something that’s pretty.
What do you think about photography?
How much human input is needed for photos to be art, vs a machine capturing an image?
Genuinely curious, I know a designer who says "failed designers become photographers"
@@RoyalsAndRogues When it comes to photography, there’s a lot of aspects of the visual elements that the photographer controls, such as the composition, lighting, angles and sometimes the colours of the subjects within the photograph is controlled and decided by the photographer. However, these elements are more difficult to control as it is set in reality, so many strategies are required in order to capture a good photograph. Such as the timing and positioning of the photographer. Although human input is present, it does not equate to the designers’ since they decided for and created every little detail within the image. Most often with reasons behind each decision. When an machine captures an image, I’m assuming you’re talking about the automated cameras, in that case, it just captures an image and the person doesn’t need to do anything.
I don't agree with this line of thinking.
People used to say the same stuff about digital art.
It's true that the details with ai art doesn' require as much involvement, but where can you officially draw the line at which a certain amount of computer assistance disqualifies something as art?
If I'm a digital artist and I use tools that I wouldn't be physically capable of doing like automatically selecting objects in an image or automatically detecting edges immediately or ai neural filters or selecting and isolating a specific range of color within an image, using autocontrast and automatically adjusting exposure, content aware fills, etc etc, am I suddenly not an artist because the machine has done these things for me?
If you say, "well after that you still have to use human touch to further modify the image" ok, well I can do that same thing with ai generated art as well. I can select portions of an image and continue to further modify it to my likings.
When people say, "The ai is making the image, not the person typing it into the machine" it reminds me of a painter saying "the camera is painting the image, not the person holding the machine".
There is definitely a human presence when it comes to ai generated art because there is a skill floor and skill ceiling when it comes to the way ai art is prompted and further modified.
Also Yall don't realize that art will be art regardless. You're letting external thoughts dictate your beliefs about it. When in reality, if I hung up a drawing created by ai you wouldn't even know if it was ai generated or not until I told you. And before that, you'd just recognize it as any other art.
Also, If I was a photographer and said I was creating art but in reality I just set up a tripod and and pressed the "auto" button on Lightroom for everything I did, how come no one would question my art there?
If i were a photographer who took pictures of people and put them into an ai that uses machine learning to generate a 2d image of them and I posted the results, no one would question my art there?
@@GoharioFTW Excellent response. I'm going to steal this 🙂
@@Darren_S why are you replying to almost every comment I post even on a bunch of other videos? It’s as if you’re actively searching for them. That’s really creepy!
It’s funny how people argue about the democratic access to creativity- basically there are 2 major points both rather from a legal than a moral perspective:
1. Copyright, utilisation rights concerning sales or winning prizes, awards:
So far, the AI platforms reserve the right to use all prompts & images one has created (Wombo Dream, midjourney).
It is as well not clear how high the percentage of manual input must be to grant the work is suitable for artist copyright (“visible traces of a human touch).
2. The unauthorised use of contemporary (copyright protected artwork or personal artistic styles): The AI tool companies do want to be held liable but then again they are the ones who reap profit (subscriptions) or benefit by having their tool learning to add this artwork or style into its dataset.
3. I do not see anything wrong using AI art to create mood boards, visually entertaining social media content but artist will be even more occupied with tracking their art by image search which is very time consuming
Hhmm...sounds familiar doesn't it digital artist? ( wonder how traditional artist feel now ).
To me it's art, I'm not sure if you guys know Ratatouille the Disney movie, but there was that quote that said:
"You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul. What I say is true - anyone can cook... but only the fearless can be great."
The idea is that anyone can do it, even a computer, So there should be no saying of saying that's not art or thats stolen, because we do the exact same thing as we all been doing for centuries, getting references for our own drawings, Even existing drawings that we don't even know that it's even copyrighted or not, but either way, ai art is organic enough, not fully, besides, we still need humans to do some of the tasks that AI could not really do all the time
That is a good argument, however what do you think of the fact that the AI is doing the "research" and the AI is who is choosing references to learn from rather than the artist? Even with prompts you are directing the AI "artist" toward a direction.
I’m just glad to see someone being level headed about this after punishing myself and watching 10+ videos of people being angry about it 😆 I feel like a lot of the people that have felt threatened by it have kinda lost or forgotten what it means to be an artist. Usually it’s the “professional artist” that works in the part of the industry where they’re not actually creating anything new themselves. They’re doing so under the direction of the art director. They’re more like a craftsman in that function rather than an artist. So they’re really afraid of jobs being replaced by Ai.
An artist is just a creative person making new stuff. Meaning, no matter what a machine is doing I’m still going to be creating art my way.
Thanks. That binary thinking of "all good" or "all bad" is what prompted me to make this video. More on the way once I get through some big projects.
Yeah I agree with your comment about “still creating art my way.” I don’t know why people are so angry about this, personally I just see it as another tool in the toolbox
@@fuzzywuzzy1355 I see quite few people comparing AI art generators to "just another tool" like hammer or smth but I don't see it.
Like... when I use hammer it helps me bury the nail in wooden plank faster but it doesn't create a whole house in 10 seconds, paint, add sewage & heating system + water instalation to it and also make additional 9 other variations.
All my life, I wanted to be a photographer 12 years ago. I asked the job club if they could help with sending me to a professional photographer class, they told me no it was not feasible as everyone can take photos with their phones, so I think Ai is a great idea artist are complaining about this tool. What about all the people that no longer have jobs because of machines that do the job faster and less people need to employ. It's called EVOLUTION TOOLS ARE MADE TO MAKE LIFE EASY. I LOVE AI I WISH I HAD A COMPUTER I'D MAKING THINGS I WANTED TO SEE.
You can still be a photographer, there are plenty of successful photographers today and even if you don't make money off it art is for you, not just profit.
I've been using Midjourney to easily create assets I want for photo bashing and photo collage. Maybe we are witnessing a new art movement, a perfect combination of abstract and representative images. Fine art in general has just become a legal money laundering ring either for the artist/client or for the museum. The trend in creating art that needs a 30 page dissertation explaining the meaning of a piece. It should speak for itself, otherwise I'd argue the art is actually literal based and should be considered a short story instead of a sculpture.
I use my own drawings to see what the ia pops out and it just looks amazing sometimes and probably to longer it happens the art would get to a point that it can release its own style
Hi. Interesting take on the subject. However, I think that much bigger problem that people are dealing with concerning AI art is that it will take their jobs. We are talking about illustration/comics/game design industry. OK. Not now, but how about in 10 - 15 years when AI will be improved dramatically in the precision, options to edit on the go, use specific style (maybe even from imported image)? What do you think? Then all of us will be art directors/operators of AI but no real craftsmen will be needed?
I don't see this as an issue. As you said it will take time, and as I pointed out artists have lost jobs to tech in the past, as have many other industries. There are a few options open to artists.
1 adapt. Learn to be the best at making AI art, become a director, move to a field that AI cannot create (video will take a long time as it is so costly and complex compared to stills for ai).
2 Pivot. Whenever a new technology comes around it disrupts some jobs but also creates opportunities, the computer replaced 100s of jobs, but creates far more. The same for AI. Leaning a new skill that relates to the new tech while not being the job the tech replaces is a good option. If you were a type writer company leaning about keyboards would be smart, if you used to repair hours and carts, learning mechanics would be a good idea. Etc
3 improve. There are still niche markets for the old ways. Doing it the old way is still valued and worth while, there will not be as many people doing it and you will need to be good at what you do, but there are still oil painters, horse riders and trainers, etc.
I'm not too worried about craftsmen with the options they have and the time they can take to adapt.
It's art but the people who prompt the AI to create the art aren't artists, it's the same as commissioning a work of art. You're paying or telling someone else to do the art in this case the AI.
That is the idea I'm putting out. Please share it further
The only Art i can appreciate on AI generative images is the programmer who made the algoritm.
If viewers regard AI art as souless trippy crapola then artists have already won. I prefer you idea where the user is a "Director," I will be using AI in my future animations, but I give my work away free and I will freely acknowledge AIs contribution. (Why not?)
Mein Dude .... Is a director not an artist? This drawing of artificial lines is really frustrating. Yes, it is very cheap to create an image with AI that is passable. Even very high quality and visually pleasing to look at. If you want to create genuine good art with AI you still have to go through some process. Just like with photography.
The Photographer what does he create? Is he not an artist? Nooo.... hmmm maybe he is an explorer. Because he only "finds". Yes I like that, anything but calling him an artist. -.-
I state that direction is a form of art (art being a not well defined term itself doesn't help) but if you state that you are "the artists" when making images with AI that isn't totally correct, you are collaborating with the AI to make an image. In retrospect this might also be the case for photography and even painting, you are collaborating with the tool to make art. I don't really know how I feel about all this but it's an interesting thought.
Curious what your take on this is?
@@RoyalsAndRogues Ok, you do say directors are artists, my bad! I think there are many things going on here. First, I think you are correct in saying that just typing any prompt and posting it would be a very low bar to being considered a genuine artist. What I take issue with generally in this whole conversation is the resistance to calling what you do with these "AIs" Art and subsequently calling people using these things artists. Art is one of those terms that in my mind should not be put in any box so much. I see a lot of gatekeeping around this term and what constitutes art. And drawing lines around it is really frustrating to me. Like, if you put in say 6 h perfecting your prompt, inpainting, discarding images, tweaking them, or maybe even if you go ahed and sketch something for the AI to work with, at which point on this continuum from „ I spent 1 min on midjourney to make a waifu image“ to what I just described do you stop or start being an artist?
What you say about collaborating I think is still a valid way of framing this. Like any frame it influences how you look at the issue and feel about it though. As humans and even Ais we don't create art in a vacuum, some part of the process is always outsourced. Like, simply if you get inspired or influenced by others or nudged in a certain direction.
I think what makes a lot of sense is a simple distinction between art and craftsmanship and that the two are not identical. If you want to hear my take, art is a thing that lives in a certain space, it is something that can be found. And the craftsmanship is what gets you to the art.
These AI „tools“ right now are at their very beginning. I don’t think that prompting will be the only way of engaging with them for long, I mean its not even now. I bet you in 10 years the people getting really good stuff out of AI tools are going to be talented artists that know these AIs well. Not every Joe is going to create AI Art that will blow you away. 10 years of midjourney are going to get really old really fast.
I have generated over a 1000 images and put Ho scenes together with those images and then run that through the filter again you can't tell me that this isn't that art
I hope you mean "whole scenes". Also batman beyond is S tier.
I can draw really well. But I have no problem with AI. I learned to draw to create comics. If one day AI is advanced enough to draw exactly what I want then I wont have a problem using it. Drawing can be stressful days before the deadline you know
I've been seeing a few people suggest that using AI will most likely be a crutch on tight deadlines or early in production to jump start generating mood boards. It's more efficient to send out a few prompts rather than search the web for hours to find stock references. All things that today artists do without considering it art.
The trouble with AI art is that it doesn't lend itself to historical appropriation. In other words, how can you 'meme' AI art? Maybe in the future when we're all robots this won't be such a problem because we'll all be in on the same joke. But what purpose would memes then serve? Can AI even appreciate humor? Can a computer have a belly laugh?
I think a line has to be drawn. AI art is not art. Period. I agree with this video that you are not an artist anymore. You are a typist. A prompt-typer. A secretary. A director, as he said.
So a programmer who designs through code isn’t an artist but more of a typist? I’m not challenging what u said but im just genuinely asking
A programmer that creates art is using years and years of skill to create something. I wouldn’t compare a programmer to somebody typing a handful of words. They are neither artist or programmer - just a customer ordering fast food from a menu, basically.
Working with programmers as an artist, they are often incredibly creative. Being good at programming is its own art.
Im an artists myself but guess what...you don't get to decide what other people do. Tool are developed and if you don't want to participate then don't. You don't get to stop people from using them though. Its like when painters tried to stop the photography movement. Its not going to happen and some people just stayed painters. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it needs to be stopped....and this coming from another artist.
@@leescuderi8331 photography required skill. Actually doing stuff. You are prompting something else, and for all intents and purposes, someONE else to do the work for you. You are no artist. And never will be.
@@billieshoemate4392 Hey jack ass I draw, paint and create digital art. I have been for 20 years.I didn't say AI was what im totally into but, like a camera, its just a tool for a creative outlet. Im not an AI artist...im just defending the right to use what ever you want as a creative outlet and you being pompous enough to be able label what is art or not shows what a douche you are.
Yeah I think it's a good tool I definitely feel like it's gonna be a thing that's not gonna be around for long because people are so intimidated by it and it has so much potential it will put people out of business and in this world of Capitalism you know that's never a good thing we need to make money off of people's suffering and lack of ability as much as possible you know
Well idk.. a computer creating whatever art you want it to make without the need for ability seems cheaper for businesses than to pay real people (who get sick, have other commitments etc)
The question I like to propose is if I run my art through a AI Image generator at what point does that art stop being mine and if it's not mine then Who owns the art at that point
If u pay $$ for more prompts and iteration then it is yours
If you do not believe that AI can create art, then call it "AI Images" instead of "AI Art".
Art requires an artist. Are AI artists? No, an artist has the ability to create something with intent, AI lack intentionality. Can AI images be called art if an artist directs the AI through the generation process? No, because not enough of the artist's intent is involved in the creation of the images. AI images are tools, not art. Calling AI images "art" would be like calling the paint brush tool "art".
Again, don't call AI images "art". For example, the title of this video should have been: "Are AI images real art?"
Sort of agree but from the opposite direction. No one is willing to define art as it risks excluding things we might want to use the term for (I have a personal definition that I think many would agree with) that being the case it's been watered down to mean almost anything.
You can also thank Warhol and Pollock for some of this.
Getting the word art back is one way. I would suggest a new word that artist can use that outsiders don't know yet to separate man made and skilled art from AI art and functional "art". Like are stock photos art? Not really but photography is AN art.
So a word like "arte" or "artish" haha
1) Only a being with a mind can call ideas into existence out of nothing with no outside assistance.
2) Only a being that can call ideas into existence out of nothing with no outside assistance can create art.
3) An AI Generator cannot call ideas into existence without outside assistance.
4) AI Art Generators Cannot Create Art
Next…
1) AI Art Generators Cannot Create Art (see above)
2) A Particular Piece of Art Exists
3) The AI Art Generator Did not “Make” that Piece of Art
Next…
1) Art Cannot Exist Without being Made by an Artist
2) The AI Generator did not “make” the Art (see above)
3) An entity other than the AI Art Generator is the Artist.
Now who might that be?
And so…you’re trying to define who an artist is lol okay
Found an "artist" on Instagram only started posting images 2 months ago and it looks like gustave dores lifetimes worth of engravings, tagged as crosshatching artwork, no process shown just completed works, it looks AI generated, anatomy is surreal/warped, they look impressive and I searched online and there is a site that produces AI works with the option of gustave dore prompts that look the same, I've found fake artistist pretending to draw what we're actually stock image etchings and this looks like more of the same.
I don't believe in witch hunts. They won't get far doing that. Focus on your creative output.
@@RoyalsAndRogues I've seen them get very far and they don't disappear because you're not looking,
it was only after a "witch hunt" that a misled client was able to get a refund,
I don't believe in the zero sum thinking of focus, if I did one could argue your videos are a costly distraction for the viewers who ought to be focusing on their own creative output 😉 but I believe your viewers are more then capable of shifting their focus appropriately just like yours truly.
You are a contractor not a artist!
I respecfully disagree. AI art 'creators' are invalid. Typing prompts is not art.
I don't think typing a prompt makes you an artist. It has to be transformative. So if you just take the art and post it, that would be the same as hiring someone to make art and post it. But if you then transform it into something unique that I would consider art.
@@RoyalsAndRogues Agree...Im a digital artist and use some stock to create from time to time. Its the same concept. I didn't create it but I use it and transform it. The people who are against AI are just scared of change and scared of getting left in the dust. I say you have to embrace new techniques and technology and if you don't want to then that's ok too.
I don't need AI to make art. That's all it boils down to.
You don't need a lot of things to make art. Don't need a camera, or a computer, but they help.
Like in the video, I don't think using or not using tools makes you an artist.
How can it be art...if it's not created by a human...there goes the beauty of actually trying to make something beautiful and interesting
The line is getting harder and harder these days isn't it? I also think to be art something has to be man made, but are digital photos man made? Sort of?
Again, I think if you take the AI's output, change nothing and post that it isn't art, it's almost like posting security footage and calling it a movie. But if you edited a bunch of security footage together then added music to tell a story that would be art of a kind.
I think it is about the transformative effort of humans that makes something art. That is why wild flowers are not art, but a garden arranged in a pattern is.
Hope this helps.