AI Can't Make Art
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2023
- 🕮 TOKYO UNSEEN Street Photography Book: www.lkazphoto.com/tokyo-unsee...
📸 EYExplore Photography Workshops: www.eyexplore.com/
🗾 Tokyo Photo Spot Map: www.eyexplore.com/tokyo-photo...
❤️ Support us on Patreon: / eyexplore
📸 EYExplore Instagram: / eyexplor
📸 Lukasz's Instagram: / lkazphoto
📸 Lukasz on PortraitMode.io portraitmode.io/profile/lkazp...
MY CAMERAS:
⭐ Nikon Z9: amzn.to/3OJf7ee
⭐ Ricoh GR III: amzn.to/3rW0Ksn
VIDEO SHOT ON:
🎥 Nikon Z6II: amzn.to/3pK4A5W
🎥 DJI RSC 2: amzn.to/36qqnIE
MY LENSES:
⭐ Nikon Z 40mm f/2: amzn.to/3w3u4l8
⭐ Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S: amzn.to/3CYBW85
⭐ Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S: amzn.to/3pq3I7m
⭐ Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S: amzn.to/303ASkP
⭐ Nikon 28mm f/1.4E: amzn.to/2X67vJO
⭐ Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II S: amzn.to/3m6w6vc
STRAP / TRIPOD:
⭐ Peak Design Slide Camera Strap: amzn.to/3gk3Xyl
⭐ Sirui T-1205X Carbon Fiber Tripod: amzn.to/3a5gqCl
⭐ Sirui K-10x Ballhead: amzn.to/370O36z - Навчання та стиль
Among all the photography channels I subscribe , I always find myself relax watching your video. I can somehow get out of my busy life and find a secret place to hide. I could say I love this channel the most !!
Thank you so much!! I used to shy away from making long videos, but these days I myself love long form content like this so I'm glad to provide a nice hiding spot! :)
I see AI “art” sort of like using Google Maps to get directions and then taking credit for building the road. 😂
Hahahah, exactly!! :)
After watching your channel for the past couple of years I'm excited for your first book. I got that thing on pre-order! 😃
What book??? Where do I find it?? Info or link please. Thanks!
@@RayLombardi Tokyo Unseen. I'm hopeful it will have some sweet bike shots. 😄
Thank you! Just ordered it on amazon! Cheers!
What do you mean pre order? It released in August
@@TheChosenOne_ U.S. Release
Hi Lukas, I have now, officially watched every single video on this channel!...some of them more than once. What an impressive array of content! If I'm ever in Tokyo, I'm definitely booking a workshop with you! My name is Ray by the way. I'm from Argentina, but have been living in the UK since 2002. A Nikon shooter, with the incredible Z9(so I feel more connected to your content somewhat). I just can't get enough of your videos mate. Thank you and all the team behind you for making these videos possible. Cheers, Ray.
Wow!! Thank you so much! You're a super fan!! I look forward to meeting you some day. Make sure you mention your camera so I can bring mine too and we can nerd out together haha. :)
Yes, finally another very valuable video including well-conceived musings, interesting places and great photos! Always a joy to watch!
Thank you so much! :)
Hi Lukasz. I like these words-of-wisdom-while-wandering videos.
I've got into chess in the last year. I'm still a very weak player (and often too slow for the blitz games I keep playing and losing on time) but it's been interesting to learn about the chess scene and some of the characters amongst the top players. Just like photography, it can be an escape from everything else and something I can hopefully also gradually improve at.
The guys holding their hands out checking for rain as they step outside at 27:47 would have been a fun moment to capture.
Glad to meet another chess fan! I am also pretty slow haha. These days I like just solving puzzles on my phone when I'm bored on the train or watching chess youtubers. And wow, great catch! I didn't notice them until you just pointed it out. That would have been a nice moment to capture. :)
Great video as always!
Thank you so much!! :)
The best part of photography is going on the hunt for something interesting to me. The fun part is finding something out there that's real and shooting it. There's no sense of accomplishment if a computer makes an image for you.
I totally agree!! :)
Always a pleasure to see your video lukaz
Thank you so much! :)
and completely ignore girl at 6:40 )) man behind camera man is epic in his rhythm and moves. Thank you both!
You mean the girl in the background with the sign? She works at a 'girls bar'. These girls are all over the place, not very interesting. They also do a somewhat unsavory job and don't like being photographed. I just tune them out as background noise around the city haha. :)
It's simple, there is NO capturing "the moment" sitting at a computer etc typing something from your imagination into it.
You sum my 30 minute rant in one line hahah. Thank you! :)
@@EYExplore 🤣
Luk! Glad to see you back! Do you enjoy shooting in the hot summer Japanese heat?
I've never left haha. I love summer but this one was exceptionally hot. I'm happy with the cooler weather these last few days. :)
Seeing Lukasz at the demon mural at 11:35 again is incredible. The Tokyo Lens video where he first notices it is what got me into this, and got me far more motivated to visit Japan (I did in the spring, and this is somewhere I went on my first day). Wasn't able to get an Eyexplore photography tour on my trip, but will try again next time!
It comes full circle! I find myself in the same places again and again, and yet they are always interesting and fresh to my eyes! :)
thanks for the content☺
Our pleasure! :)
Loved this video throughout, the photos and the AI talk! I would love to hear your thoughts on Photoshop Editing kind of art, if you want to call that art or not. For example, the multiple compositions you did in Shinjuku at dusk to assemble the light trails in a way that filled the entire road, that didn't happen in real life but with the help of a computer. Is that art? I don't think it's a yes/no kind of answer, but it sure is a topic for another video! ;)
Thanks!! I feel working in Photoshop is certainly art. It may not be a 100% reflection of reality, but it is still art because the decision process for making it was conscious. That is the defining aspect of art to me: did a conscious agent make a decision to create the work? If yes, then it is art. :)
Love this! And love the format for discussing it.
Thank you!! Glad to hear that! :)
Totally onboard with your POV , not a big fan go AI myself .... another solid vid. A good primer for my trip to Japan next yr .
Thank you so much!! :)
Adapt, Evolve or Go Extinct!
What does this have to do with the video?
I don't know enough about AI to have an opinion, except that some of the individuals who are big in tech say, "Be afraid, be very afraid." On a lighter note, what do you think of the Zf, specifically the retro styling. Do you think such a style would be a hindrance to your personal method of shooting (requiring a more deliberate, perhaps slower pace of shooting.)?
Yeah, I mean, in terms of the art industry, yeah we should be afraid. In terms of the pursuit of art as a form of self expression, there is nothing to fear.
As for the Df, I think it looks cool but it's not for me. I don't like the dials. They serve no purpose for me. Having the two integrated dials like the Z9/8 or Z6/7 or all of the DSLRs before is much better. It doesn't really affect shooting style. It's just plain annoying to have to reach and turn these dials. I don't see the difference in ultimately in photography. The best camera is one that just gets out of the way. :)
So happy to see a new upload
And I'm so happy to upload! I actually get a kind of anxiety when we don't upload for a while. I can feel everyone's disappointment haha. :)
@@EYExplore no disappointment here, just feels nice to see another. Also I completely agree with your view on AI. It hasn’t changed the way I go out and shoot.
@@allen.9 hehe, I'm sure I'm just fabricating the whole thing. I gotta let go of the anxiety. But truly, I feel making these videos and giving people ideas to think about is something meaningful to me. So, I prefer to get them out sooner than later! :)
@@EYExplore yeah AI is scary haha. I’m a computer science major and I constantly live with people telling me that my job is going to be taken soon. Definitely something I don’t enjoy hearing 😂
@@allen.9 Yeah, those AI copilots are impressive. But someone will still need to know how to use them, and that's gonna be you! :)
I completely agree with everything you say. Down with the AI!! 😂
Haha, I mean, I didn't say down with it. It can exist and do its thing. But we don't have to put it on a pedestal is all. Art comes from conscious minds. :)
Great video buddy!
And wonderfully said!
It’s funny I’ve been at the exact same parking lot two days ago 😂
Hehe awesome! It's a good parking lot. :)
An intriguing subject for sure. Long time ago when I was in an art school we went over art of conceptual artists like DuChamp and others. The dude literally took a urinal into an art gallery and called it art - haha. And there were those chance - based art pieces too. That's like an algorithm - like AI. I personally never really got into it. Although I have to give it a credit - that it did expand a definition of what art might be. And maybe that's what it is. It's what is our personal definition of art. For me for example - yes, the human aspect is an important part. That plant on the wall is a good example. By chance it's grown there and by chance it was illuminated by that sign. But it the end a series of you human decisions (plus chance) brought you to that place, and your mood, and your need to find a beauty in it, even your desire to prove your point about AI, all of these constituted your "human" journey, that resulted in taking a photo of that plant. And that is an important element of art - the art making - at least for me.
I am huge fan of Duchamp! I read great biography of him when I was in high school. He has always fascinated me! I would say the act of urinal upside-down, signing it R. Moot and calling it 'Fountain' (a hilarious joke) is 100x more 'art' than prompting a software to create an image. And the reason is that Fountain is up to the conscious Duchamp to create, whereas the AI is black box that creates images unconsciously. Sure, a conscious human must 'prompt' the AI, but happens next is disconnected from the prompter.
And you put it it wonderfully: the human journey to create. With the AI stuff, there human journey ends when the human hits the ENTER key on their keyboard, and then an unconscious process takes place that is completely abstract from what we could call a 'journey.' It is simply a statistical model.
Perhaps I rail against it because it admit that the current AI systems can make art would mean to admit that I am also a mere biological statistical model that creates images based on physical stimuli (e.g. 'prompts'). But that's an unsatisfying world view so I'd rather not hold it, haha. :)
@@EYExplore Love this: "... I am ... a mere biological statistical model that creates images based on physical stimuli..." Indeed that would be a very unsatisfying world view. And a sad end to our journey as human beings. And as much as it is sounds like sci-fi , it's probably already a norm in some areas of personal data collection - haha
@@cinevit even if we can be boiled down to that objectively, our subjective experience is NOT that, and so it doesn't really matter. It's one thing to *know* what you are, and another thing to *experience* the universe. :)
Ultimately regarding "ia", the only real artist is the algorithm's programmer...but I still can imagine someone using one of these tools conceived by someone else, with an intent and a genuine artistic perspective, just like a painter uses a brush and gets to know its quirks...It's an additional level of abstraction, and quite a fascinating one as it integrates an incredibly large amount of knowledge thru the dataset, but any notion of actual experience, reminiscence, and critical sense is filtered by the algorithm handling the user's script...As for Art, I'm 100% convinced outstanding and meaningful work can be achieved thru any means or medium...Photography didn't kill painting, ia could just as well turn into another artistic medium tool...but an heavily twisted one unless you're into programming your own...
I agree!! The programmers are artists, and the resulting software is a work of art! I guess I doubt that there can be that much intent and volition when using these types of software because so much of the process is completely obscured from the prompter. Yes, in a general sense the paintbrush analogy holds, but really it does not compare. A paint brush does nothing without the hand of the artist. Sure, the software sits idle until you prompt it, but it takes no effort, little skill, and no struggle to prompt it. It just needs a tiny push and then it does everything by itself.
As I said in the video, for me the defining factor of art is not whether outstanding or not, but whether it was made consciously and with volition. By another analogy, I feel it would be disingenuous (or just poetic) to call clouds or a sunset a work of art by nature. It is simply a natural phenomenon, albeit a beautiful one. These 'AI' systems are more akin to a force of nature than conscious artists.
AI totally lacks the history and the reality of what is depicted something that is even more true in photography, when you capture a place it isnt some made up inexistant background, its an actual place you can visit and touch and breathe, and the people in it have actual emotions histories lives loved ones, you can find someone and have a talk with them about what was going on in their head in the moment you took that picture and they would have a personal, unique story to tell
Totally true! Reality is reality! :)
You are right, it is statistical model trained on someone else's work. So eventually a copycat which will add some weight/style of somebody based on the prompts. Can it be called art? I think yes(If someone can create an exhibition out of others Instagram posts) as based on your prompts it create create what you have in mind more or less, but what is value of such art if someone can replicate it in 10 minutes...
I wouldn't consider that exhibition much of anything either. It's not about value, it's about creative intent. No matter how much your prompt the thing, you can't actually control what it creates. It might as well be random and then you just select the one you like. This is, at best, a form of curation, not creation.
12:53 nice example of what also makes art art: you reacted to the light being turned on, changing an uninteresting scene into something more interesting, causing you to shoot a scene you otherwise wouldn't, creating nice output. AI doesn't walk around reacting and adjusting to things, taking into account creative choices based on your own ability and knowledge. It just sits there and churns out something that, at the time of request, is needed. Like you said, it makes pretty and sometimes interesting images, but it's not a creative output. I think AI is a tool to use to create and edit something, not to simply output a finished product.
Exactly! And on top of that it is something 'felt' not calculated. Though I guess you could make argument that my brain was doing the 'calculation' subconsciously and my subjective experience of that calculation is a 'feeling'. I guess, another way to frame this discussion is: can current AI systems 'feel' anything?
comparing Z 26 F/2.8 to Z 40 F2.0. fir street any idea?
They're completely different. It depends on how close you like to get and what kind framing you're going for. It's purely about your artistic intent and not the technicalities of the gear.
Excellent photo walk and rant. I completely agree with your view on the AI topic.
Thank you!! :)
AI art creeps me out, it's like looking at a nightmare.
I've had that sense as well! :)
I do understand your reasoning, but here's another angle to consider: how about thinking of Ai as yet another artists' tool? The creativity is in what you input, your choice of Ai software and in the selection of which image to present as the final work. Along the lines of taking loads of photos, working in photoshop on a few, then presenting a final finished image. Or Jackson Pollock experimenting with paint splashes; some control and planning is involved, but ultimately it was the serendipitous fall of the paint that resulted in successful images. Discuss…
Yeah, I've considered the tool idea, but what is a tool that does 99% of the actual work? Consider this as a counterpoint: I hire you and explain what I want, even in great detail, but you make the actual artwork. Am I an artist? You are! So in the case of AI, the 'prompter' is no an artist (or at least not much) in my view. The AI *could* be, but it lacks consciousness, which, to me, is a prerequisite for making art.
Regards to Jackson Pollock, I've seen his paintings in person a number of times. The amount of intention and control is deceptive. You think it's a lot of randomness, but then you see two of his paintings in a gallery side by side and you see they are completely different, even though the employ randomness there they took a lot of deliberate action. To put it another way, the serendipitous fall of the paint is not what makes his paintings successful works of art. AI takes away all of those opportunities for volition, and yet is has none of its own.
Also, there is no context or story in the A.I art. Like, the algorithm didn't cut it's ear off to prove a point
Yeah, there is no struggle. Can we have art without some kind of struggle? Maybe, but it cheapens it.
I belive the whole AI art argument is just a difference of semantics. This is the way I see it semantically - but bear in mind that this is just my personal take on it:
AI work is an aspect of art called Concepting.
Concepting is primairly vision.
Art is primarily vision + skill.
Craft is primarily skill + purpose.
Design is primarily vision + skill + purpose.
So for example, you can make crafts from kits provided by designers who make their kits available. Such as building a model Gundam or Train. Art does not require purpose to be art. And AI does not require any traditional media based technical skills to create a concept. It can be all dream work. Much like a manager would hand down board room ideas to designers to mockup a build, and then hand off to the craftsmen in the factory to execute en masse.
This way I consider the human element in AI work no different from upper management contribution to product design for example. The issue being that it's a handoff from concept to digital craftsman, with no extra design vision in the middle to come up with original work. It's that middle section that turns something derivative into something new and original. Even if it just seems like a superficial aesthetic choice to the layman.
The final problem is whether you can consider something derivative to be a final product. I personally do not, but that's just my opinion - And it disqualifies a lot of things that are purely derivative that no AI has ever touched. Which regardless of my opinion people still enjoy and are profitable.
✌️
You put it in an interesting frame work! I think this jives with what I said about commodification. You call it derivative; I call it mass-produced. I also totally agree that it's semantics, which is why I started with a general definition, but then boiled it down to the essential matter (for me), which is a conscious effort to something based on one's own feelings, experiences, memories, dreams, etc. :)
@@EYExplore I enjoy these kinds of topical chat videos, so thanks for sharing. I guess it's always a risk that they will be contentious, but I think it's quite interesting to hear ideas that connect photography to things in a broader sense. 👑
Just to clarify, I would say that mass-produced doesn't necessarily have to signify derivative to me. I think what I mean by derivative is a kind of montage of influences with no transformative vision to guide it into an original work, if you get me. Kind of like how the songs my teenage rock band wrote were just an uninspired hodge-podge amalgamation of our favourite bands. A copy that loses something with each iteration - Like the jpeg compression of artistic vision. 😂
Those bits of media that make you think: isn't this just X, but worse?
@@-grey I see what you mean! Yeah, that's a bit different, but there is often some overlap between the two concepts.
ai is a science not art because in art the person decides what is interesting, ai different calculations have to be done, using a machine to decide the outcome and interesting
That's a good way to put it too. :)
Some of the new Generative Remove and Generative Expand Tools bring photography closer to drawing and painting.
Very true! I guess it's because for so many people the goal is to produce an image. But to me, photography is not about images. It's about experiencing the universe as it is and sharing a small slice of that experience. Making drastic changes after the fact defeats the purpose.
All good points. I don't make my living in my art so there is that. I like using AI tools to enhance the creativity part of my own photography but it's not taking away my ability to make a living...yet.
Yeah, the business of art is a whole other issue and I might go into that in another video. :)
IA is always an intriguing argument lately. For me IA is just a tool, like a camera. You can give an IA to a random person and they can generate a random image. Same for a camera. But I'm sure if you give an IA to an artist, they can integrate it into the process of making art, exactly like cameras. So, in the end, I don't think IA are bad, but I also think that they can't make art by themselves, because they're just evolved tools.
You can certainly integrate AI, but I'm just talking about the output of AI by itself. Once you take that and start using it in some greater work the it just becomes a stock image, which we have had for decades. I don't think AI is bad either. I don't believe I said such anywhere in the video. :)
@@EYExplore yes sorry I wasn't referring to you about the "I don't think IA are bad", I was speaking in general because lots of people think it! And yeah I agree again, using IA to generate a part of an image can be considered like using a stock image, and honestly I think it's ok as long as you use it to create intentional art. I've never done such things but I have nothing against it
@@toby4e Same. Ultimately, we all use tools and ideas that came before us, but those inputs are unique to the individual and we consciously transform these external inputs into something new, while AI transforms a broad set of generalized inputs into something new but not consciously, rather through a statistical approach. It all sounds very inartistic to me haha. :)
I've never been to Ikebukuro at night, but judging from your walk it looks amazing. Gonna have to return there for an evening photo walk sometime :)
Anyway, interesting chat. And I agree with you. I also enjoy a little chess from time to time, and I'd like to think that is a better reflection of how we can coexist with AI rather than what a lot of doomers say! Cheers!
Thanks! I highly recommend Ikebukuro. It's such an underrated part of Tokyo. And yeah, there is so much doomspeak out there. I may be naive but I think it's all going work out to the positive end of the scale, just like it always has with new technologies. :)
I use AI to create art. The pictures are always different. I don't use it to create the same things that others do. The technology has a lot to offer. Before it was out for the public I already knew what I would use it for. Not for the same things.
Fair enough. In the end, what any individual calls 'art' is a subjective matter. :)
Hi Lukasz; just came across your personal website this week (not EYExplore) and was blown away by your corporate work... I didn't know you are far more than just a street photographer and tour guide! Which leads me to a comment/question on the subject of this video. Corporations aren't people, and art directors are notorious for being control freaks. If AI can generate 'the vision' of the art director without the aid of a photographer, aren't people like you in danger of losing a hunk of income? Won't that force many photographers out of making a full time living as artists? And won't that negatively impact manufacturers like Nikon when they see the market for 'Pro" cameras shrink? Cheers from Ireland!
Thank you so much for checking out my site and my client work! I am totally in danger of losing tons of income. But in some way, as I alluded to, I do feel that 'real' photos (not generated ones) may still appeal to some people, just like vinyl records or film photography does nowadays. But I agree it does not bode well for professional artists. I think we'll get through it somehow though, but that could be a 30 minute video by itself. :)
I agree with your points. I do not agree with the full pessimist idea that human artists will be replaced. However, I do think AI art will change things. I have no idea how long it will take, but with how passively most people consume art now days, I think human art will become more niche. It will eventually be very easy to be an AI artist that can pump out very realistic art; much easier than learning a craft. Social media scrollers will passively enjoy it and AI artists will make some level of income. However, people not passively enjoying art will seek out the human made art. It might even become more valuable than it is now. AI art may even force more people to enjoy human artists flaws. Less photoshop, less autotune, etc. Long way to say, I think human art will survive but I do expect to be drowning in AI art lol.
If people stop buying art and use ai then the artists are replaced. It's already happening.
Yeah, I agree with you sentiment. I think art is more about a personal creative journey than getting people's attention so I feel humans will always make art. But just like now, most of us will make derivative commodity images, not authentic works. In fact the real masses won't make anything at all, whether that's with the aid of AI or not. Most people are just consumers of media. And most media is a commodity. Even now. So, that's why to me, nothing really changes with the advent of AI images in the realm of art for art's sake. Of course, in the commercial art realm, the upheaval will continue.
For commercial purposes, yes, but AI can never replace an artist's desire to create. :)
To me ai is just a tool for me to complete my imagination. I only live in the present times of photography.
It certainly is a very useful too. :)
I could let an AI create paintings, pretend they're my creations, and watch countless people discuss whether they're good or bad art - not whether they're real art or not.
I'd be the only one to know they're discussing AI "art".
Then, when I died, the truth would die with me and the paintings would hang in the fancy museums and no one would know they're actually not real art at all.
Or I could set up a timelock that will release the truth in 100 years and people will have to throw the paintings. They were never real art after all.
Yeah, but now that we know the cat is out of the back digital works like this will always be in question. I often see work now and the first I thought I have is: is this AI generated? A painting is real physical object done with paint. What you're describing is a digital image. I feel the value of such images is being greatly diluted by the advent of machine learning and AI generated imagery. Everything is in doubt now.
This is why the debate matters. What we call 'art' needs to be defined and to me it's not the 'image' that makes something art, but the intent. And AI has no intent.
Your imagination is what you tell the A.I in my opinion that’s still art in
There is some art in that, I agree. But it's only a tiny fraction compared to say a painting. A simple analogy is this: if I imagine something, but then pay artist to create it... how much did I really contribute?
Thought provoking topic, Lukasz. IMO art has taken much wider general meanings, with AI having its own place. Remember “Mr. Potato Head”? AI is kind of like that but many times more pieces are there ready to assemble per some kind of “master plan” - the AI plan is akin to “creativity” w/a level of magnitude approaching or exceeding human levels. Our thought processes (e.g., where does an ”ear” belong) boil down to learned instructions, like AI programming. Zoo animals slopping paint on canvas are said by some to be making art. A literal photograph of a potato (remember that one?) sold as “art” for a high price. I suppose the value we place on something is also a determinative factor.
BTW, nice colorful metal door - hope you didn’t attract security’s attention, thinking you might be casing the place😊. Cheers!
Thanks for the feedback! Glad it was though provoking. I guess to me, it's not so much about magnitude but about feeling. It matters where it comes from. If it comes from a consciousness which can exhibit curiosity, wonder, sorrow, and then struggles to create, then I call it art. If a machine can just plonk out infinite variations then it's not art. Simple as that for me. :)
Your layman understanding of how AI currently works is more or less spot on, AI at the moment is just mathematical models based off of stats and linear algebra that are fed a ton of data until the desired result is produced. The worst part in my opinion is that it uses already existing art for its training, so it'll never be able to come up with new styles, concepts, ideas etc. just poorly mimic existing ones. AI has a ton of potential as a tool for actual artists, but not as a replacement for them
Yeah I didn't even mention that it's kind of basically just plagiarism. I mean, that's up for debate and I'm not convinced of it myself, which is why I didn't mention it, but it's a bit sketchy. I guess we, as artist, all take in the art of others and then transform that in some way in our natural neural nets in order to create our own art. So, it's similar to that I suppose. And yeah, as you mentioned, it seems it has no capability of synthesizing new because it is naturally shackled by the data its trained on. So, as you say, it's just a tool, but it does not produce art purely by itself. It can only be a component in a work, kind of like stock photography.
@@EYExplore yeah the plagiarism argument is a tricky one, if it's being trained on someone's art without said artists permission then definitely, if not then it's not so clear cut
open to discuss::::
is photogrqphy art ? not too sure
I discuss that in the video at length around the 21 minute mark. Did you watch the whole thing?
But yes, *in my opinion, it is art. The defining feature is the conscious decision by the photographer to point the camera in a certain direction and press the shutter at a certain moment, thus capturing a unique moment in time and space, never to be repeated again. That conscious decision is required in art, in my opinion.
Hello ; I used different lenses many times in Bangkok for street photography; I think even 28mm is too wide for this type of photography. 26 mm is too wide for street photography; That 40 mm Viogtlander lens of yours would have given better framing; After 17 years of photography, I came to the conclusion that 35 mm is the best for street photography, and 40 mm gives a very beautiful rendering, and it is also great for this type of photography; Even because the Nikon 28 mm lens is useless; I sold it and got a viogtelender 58 1.4 slii instead; which is one of the best 58 mm among different brands.
It depends on your city, and how much context you want. I find 40mm to be the closest lens I want for daily use. 24mm or 28mm is ideal for me.
Isnt Bangkok a pretty densely packed city?
It’s true that 28mm isn’t easy if you have wide streets or not many people around. I still shoot mainly 28 even when I moved from a huge city to a medium sized one. It’s more difficult but 28mm has so many advantages over longer lenses that I don’t think I‘d ever go longer than 35mm
I've been using 28mm for years and have tons of street photos taken with it. There are many other photographers that us 28mm for street (Gary Winogrand is a famous example who swore by 28mm). There are no rules in photography and there is no lens 'too wide' or 'too long' or 'too' anything for street photography. Express yourself how want to express yourself! :)
@@-grey If you want to photograph urban architecture; 24 and 28 mm is definitely a better option; But from daily life style, definitely 35 mb to 40 mb
@@TheChosenOne_ Yes, Bangkok is dense and has a dense urban lifestyle; But I came to the conclusion while photographing with Nikon 28 1.8 that it is too wide for this space and it was necessary to crop; After using 45 mm, it did not open from my camera; Definitely for architectural photography of buildings and structures 28 and 24; People's lifestyle 35 mm
this is proof of how art is subjective cause that blue doesn't look good my brother, to me.
Totally! :)
Interesting approach and I share your opinion, it still a long discussion on it. And as a graphic designer and photographer, I think it disturbs the creative process and breaks the sense of creativity. Even though I tried it by curiosity and a few prompts "as a new tool", I stopped after a few steps, because I felt I would kill my own creativity if I started to think of using AI (I mean in terms of conceptual and art approach).
Yeah, I played around with it too. It felt pointless. Like, okay, it made a cool image for me, but the product had no life and I had no emotional connection to it. It's just a mass-produced dead object.
Radości z tworzenia takiego... dzieła tyle co na słuchaniu kazania księdza na mszy kościelnej. :)
Hahahaha, wspaniałe porównanie! :)
@@EYExplore Amen :) :D
Except that the human behind the prompt is imagining something so your point is mute. You're basically saying that photography isn't art because the camera doesnt have human consciousness.
Yeah but imagination does not equal creation. For example, I am imaging a beautiful painting right now, but I have no capability to create the painting.
I have much more control over the camera than the prompter has over the AI. Also, I explore this notion in the video, specifically saying that by this definition photography is not as much 'art' as say painting. I explain that maybe there is a sliding scale of how much 'art' an activity is. If painting is 100%, maybe photography is 80%, and AI prompting is .01% lol.
As another example, instead of prompting an AI, what happens if you take your imagined idea and tell a human artist to execute it for you? Are you an artist too? I guess you get some credit for the concept, but the title of artist belongs to the executor of the art. With AI, the desire to make art ('volition') and the execution/creation are split between a conscious human and a statistical model.
I'd say AI is more like a force of nature. Do we call clouds in the sky works of art? No, they just occur as a consequence of reality. So it is with machine learning algorithms that create images. :)
@@EYExplore you could give it a shot with AI and see if you like it. It's just a tool, like anything else. Imagination and creation are pretty closely linked, id say.
@@BraveNewWorldAH I've tried it. It's fun for a minute. But not useful for me. Art is not about the result for me. It's about the experience. Sitting on my ass at home and letting the computer do the work is not interesting. :)
I think AI is a weird thing that make people NOT creative. Lr is a powerful device and requires from users some things to edit pics. Every time I see some arts with AI, I don't look at them positively. No offense. Have a nice day mate! 🙂
Yeah, that's what I think too! It takes away so much of the decision making from the human that it reduces our creativity to an idea and a few works.
A.I. lacks soul.
We're on the same page. :)
To me, it's one of 2 thing: either art isn't objective, nor even subjective, it's a personal interpretation from whoever is engaging in it to deem whether it's art to them or not; everything is art. Is it art as a final product? Of course, but there could be no or little artistic process, just like nature -- nature creates beautiful things, but are they art when there's no intention of it being art? In my opinion, that's up to you and the conversation gets too granular about specific scenarios. I'm sure some have and still would argue shooting an automatically processed JPG isn't art because of the lack of process, when the intent to shoot a frame is not much different then dictating a frame to an AI system.
I'm fundamentally against AI art as a consumer and appreciator of the details of what go into the process, who already finds plenty of his own work too shallow. I think it's inevitable and it's a shame how many smaller jobs will be axed because of it. Still, it's important to embrace the tech while we're early on in it and not shoo it off and let it get out of your hands when it'll eventually be what puts some artists over the edge. I find myself using generative fill a lot in my work, especially in Panoramas, to fill in little details, or to more seamlessly remove flaws from harsh conditions on photos that I felt were ruined by too much snow on the lens. It's here to stay whether we like it or not and it's not inherently evil and it's art to some, not to others and there's no objective truth here.
Nature is a great example. We consider nature beautiful, but few call the clouds in the sky on a given day a work of art (unless they are being poetic). The clouds just... are. I agree though that is is this kinda grey zone of what constitutes intention and what is automatic. I alluded to that in my rant somewhere in the first 10 minutes. But nonetheless, when I click the shutter button I can be quite certain what the camera will do. The resulting image is mostly up to me, not the machine. This is not so with prompts an AIs.
Anyway, I don't make a claim to objective truth. I thought I made it pretty plainly clear that this is all my opinion. But I still hold that opinion firmly. To me art is not just an image. It comes from a conscious process. That conscious volition is integral in the art. Without struggle, there is no artistic essence. It simply an image just like clouds are simply water vapor strewn by wind.
Damn my comment deleted itself so just the short form.
Can AI make art? Yes, otherwise where is cut off. If I give prompts with my ideas to a talented and experienced artist who is making art? I‘d say both of us. If you replace him with AI, now I’m also not making art?
Can AI make photographs? No, because its depiction of something that actually existed.
What I don’t like is the mixture of AI and photography and people not clarifying if something is AI or actually a photograph. It’s like achieving a highscore in a videogame and someone else edited the textfile where the scores are stored. Does it look like we both have high scores? Yes, but only one person actually achieved it.
No it can't make art. Art is human creativity. A human isn't creating anything by typing in some words.
I personally don't feel giving prompts to an artist makes you an artist. I do a lot of work for clients. They give me a brief, a plan of what they need photographed, etc. They still hire me and pay me to do the work because I am the actual artists. Sure, they can have some credit, maybe 1-3% of the total. So, if you are prompting an AI you are 1-3% artist. The AI is 0% artists because its not conscious. Consciousness is a prerequisite for art in my book. The reason is that art comes from a desire, a compulsion to create, a curiosity about reality that in intrinsic. Current AIs have non of that. They are just statistical models.
I also agree totally with your high score analogy, but I don't it only applies to photography. The achievement also exists in painting or digital art. Sure, the AI can create an image but there is no 'achievement' because there is no struggle! In fact, it is the struggle itself that gives meaning to art. Struggle can only come from desire, which comes from consciousness.
@@EYExplore your photography client analogy is a good point, I haven't thought about that. Instinctly I would say the photographer does 100% but there is a kind of co-creation if a client gives limits, ideas etc. And with you agreeing on the small artistic contribution that a prompt writer has I dont think we even disagree on the topic - It's a gradient in my book. Or maybe I'm interpreting you differently and worded my response wrongly because yes, AI "itself" cant make art, I'm just of the opinion that the person that uses AI makes art in a way by directing and influencing the outcome. An engineer still created a valve and calculated the specifications even if the CAD program has presets and automatically simulated fluid dynamics.
Hm interesting point about the struggle. I think I'm more of a semantics and technicality guy and often ignore the philosophical side, so I'll just have to say that I havent thought too much into the topic. Maybe consciousness is also gradient in different art forms. Photography from my experience, and the first couple of years, definitely requires less consciousness when creating because you can get satisfying results even as a total beginner, other than say painting. Just photographing, without thinking, spray and pray, automodes etc - is that really consciously creating art? Using AI as your artistic processor is then maybe just pushing it further into in that direction. You literally need zero skills or thought to create pleasing things.
To conclude I think using AI as a way to create Art is legit. Saying its a lesser art would maybe be too elitist (even though I think so). Its just another step after sky replacements and generative fill. I think the funny discussion will be when general AI is achieved aka human like thinking, is that entity then able to create art because it is able to think like humans? I think thats a question for another time though 😂
@@TheChosenOne_ "You literally need zero skills or thought to create pleasing things."
But you see, for me the thought is necessary for it to be called ART. Creating something beautiful with zero thought is not art, to me. If some day we create a thinking machine that can make decisions for itself and that machine choose to make aesthetic objects, images, whatever, then we should call it art.
don't really think you know what you're talking about here
How so? It's easy to just say that without explaining why you think so. :)
I would love to debate this with you. How is AI Art NOT art? yes. you're entering prompts to generate an image, but it's the person's imagination that creates the scene, the posing, the clothing, the situation, the colors. Everything is generated out of your mind, the machine just compiles it to a graphic.
If this isn't art, then are renders make in Poser and DAZ Studio also not art? After all, we buy someone else's meshes, pose them, and hit render. Akin to this, isn't computational photography also NOT art? I mean yeas, the photographer had the idea, but it was the computer that generated the final product.
Doesn't editing a photo remove it from being art? I mean, you used a computer to manipulate an image away from what you originally saw to make it more attractive to your mind. (Of course, discounting something like using the wrong settings, and not having a photo bright enough, and the like.)
Finally, the original definition had something about creating something beautiful. Does that mean that all horror is not art, as it's not particularly beautiful, and can be downright graphic and gory. Even a painting of The Crucifixion- a human being was tortured and nailed to a chunk of wood- how is that "beautiful?"
I believe that it's simply a next step in creation of a visual medium. As such, it should not be judged any more than sculpture was judged against painting, dance was against drama (or comedy), or tattoos against pencil sketch.
..Joe
Thanks for comment! Did you watch the whole video? I feel I addressed some of these points with my examples. As I said, it's about the conscious effort of making decisions in the process of creating the work. It's not about digital or not digital. It's not about manipulation. The issue is that AI (in its current state) is not conscious. The prompt is NOT the work. The work is what the AI produces. Since it is not conscious it is not making decisions in the human sense. There is sense of self in the artwork. It is simply a commodity.
Let me put it another way. If a carpenter make a table by hand, he or she is an artist. But if you put together an Ikea table with instructions, are you an artist? You had little input in the decisions that produced the table, therefore, I would argue, you are not an artist. But neither is the table!
And so it is with AI. The prompter has very little input on the final work. The AI makes decisions in a statistical way, not in a conscious way. So, neither the prompter or the AI are making art in the fullest sense (according to the definition I lay out in the beginning of the video). Beauty was in the definition but as I emphasized, the crux of the matter is consciousness and volition. Also, do not doubt that AI generated images are beautiful. They are, but that's no the foundation of art.
I'm not judging the aesthetic qualities of AI generated images. I am judging their essence as objects in the universe. I am simply labeling them. Just as I don't label a mass-produced product like a plastic cup or disposable spoon to be art, I don't label mass-produced images created without consciousness to be art.
Ai is a tool just like a camera. Ai doesn't produce anything without someone prompting it to do so. Maybe someday it will happen but not today.
Its not a tool. Its a replacement because the images are made for free. Almost everyone would prefer free to something that costs a lot. I see ai "artists" selling it for $1 per image and its destroying illustration jobs.
Yeah, it is certainly a tool, but it's a tool that does most of the 'work' and it does so without a conscious understanding of what it's doing. So, it cannot be an artist (not conscious) and the prompter is also not an artist because they didn't do the work. Again, it's just my opinion that consciousness is essential for creating art. :)
Wow the "nicest" city in the U.S. is a total dump compared to Japan.
Haha, which one is the nicest?