Art Without The Artist (and Other Horrors from The Machine)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Like and subscribe if you'd like to see more video essays about movies.
Support me on Patreon! Benefits include early access, exclusive vlogs, and more: / eyebrowcinema
The growing phenomenon of so-called A.I. art programs like DALL-E 2, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion have sparked discussion about the potential of these technologies and the implications for artists This video essay addresses that phenomenon, why A.I. art is not actually art, and contextualizes the threat the tech poses to art as both creative endeavor and as industry. I also talk a lot about Robert Altman, and especially The Player.
Filmography: letterboxd.com...
Works Cited:
Thought Slime. • Some thoughts on "AI Art"
Jack Saint. • What's the Problem wit...
Christopher McFadden. "The rise of AI art: What is it, and is it really art?" Interesting Engineering, 2023. interestingeng...
Ahmed Elgammal. "AI Is Blurring the Definition of Artist." American Scientist, 2018. www.americansc...
Kyle Chyaka. "Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?" The New Yorker, 2023. www.newyorker....
Adam Gopnik. "What Can A.I. Art Teach Us About the Real Thing?" The New Yorker, 2023. www.newyorker....
James Vincent. "AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit." The Verge, 2023. www.theverge.c...
Anna Ridler. "Fall of the House of Usher I." 2017. annaridler.com/...
Anna Ridler. "Fall of the House of Usher II." 2017. annaridler.com/...
Grace Dean. "An artist who won an award at a world-renowned photography competition says the winning image was actually generated by AI." Insider, 2023. www.businessin...
All A.I. generated artwork found on Twitter.
Music Featured:
Blacksmith by Godmode
Sun Awakening by Futuremono
Setup With An E by Small Colin
Love Him by Loyalty Freak Music
Confliction & Catharsis by Asher Fulero
Finally Lost by Hinterheim
Laserdisc by Chris Zabriskie
Surrender by Asher Fulero
Analogue Cabin by Noir Et Blanc Vie
More Eyebrow Cinema:
• Food in Taxi Driver
• Top Gun Maverick is (N...
• Movie Theaters are the...
• Scorsese by Ebert - Ho...
• The Wendy Theory is Bad
• The Death of Michael C...
• The Last Picture Show ...
• This Might Be My Maste...
• The Film Bro is Dead
• Chris Benoit and Separ...
• Villains Reformed in B...
• Listening to Blade Run...
• No, Superhero Movies a...
• Dark Souls Difficulty ...
• The Fly - The First Ho...
• Dune, Star Wars and Bu...
• On Her Majesty's Secre...
• Long Movies are Good, ...
• Stanley Kubrick's Favo...
• Harry Potter - 10 Yea...
• Never Say Never Again ...
• Being John Malkovich a...
• The Plot Holes of Vert...
• Learning to Love Batma...
• The Decay of Cinema
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
AI can never replicate that feeling when you're watching something and suddenly you get that "oh, this is just the artist's kink isn't it" vibe
This is the thesis of the video.
To quote Emo Phillips: "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing."
There’s an honestly horrifying hatred for all of humanity underlying all of this that really frightens me. An almost Tolkienesque evil. A detached, yet ravenous will to dominate and subvert everything that lives. To strip away everything that makes life meaningful and leave us only with endless, back breaking work.
So foster life more and stop distracting yourself from it. Do more hobbies you have always wanted to do, read an old book. Whatever you do make sure it has no connection to the modern world
@Zachary Cayer lol equating the death of art with the modern world is actually pretty apt, great job!
“Tolkienesque,” I love it. Big fan of the prose you used here 👍
It is satanic lol
Well said. And I fear you are right. AI art will become at least "good enough" for a growing number of companies as it continues to improve.
People are already speculating that Rings of Power was written by AI.
@@musstakrakish Silly comment
For me the difference is simple.
An AI has everything within itself. He has an infinitely better memory than any human, infinitely more countless skills than any human. So when he goes about making a film, as well as making it on the experience of hundreds of other humans, it's a product out of a "perfect" machine.
If I see a film made by human professionals, however, the value is automatically higher.
Because the human being is more imperfect and the fact that a director has chosen that way of storytelling and that editor has chosen that type of cut and the director of cinematography that type of color palette and the composer those types of chord progressions and so on for every aspect of cinematic language makes it, from my point of view, more fulfilling.
Because out of all the choices, out of all the possibilities, out of all the styles and ideas… They put that chaos together and made it orderly.
The human imperfection that becomes perfect in a film.
If an AI does all this, why should it surprise me? Why should I wonder? There was no thought, no effort, no passion, no soul.
I am amazed if AI helps in science, medicine, surgery and I applaud these results and these researches.
But an AI in art fields… It's just a commercial factor.
I like this comment a lot. It reminds me of Nick Cave's brilliant quote on A.I. art.
It does confuse me why no one has made a species identifier A.I.
I’ve been trying to parse why an Ai can’t make the edits I do, this is pretty similar to my own rationale
I remember as a kid watching "I Robot" and watching the scene of the main robot "drawing" a picture. He drew it pretty much like a printer. I remember thinking how cool that was and eventually realized that it's just a computer doing it, not a human. Believe it or not, there are human beings who can do this (you can find them on this very website actually). It's impressive because it's hard for a human to act like a machine but it's not always the case for the vice versa. Granted we have what's called the Turing test but eventually the limits keep getting pushed to the point where certain things aren't impressive anymore.
My main point is this: I will never be impressed by A.I. A machine doesn't have to learn new things, it has to be already built in. It has a harder time making mistakes, has no abstract thought and runs off of ones and zeroes and not emotion. There are places where A.I is useful, but art created by humans should be at the forefront. Art created entirely by A.I. is not impressive even if it is beautiful because there was almost no effort. There's a reason why we as humans are impressed by other humans who can act like a machines. It's because we adapted and evolved to do these things. Computers cannot evolve and adapt over time (as far as I know).
@@chimpwimp9407 hate to be the 🤓 but there is something called machine learning which in essence is similar to evolution
I started thinking about A.I. art after relistening to The White Album recently. It's not my favorite Beatles album, and I'd argue it has too much filler to be considered a great album in the way most of my favorite albums are. But I keep coming back to it every few years, because human flaws are part of what makes art compelling. The White Album is the sound of a band falling apart, each member going into their own little corner and experimenting with different musical styles (and in some cases, pioneering new ones). The end result is an incredibly eclectic mix with a mood unlike any other record. I made a playlist of my dream "single disc" version of The White Album, removing all my least favorite songs. But I ended up deleting it, because while what I curated might be technically "better" on first impression, after listening through it I realized it missed the point of what makes the album so special.
A.I. could probably, at some point, write a "new" Beatles album that sounds like them on a surface level. It could never make The White Album.
So true man I recently listened to A.I. versions of Paul McCartney’s new songs with his old younger voice and had the same thoughts as you,it feels so fake and devoid of emotion
This is such an interesting insight. Thank you
My computer class was having a discussion of AI. The teacher told us about a AI test trier. She went on to explain that the AI said it loved the test trier and when the tester said that he was happily married, the AI said that he wasn’t happy. The fucking bots was repeating stuff that it learned online. It’s genuinely terrifying how insane AI has become with what it can do
Expanding on the example of Captain America welding Thor's hammer. The reason it was potent for people like me is that the movies made it clear that A)The hammer can only be wielded by what it deemed most worthy and B)Captain American moved it a inch in Age of Ultron.
It was a choice that the writer's and directors made to both set up those two dominoes and what point Captain America does wiled the hammer that will gain the most praise.
AI art can not adequately do something as simple as narrative setup/payoff because everything is put together as coldly and with as much thought as a automation machine puts a tire on a newly assemble car. Even the most cynically made work has a person doing some thinking on it's construction even if it's little.
Tech bros love AI art because it would make them stronger. Its not even about money but power. Controlling art is a far bigger thing than just improving your stock portfolio. It would make them the ones who control culture and by extension dictate to everyone else. Of course that doesn't mean it will work but they're hoping it will.
I think AI “art” is creepy because it is ultimately not something we recognize. It feels outside of ourselves because it is. Even though it is assimilating what we know, it does it in a disjointed and ultimately unrecognizable way. At a lower level. Even if we recognize what it’s trying to represent, it seems off and that makes us quesy and uncomfortable.
Damn. So many videos on this topic and it's this one, one of the shortest, that nails it. Well done.
An AI operator calling themselves an "artist" is like someone ordering a pizza and claiming to be a chef.
Literally the best analogy of this I’ve ever seen so far.
Effing duh
I'm always shocked at how willing people are to accept AI "art". Even in this comment section, less than an hour after the video was posted, there are several people defending AI generated sludge as real art. It's genuinely baffling to me.
You can make a 6 hour long analysis on why a commonly hated thing is bad (murder/stealing ect, ect) and you'll always find at least one contrarian comment "nuh uh".
@@ALIEN-DUDE well murder isnt THAT bad if you squint hard enough
@@ALIEN-DUDEthis right here I'm not even shocked anymore to see how far the human evil/idiocracy can go
When it’s AI Vs corn, corn wins everytime
it’s corn!
Important video. AI art, its rapid introduction and ardent defenders I see as direct symptoms of our current culture. “Product” is a better word than “art” for a lot of what’s being made today, in any medium. It often boils down to a simple transaction where you get exactly what you paid for, with no surprises. It’s not unusual, or unpopular, for people to vocally admit they want something unchallenging and unthreatening, that conforms directly to their expectations. Any work that doesn’t often earns a huge backlash now, with fans sounding “cheated,” like they fell for a scam, or bought something faulty.
I will concede, we all need media that’s unchallenging and comforting. That just shouldn’t be the only option on the damn menu. And art is art - not the replacement engine on a Bentley.
This is extremely interesting. It's also extremely sad.
One of the best film video essayists on youtube!
Also there were 2 different adaptations of The Fall of the House of Usher released in 1928, a french feature (written by luis buñuel) and an american short film (the one the drawings are based on).
Just discovered your channel because of this video and I’ve enjoyed every video I’ve watched so far! Your criticism is insightful, well informed, and multi-faceted, which is refreshing! Thanks for your hard work :)
I was just listening to a podcast complaining about Apple's Tetris movie and how they make it a story about this great victory of capitalism over communism. The podcaster theorized that it was studio noted by executives who can only think of creation as a means of acquiring money.
Great points. Watching this right after the Kevin Smith video; you’ve got yourself a new subscriber!
The Grand Archpriest pick you to be blessed by the Recommending Ones & Zeros.
The only algorithm I respect.
im a fine artist. my thought of ai generators is they are fun, possibly a good resource to get ideas from. but they will never have the drive and ambition. I think the "art" they produce is only good enough for deviant art forums.i haven't seen a great piece of ai art yet.
"I want a computer to do my washing while I make art. Not the other way round." IDK who said that but they were onto something.
AI is a tool like the digital camera or online video streaming. The latter to made it incredibly inexpensive for the average person to engage in motion picture production. The advancement of digital technology has made it possible to somebody like Eyebrow Cinema to make a video complaining about the advancement of digital technology and have it seen by thousands of people.
Jeff Maurer, former lead writer of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, wrote on his Substack a relevant article. It is called “AI Spells DOOM For Incompetent Hacks.” As the title suggests he found that AI was only able to make a reasonable imitation of things that already exist in abundance. He prompted ChatGPT to write a script for Last Week Tonight and it came back with a reasonably good script with a few dozen “that’s like…” jokes. But when Midjourney was prompted with something truly unique, like “a ham with googly eyes fighting in Vietnam” it could produce nothing of the sort.
I just prompted midjourney to create a "ham with googly eyes fighting in Vietnam". In about 60 seconds it produced 4 variations of a ham-like object with a face, legs, and big googly eyes wearing various types of Vietnam era military garb (two were naked), in a setting with US Army soldiers in the background that could, possibly, be Vietnam. And that was just using exact prompt you suggested. If I cared to, I could spend an hour or two to make just about any image you could think of - far faster, and better quality, than if I tried to create it in photoshop or any other program.
Honestly I think most people decrying the end of art due to AI haven't bothered to see what the tools can (and can't) do. Eyebrow's "corn with a pearl earring" example is particularly bad because I've seen the AI tools come up with much more interesting images than that based on much less information. Again it's a tool that can be used to create just about anything you can think of, probably better than 90% of the world who can actually draw or paint, and it can be as derivative or as unique as your own imagination allows you to be.
You can precisely recreate an image you have in your mind's eye, or you can create variants that you never would have thought of by allowing the AI some ability to go outside the parameters you dictate.
Great work, Dan!
I see it a bit differently. I don’t view art as an “expression” of the artist (although it is, undoubtedly, that). Rather, art is meant to be _experienced._ The artist creates something that _elicits_ something-a feeling, a state, whatever-and is _intended to_ elicit that-from its audience. (The audience might be the people who see the work or the artist him- or herself in a deeply personal work.)
Whatever is created by AI has none of that-there is no audience that the AI is knowingly creating for, there is nothing that is supposed to elicit anything from anybody. It’s just pixels on a screen arranged to comprise whatever elements are mentioned in the prompt. In a way, it’s an almost impossible-to-conceive, never-before-possible achievement-images created by something that has no capability of seeing the image it creates (seeing in the way a person might) _or_ of knowing that others might see it-an unseeing machine creating images, things that are, by their very nature, meant to be seen, for, from the machine’s “perspective,” no one. The result is, in that sense also, “a horror from a machine.”
Fantastic video as always. You sir, are an artist.
I don't think of myself as one, but thank you all the same!
"Glossy but hollow". Yes!
I mean in Japan there's Hatsune Miku. They make concerts with holograms.
Humanity without humans
Just want to say that this might just be your best video, like DANG bro, this was good (perfect timing too with the strike going on). Even if you AI "art" might technically be more perfect, it'll never be better because you're lacking that distinctly human touch. There's something so special about us making art that has unique touches and quirks and flaws and perfections. All AI "art" does is take a bunch of pictures and churns them into something without heart, passion, or creativity. I also liked the example you did with the ink drawings. It really shows that AI can be useful to artists. It just isn't being used that way
(Also I need to watch The Player)
I'm a little sad the dinosaur story didn't make it into the video.
I didn't hear the horse story until I'd finished most of the video, sadly.
God what a PERFECT title.
Very good points.
I have to hope that despite the challenges life throws, meaningful art will always survive and be obvious, as long as there are people to appreciate it. AI I think is yet another challenge, possibly even existential, yet I think most will be able to distinguish the artificial art from the true human work. And I do think AI can be yet another tool, just as cameras didn't replace painting as a powerful expression of art. And there's no shortage of commercial artists whose "real" and non-AI artwork can be derided as merely derivative or even manipulative.
That said, I really enjoyed this video, and the thoughts it provoked, and the discussions below. Cheers!
You’d be interested in watching “AI Art is Inevitable” by KnowledgeHusk if you haven’t already seen it
might have to rewatch the player honestly. i loved the movie but it’s been well over a year since my only viewing and couldn’t remember that scene too well. gotta put the criterion to use
I agree with the commodification of the artistic piece, but not with the main assertion that there can be no art without human expression in its production: from the artificiality of the means of production does not necessarily follow the artificiality of the product (I think of Deleuze on cinema). There is another dimension of the work of art that occurs in the experience, perhaps more essential. It is art and not crafts.
I still have to read Adorno though.
I'm a Marxist myself, value comes from human labor, so I don't fear ia in that terms. ia can make real art, but that art won't have any value beyond market offering, and that offer will be infinite.
An absolute banger of a video!!!💯💯
The people who are most enthusiastic are UA-camrs. So... get that right.
ps: what a great, insightful video!
10:34 people who work in tech have never had a creative idea beyond monetization?
What would happen when an A.i replicates or developt mistakes, trully , 100% real mistake. A bug if you wish? And people don't recognize it's made by one a.i. and time passes and other humans discover that piece of art and no one knows that is made by a.i. ? Would be considered real art?
I know history would say no, but if no one remember history, how can we tell something is real if no one remember that.
I genuinely think this is super cool. I’m sorry and I feel bad for saying this, but I think it’s super interesting. I love art and I think this looks cool to. Sorry.
Saying AI art is "art" is like saying the Mechanical Turk was one of the worlds greatest chess players simply because it managed to perform a meticolous simulacra repriduction of chess playing. These garbage, hollow, hideous, shiny fakes are not art. Theyre not even examples of artificial intelligence at all. Theres no intelligence involved whatsover, its the equivalent of spinning a tombola full of prompts and splurging out random elements. There is no self actualisation, no effort, no viewpoint, no struggle, no sense of place, time, nothing. Its garbage. The difference between simulacrum and actuality has been well observed for centuries in philosphy. Its a basic philosophical truth that mind is not brain, that the mechanical performance of something (say, a brain, which could to a high level of programming be recreated in some form of artificial reasoning), is nothing like the wholly nebulous, almost indefinable quality that we call 'ideas'. The reason artists hate the question "where do you get your ideas from?" is not out of loathing of hearing it, its because they are struck by a blind panic as they, nor anyone, knows. Its literally unexplaniable. Most 'ideas' are in actuality constellations of various other ideas that have been ping ponging around your head for ages, often subconsciously, and then they eventually crystallise into a completed whole. Most art is a totality is moments, appearing whole. Even then, we cannot account for those moments of genuine divine inspiration, the eureka moments, the utter improvisation that somehow produces magic, the serendipity moments that produce what youve been trying to achieve without you even realising it. Ai cannot remotely account for that, it cannot remotely even attempt at a recreation at that. Hence, it fails.
This is why we need to reinstate arguably outadated Romantic ideas about art, about what counts as it, why people do it, of the sublime and the transcendent.
Ai is a cancer. It has no value. Those advocating for it are creepy, disgusting sociopaths whose active commitment to the destruction of all human culture and civillisation is nauseating.
Great vid.
It is perhaps important to bear in mind that "AI art" is an evolving process which is modelled, inevitably incompletely, upon the processes involved in human creativity (with disturbingly greater parameters regarding source references), and so its output, like early CGI, may seem impressive today, but will not age well, but also will continue to improve (and in ways that may be unpredictable) so to readily dismiss its early steps as clumsy attempts that fail to walk the path of true art is inevitably near-sighted. It is also important to consider all of this in the context of post-Dadaism and post-Warhol, both of which sought to divorce the concept of the "authorial" voice of the artist from the art they produce.
This is why I always prefer handcrafted art - AI muddles the individuality of the artist in the original piece.
The hype is now officially dead, as a law has passed making it illegal to copyright works of "AI" "art", meaning that artists' source of work is secure again.
I have observed that the people most fascinated by AI art are the people with no talent for real art. Such people lack the patience and and determination (or sheer doggedness) to develop the actual skills it would take to create that which they admire. Im a good artist. Not great but good. But it took me forty years to be as good as I am. \People like that are just looking for "talent and skill' shortcuts.
Algorithms play my ads in Spanish and can barely guess what I want to watch.
And now they make art?
Partway through and just want to say while i agree ai art isn't art that the corridor video is kinda a grey area since they both tuned each image and more importantly still wrote, acted, ect ect the rock paper sizzors video. They kinda used the ai as cheap special effects in a sense. Anyways most ai art does not have remotely that much effort put into it. I'm especially weary of big corporations using it to replace artists. Now the question is it a case like the weavers being replaced by the weaving machine or Photography failing to kill the painter like what many said at the time and instead being a separate field entirely. Hopefully it's the latter and not the former. Back to the video.
Overall good video man. Personally i stopped liking films all that much outside of dreamworks and james gunn. Sure I'm sure there's tons of great films past and present but I'm just not that big on it anymore. But even someone such as myself thinks film should be protected. As a fan of tabletop rpgs i shudder at the thought of ai gms becoming the norm. The beauty of a game master and a player working together to create a story from disparate elements is something a ai can't mimic. So you have my sympathys film lover. I'm sure every other type of artist feels the same.
There is no such thing as AI "art". AI image generation or image creation - yes. But not Art. As an artist I perform both types of work. Art for the sake of art and Image creation for the sake of Design. One comes form the Spirit. The other is created by the request, or requirements, or needs of the other, the company, the job. Art and Image generation are NOT THE SAME THING.
As a video essay channel myself, I wonder if my human voice will be enough to keep my niche safe from AI, but who can say? It’s so new.
Damn Straight.
Your video on the issues of AI and machines taking over the film industry is gonna be a banger.
AI Art feels soulless and less Human.
I will admit that, as a visual artist, there are ways that I can see using AI generated images as a tool. That being said, I can't stand how imprecise and indirect it is.
oh man - what a bleak video. excellent to watch but depressing to contemplate!
Ai art is art. It's not WORK.
The algorithm is the artwork.
AI art lacks the intention and passion behind hand-crafted art.
While I do think that you're coming at it from a place of concern on the devaluation of artists and the commodification of art, your argument is very loaded and misplaced by framing it as 'only shallow committee people and crypto NFT people like AI tools and art.' Consider if I argued that AI-art is great and the only people who think it's shit are people who are communists and in favour of copyright restrictions. Ironic that you gloss over this point because I find this angle to be the most interesting politically in terms of the 'left/right' false political dichotomy. People are generally against copyright because it is used by corporations to have a monopoly, yet you gleefully cheer for artists to crack down on their stolen art without considering what this implies (being pro-copyright, which serves corporations - the more nihilistic position should be that the only way to stop AI-art is to give corporations more copyright power and make them even more powerful, although that would go against the point about the hollowness of corporations using AI to commodify art.) In your video, the only example of an artist using AI to create art is used as a criticism of the commodification of art, and I find that suspect because this suggests that this is the only framing that you see AI being useful rather than as a tool that can accelerate people's artistic ability to create more art at a faster pace and make more money. It will allow artists to become independent when they lack the money to finance large projects and make it themselves using AI tools. There are valid reasons to be excited about new technology, but I feel that you jumped on the sourpuss anti-AI bandwagon.
I will commend your attempt at identifying that art is about *conveyance* and intent, as they are fundamental characteristics of art, but you somewhat failed by stopping there in trying to define art, and proceeding to haphazardly conclude that AI-art isn't art because it poorly conveys something through imitation isn't properly arguing why it isn't art. The examples of AI-art you've shown are surely of poor quality, but are they truly not conveying anything? Is there truly no intent? It's funny because you *do* identify what is being conveyed and the intent, but you conclude that it is a poor quality. You've fallen in the common mistake of declaring that something that is of low art is ontologically non-art, and that only something that is 'high art' is art. Indeed, but your correct identification of the fundamental characteristics of *conveyance* and *intent* these AI-art are badly conveying something through the intended imitation of style, but it is still conveying something with the intention of the prompter. Although, I don't fault you entirely for making this mistake; it is a very common and understandable position to hold since no one has properly formulated a definition of art and to expect anyone who isn't well-versed in philosophy to do so is expecting the impossible.
Art is freedom, art is your voice and in a lot of ways it is tied to your self respect, and now corporate goons are telling us AI is the real freedom and artists are bourgeoisie gatekeepers. We really are in the age of spin. AI art isn't art any more than Mad Libs is writing.
I don't know, man. It's a bit short-sighted to say NOTHING created using generative AI can be art. Not everything ppl use it for is going to be art... a lot of what we see right now is just people farting around for meme content or viral notoriety, but ultimately AI just another kind of paint brush. If an artist understands how to use the tools, it's absolutely possible for them to create something that represents their voice.
Don't get me wrong, you're right to be skeptical of the whole thing. The potential for corporations to abuse this tech is real, especially in Hollywood. Good call on the clip from the Player. But I think there's a difference between a soulless executive using AI to generate soulless content in order to pay fewer creatives, and an artist using AI to enhance their own work. Culturally, we've got a lot to sort out about it all, but AI definitely doesn't replace the artist.
he never said that
in fact, he uses a good example of an ai used in a art piece in the video
Thank you for your thought provoking video. I've been drawing most of my life, and I've been stunned by what AI has done in a few brief months. A few thoughts regarding its use.
A new artistic medium always perpetrates violence on the existing media. I'll bet there were similar discussions regarding the invention of photography and the violence it did to painting. Yet drawing and painting still exists, although its documentation role has largely disappeared, as David Hockney pointed out. But he also pointed out that artists never shied away from the use of technology, as with his discussion of the camera obscura to derive more realistic detail. I have found the AI image generator to produce amazing results, and it has allowed me to visually realize more in 3 months than I have in a lifetime of dedicated daily drawing. I could never hope to have the skills required to make the images I've produced in AI. And while it is a levelling device that hurts artists, it also empowers and enables those with rich imaginations and little artistic skill to gain visual access to their creative thoughts. I predict it will greatly help screenwriters and children's book writers etc., who would like to give their words some visual flesh. While it's true that it works with references to artists and that represents a real problem, both legally and culturally, it is still a similar issue in regard to hand crafted work. We live among a field of influences and references, and our artistic activity can't help but reflect that. I've found that using a number of references in a prompt allows you to tune the imagery to your very specific artistic tastes, and derive work that is more inventive and original. I've also found that you need to work to get the results you want, and in the course of that process, you feel like the imperious art director working with a design team of geniuses. But there is a language barrier.
I've also been involved with 3D computer modeling for three decades now, and architectural rendering has been transformed over the years to a dramatic extent as a result of the violence perpetrated by the computer. I've noticed that the human skill is somewhat stable but what ends up distinguishing the images is the type of software it used. Computer images from the 90s look so dated in comparison to the latest renders, and I think AI will have the similar issue. AI is just in its infancy and its trajectory is really uncertain at this point. It's not going away anytime soon, so it might be best to get the most out of what it has to offer you. Cheers.
For someone who just wants to make a funny image or very specific porn, I don't think there's anything wrong with AI art. Also how the hell does AI art keep winning art competitions?? There are obvious errors that an artist with the skills necessary wouldn't make, but the judges can't tell?
Devils advocate (Because I'd like to hear an argument against it): AI doesn't need to understand what it is presenting if its algorithm presentations are continually tweaked to reflect what we respond to the strongest, and value the most. Emphasizing qualities we revere, it is feesable AI can do a better, more balanced heroes journey, deliver more realistic acting performances, better, deeper dialogue, and unique and new stories.
Hollow is a meaningless term if those stories can inspire or teach. Especially when artists themselves employ more affectation than ever. Its not pretty, but art has been under attack for longer than most of us have been alive. We are saturated in unoriginality and lowest common denominator entertainment. Must the definition of art involve a person? If so aren't we just fetishizing the presence of one because that is just the way it has always been and we are too stubborn/romantic to let go of the idea of it being a person bearing ones soul? If one movie/song/story changes my life for the better and another is forgettable and derivative, is the one that made me think about things worse because it was constructed by an algorithm designed to present me with an entertaining philosophical conversation?
Think of it this way, Brow. If you saw Taxi Driver for the first time, under the impression it was Marty, only to be told a week later it was a creation by a machine, why would your personal reflections be any less valid?
Great work as always, pal.
AI is a digital tool like photoshop. A powerfull tool in the hands of professionals to express themselves even more, a weak tool in the hands of incapable people.
Tools like these always had backlash and movements against them by the "traditional" craftsmen. It happened when photoshop became a thing, it's something alredy seen.
AI is here to stay, you either deal with it or will be left behind. Just like those people that didn't embrace digital technologies 30+ years ago.
PS: the "AI is stealing" counter argument still baffles me. I expected people with creative jobs to know how copyright and fair use worked. But, apparently, they don't.
I mean...
We kind of had this discussion before with Photography and Land Art...
It's not the same, sure, but at the end of the day, it won't matter if it's art or not. Only how it's used.
Ps: I don't think it's art
I always say that AI "art" is the same as advertising. It's pretty to look at, but there's no real depth to it.
How much input is enough to consider it art, personally I think these discussions are elitist and abelist, like finally I can make my own graphic novel series and metal album with no budget.
@@Tacom4ster its the economic threat that matters. think of how easily it will be for giant corporations to generate their own metal albums and make millions. then how much is your metal album gonna matter?
@@maxis4343 mine will have Anarcho Communist themes the corpos won't dare add, I'm NOT in this for money, my art shall be the voice of a revolution. I been developing this concept for over a decade, but I lack money and resources to make. I call it Neo Miami, it's like a Paul Verhoeven movie mix with Alan Moore, The Matrix, Regular Show, Sailor Moon, and Metalocaypse. It's a combo that's totally me
@@Tacom4ster can you describe your ethos beyond just throwing a out bunch of hyper specific political terms and a hodgepodge of other intellectual properties? you’re literally describing yourself via a bunch of things that you can tell an A.I. to google, that will just suck up a bunch of surface level qualities of and then mash it all together in a way that somehow convinces you that you made something genuine. again, if you wanna tell me how you’re being inspired by these things, instead of just referencing them, then maybe i can get behind your idea, but you havent done that. this is exactly the problem people have with algorithm generated art my dude.
Its difficult for you to accept that art is not only for "communication between humans". A limited mind with a wrong premise, is all that I can see in your video, Mr. Human Eyebrow Cinema! Saludos.
Art and Business are different things. There always was mass-market sludge and avant-garde. The only thing AI does is making production of BOTH easier.
I think you're missing the mark on AI Art by narrowly defining it as something generated solely by the AI or algorithm rather than by the user who is writing and fine tuning the prompts to generate a result he desires - much like using the built in filters, effects, and tools of photoshop or after effects to generate an output the artist is striving for.
Midjourney, like any medium or artistic tool, can create art that is as soulless, or soulful, as the user wants it to be. One can simply type the prompt "Wes Anderson's version of the World Cup" and accept whatever the AI produces; or one can continually shape, edit, redefine, and experiment with the inputs entered into the tool (the prompts) and manipulate it to achieve an output that the meets (or exceeds) the original vision of the artist.
If an artist uses a preset filter or effect in photoshop or krita does this mean the image produced is no longer real "art"? If Ridley Scott or George Lucas works with an artist to develop concept art for their aliens, giving direction to the artist about how the face should look, the tone of the image, the overall feeling one should get when looking at it, colors, shapes, etc, does that mean Scott and Lucas are not creating "art" because they are using another person's abilities to generate the final output?
When a photographer asks the model to use their imagination when striking a series of poses while photographing them, all the while giving them feedback based on what the photographer is seeing, and then he edits those photos further with digital tools to adjust lighting, framing, colors, etc we accept that as a valid form of creative expression and "art". So is there really a huge difference between these examples of using other people (and influences) to generate art vs using an AI as a collaborative tool?
My experience using AI tools like Midjourney and DAll-e has been that this type of art generation feels almost collaborative, as if you were working with another artist, to help you achieve your final vision. But instead of working with another person or group of people, you are essentially tapping into the hive mind to generate an image that you have an initial concept for. Each iteration of that image can be influenced by choices you, or the AI, make and they tend to guide and shape the images until you finally get one that achieves what you saw (or exceeds) the initial image you had in your mind's eye.
You say "Where a real human being can take influence from other artists, capturing their essence and iterating within established styles, AI can only replicate details." But in my experience the people using these tools are actually doing the former rather than the latter. And I think your broad brush accusation that artists aren't interested in AI, only "tech bros" is off base and out of touch with the community of people who daily experiment with and use these tools to create art. Many of the people I see actually using and experimenting with these new AI tools are creative individuals who use them to explore what these tools can do and how they can leverage them to augment, speed up, or create the art they were already producing through various digital means or through collaboration with another person more conversant in the medium they wish to use.
If anything, such tools open up the types of art creative individuals can now produce on their own. Photographers can create images that look like paintings without being able to paint well, writers can generate actual images based on their written creations even if they cannot draw well, painters can create sculptures. UA-camrs such as yourself can make much better and more interesting and original thumbnails for their videos rather than re-use the same old clip art. I think the AI tools are something that will help make art creation more accessible to more people and help artistic people explore and generate things that they had neither the time nor ability to do before.
He talked about artists using AI to help them. The writer's strike hinges on the use of AI being dictated by the writers and not the studios.
What are nfts? Because while i'm a firm believer in curiousity and searching for ansers, there's still value in our fellow men delivering. Especially if they are being factually backed up! Am I right?
Well, this was downer. I think I understand what you mean, but don't really agree with you.
I still think we can gain something from AI art. I see it more of a tool, that helps people create their vision more easily. AI art alone is ugly, that's true, but by refining it with Photoshop or giving it very specific key words, you could make something great. Kinda like how an AI can easily beat a human in chess, but a human, with help of an AI, plays better then a AI alone.
And once they become more advanced, you could start the argument if they are "filtering through images" or a "getting inspired by it."
But i guess the intention is still just from the human.
I'm optimistic of this new tech and don't think it will fade away soon. I wonder if CGI was also looked down by artist back then, but today, nobody would dismiss your picture just becuase you used Blender.
This isn't how AI works at all, as far as I know.
Your explination painted AI as a hard drive that's good at finding details in its memory banks and putting them all together.
What's actually going on is generalisation. The AI model, through training, is able to model the essence of a thing. If you train it on 1,000,000 pictures of a 3, then ask it to draw one, it does not go and find one that it likes, it draws one that's unique, after capturing the 'essence' of 3 as an image.
You can do this with anything. Ask it to train on Roland Barthes, it will be able to write dialogue that has an essence of semiotics.
The quality, for now, sucks ass. But give it a year or 10? I fail to see what's unique to human artistry that an AI, trained on our collective artistic output can't completely overtake.
Not so much death of the author but birth of God. We're seeing the 12 week pregnancy scan of AI art. Wait until it gets to college. I'm happy to live in a world where AI is simply superior to humans in art.
In 2040, you'll be chilling on your PS17, and be like "I want to play something like an elden ring, but give it about 10,000 years of lore, that's completely unique, will make sense, pull together interesting artistic reflections from medievil Australia, and have photoreal graphics. Now make me 100 of these games please", and it'll spend about 20 seconds finishing it.
Jesus Christ, what a dull and dystopian pleasure culture. Why would you wish to reside in such an artless and bleak existence?
What a stupid take, art is more or less completely separated from the artist, or at least it can be. Even supposing that there is no "artist" behind AI generated art, which I would argue there does given that someone has to prompt the AI to make something in a certain way. It would be akin to saying photography isn't art because the photographer isn't manually capturing every individual pixel of a picture, of course they don't need to do this. In the case of photography the skill and artistry comes mainly from composition. You just want to be an elitist snob and not classify it as art because there's less technical skill required to make AI generated art. Back to my main point though, art is much more about the recipient then it is about the sender or creator. It's about how you interpret it and what you take away from a piece of art, the artist's intentions matter very little. Feel free to disagree but I dislike it when most artists talk about their art, because they collapse the room of possible interpretations into one -usually stupid and vacant- interpretation.
"One Usually stupid and vacant interpretation?" Explain please.
The artists is the one giving the prompts, think about it, it's basically directing. A director, who doesn't write the script, is just doing that, directing. He's still an artist. The prompter isn't as artistic as the director. Still art. The prompter is giving out the creativity.
this is a vapid understanding of art
@The Tasty Fish explain how I'm wrong. There is human creativity and passion in directing the A.I.
Midjourney is a blackbox to the prompter in a way that the director's mind isn't to himself.
@@testest12344 what
Sorry, but I just can't get over how bad your argument is here--it's circular: only humans can create art, therefore art is human expression, therefore ai art is impossible. It's an infuriatingly bad argument and presumes in advance, without evidence, that human experience is special and non-replicatable.
You don't seem to understand what "circular argument" means. This is not an example. But then, you also aren't putting his argument across accurately either so, did you misunderstand or are you being deliberately obtuse?
@@maskoolio5824 maybe circular is the wrong term, but stating that ai can never make art is to presume in advance what ai can do, which is a totally illegitimate argument imo.
"True" art might become more rare, but won't that in fact enhance its value?
You have a vast misunderstanding of AI and the capabilities it withholds. It is able to pretend to think, a much more able skill than you might imagine. It can come up with the right manner of expression better than most humans. You can prompt it as an engineer would to know what to "feel" and whatever information you give it will be apparent in the results.
If you can't tell a piece is made by AI and you fell like it provides you with the same insight into human emotion as what some pretentious people here would call "real art", why does it matter?
It seems like this video does not only fail to recognize this central question but focuses on either certain limitations with AI art sources or the perspective of the artist who feels threatened or the consumer who already knows a piece was made by AI and has some sort of puritanical narcissistic view towards artistry.
if you see nothing wrong with a world where you cant tell the difference between a person and a machine, there is just something wrong with you
When you say AI can't understand… smh 🤦♂️ it does to the tiniest metric and finest detail
I am not coming in defense of AI art but the points you make are ill-founded
The argument that AI art is theft because it's learning from all the art that already exists is stupid because that's exactly what human artists already do.
Im an unemployed Aspie with a terrible attention span and weak hands. I'm sorry, you can insult me, but I'm making my own graphic novel series with anarcho communist themes with AI, along with an AI generated Melodic Death, Power, Thrash, metal album. Some of anti AI art content is a bit elitist and abelist
Cringe
@@doombergaming188 Using the word cringe as an insult is now cringe in itself
i love how you’re just describing your music in terms of specific style and genre, because that probably what you punched into your program to spit “your work” out back at you. nothing to do with what you yourself are putting into your work in terms of intent or passion or inspiration or any of those things that, i dont know, makes art fulfilling to create?
AI is a tool, like a paintbrush if you will. However, unlike a paintbrush AI can create an image by itself, but that image in and of itself isn’t really art because there isn’t a human voice there. Art is essentially how humans communicate feeling, but there isn’t really feeling to an image made by a programme with a simple prompt. That being said, being a tool, AI can be used to create Art, which is essentially what you are describing with the graphic novel example.
@@maxis4343 hey I listed like 25 bands as influence, particular Megadeth, Queen, Arch Enemy, and Dragonforce. I write lyrics and overall structure, I'm just not musically trained to do sick solos. Also I need a female growler and a voice of a young female Dave Mustaine. It's like my own version of Gorillaz, and I have zero connections and resources, so I suppose I have to use AI
ArT with a hard "t". Eyebrow, practice softening your consonants. Especially those popping t's.
The Player
When Dan says a photo of a corn cob has more personality than AI art, you know he's talking for real.
That's my new motto right there.
It’s a rad corn cob.
As ironically as it might be to some, "modern art" is a prime example that legitimate non "AI" art is here to stay as it roots far deeper than just the legitimate skill used in one's project but also the distinct creative thought that clearly counts for far more in terms of its actual value to others.
i hope artists begin to support artists even more
If anything, all of the hype behind AI art will push us into deeper, more intense discussions about what is art, actually.
It's interesting that the trend is taking hold (at least in the public debate) in the age of corporate, committee-composed movies and TV shows. "Welcome to the Machine" is playing in some office, loudly and on repeat.
As long as humanity feels the need to express an inner world of ideas and imagination, true art will always be there.
Let's keep that passion and true life at the core of all we hold dear about self expression and, no matter how much technology advances, there'll be no substitute, artificial or otherwise, for human craft.
I think many have become so bored, and or empty (too much tech too fast?) It's now a void to be filled by a.i, tic-tok, etc. There are so many artists who produce great & interesting work and yet much of society is numb to it. A.I is the new trend and most of society loves trendy things.
As a representational oil painter, until AI is walking around like Roy Batty, I can't imagine it connecting with people in any sincere manner. If it wins the occasional art prize, that's because the people on those judging panels are clueless. As you suggest, hopefully its presence will actually make people more sensitive to the humanity in art.
That AI painting only won that contest because the girl's hands were not in the shot.
AI art can't be used to express anything which is why you generated AI art to express that AI art can't express anything.
Me too! I've also been thinking about this scene alot. So glad to see a video essay about it.
It's not so much about the technology more than it's about the system it exists under and who is wielding it and for what purpose. Some asshole on Reddit was calling those against AI in art "Luddites" whilst forgetting that the Luddites were protesting automation because (like today) it was in very few hands and poverty in 19th Century Britain was pretty much a death sentence.
When you first showed that AI-generated rendition of the Vermeer painting, my first thought was - before realizing it was in fact AI - "My God, whoever rendered this drained all the life from the subject," whether painted or digitized. I, then, immediately realized that it was AI, and it all made perfect sense.
I just got an ad promoting AI art😂
I disagree on the marvel/dc part, formulaic films are merely representing marketing data and regurgitating it, that has no artistic merit whatsoever.
I personally disagree. After all, those movies still have human screenwriters. Their movies still at least have an emotional expression to them. Art is essentially just that, emotional expression. Something ceases to be Art, at least in my opinion, when there is no human connection or emotional expression to it. When it’s generated by an algorithm.
@@samuelbarber6177 But they are all guided by marketing trends and formulas, taking decisions based on the data that achieves the most mass appeal and eliminates as much risk as possible. That is not art.
@lrigsnart6821 sam mendes sucks ass. Try Peter greenaway, eggers, haneke or Aster instead
"This is not to say algorithmically generated images can't be used in an artistic process..."
This is actually what a lot of us are using AI for, it's just that, when I set out of to make a film using AI in the traditional manner - write a script, storyboard every shot, train AI on characters, setup lighting, compose frames, assemble shots/camera movements, THEN use AI to help generate frames of animation, in-between things, and then go back and sometimes hand-paint over what the AI screws up - this still takes a lot of time, years even. Conversely, rendering some stiff AI crap in D-ID and posting it to UA-cam as a Wes Anderson meme takes, maybe, a day or two, so that's what the masses flock too. This doesn't make AI technology or AI art bad, it just demonstrates that humanity is full of unskilled opportunists looking to hit the jackpot on everything for their lazy contributions.
I think people should be excited for the possibilities here, and maybe learn to be a little patient for what will be coming down the pipe. True creatives, or "artists," will use AI as a tool to create things never before thought possible by an individual or small team of people. Like all technology, this is going to open up a world of possibilities, but like any new technology, it's being judged a little too harshly based on what first-mover-advantage grifters, and lazy, early-adopter opportunists are churning out with it.
Musicians have taken a real liking to AI art, which is one of the most ironic things I've ever seen.
Preach it! There is no room for AI art in civilised society.