The further we go with AI art, the more it makes me question what about art actually appeals to me. I think I don't even like art. I just like people making things.
For some time people mislabeled art, elevate their ego as artists and be a snob about craft. A lot of times if something is handmade with passion someone will see the art in it. I’m still waiting for A.I. to compose a piece of music that makes people cry. It may happen and put a lot of people out of work. Should that piece of music be looked down on? It doesn’t take away from someone working passionately on their own music and hearing an A.I. tune for inspiration. What’s interesting are jobs that allow people to develop their craft going to A.I. or people preferring to buy A.I. in a blind choice over human.
That's it though. Art has value because it's pleasing but also usually an admimirable skill and the fact it's made by a person. Ai art will be worthless. Basically only useful for TV and movies and maybe advertisements etc. No one will be selling AI art in store for more than basically the cost of the canvas and paint. No go mention AI just copies, so if won't ever have any originality. It can only combine existing components.
@@Larimuss I worked for a guy that would see what sells at art shows, have other people copy it and then sell it off at his store as his own art. I quit for many reasons but years later talked with a potter that worked for the same guy. Was told the business owner wanted the potter to teach his original techniques to new employees and his time around this business owner ruined his passion for pottery. Some people saw through him but his business did very well. Sometimes there are people at farmer’s markets that sell from standard corporate distributors. It cuts into true farmers. Also A.I. art has already won awards. Yes, their are people who like buying things other people can’t and will see A.I. as just copies with no monetary value but by winning awards it does.
I agree philosophically here, but let's be realistic: being artists for a living is a dream for so many people, and now they're getting kicked out of their dream jobs in favor of AI because it's faster and cheaper. Having to find a different job will in turn make them unfulfilled and less productive (because they will dedicate their day to something entirely different and probably be too tired at the end of the day to pick up a pen). THAT'S what's at stake here. This horrible waste of talent and potential. And that's why I'm adamantly against AI and want it regulated into the ground, if not entirely destroyed.
I agree with your point but i think it should be clear that just because the idea of being a working artist is some peoples dream does not mean its not a real job. Its a realer job than most to be honest, and there's a whole lot lost in companies switching to ai over people other than just an illustration. The artists are the thinkers and problem solvers who use their collective experience to create everything that we watch or play or look at for entertainment.
@@reltcstone2 Oh, it's absolutely a real job, I didn't mean as it "unreal," rather, it's so incredibly hard to get yet people who get it are so passionate and caring about it that it's the stuff of dreams, even if the pay isn't the best. My bank took a hit the moment I decided to take art seriously and started filling financial gaps with other gigs rather than sticking to a 9-5 job. Why? Because it has always been my dream to be an artist, and now it's a goal I can pursue (with much sacrifice, but worth it).
What a backward idea. If everyone thought that way, we'd still be sending letters instead of having the internet. We need to go with the flow of the world, not against it. AI won't replace real artists, they'll just use it to their advantage.
@@Clodd1 no they won't omg. Did you even dive into the subject? How can you use ai to your advantage if even now people unrelated to art generate something in 10 minutes and use it for their ad? How can you use ai to your advantage, when ai takes the biggest advantage of an artist aka joy of creation? How can you use ai to your advantage if BIG COMPANIES use ai generated art without any artist intervention and little people care? How can you use it to your advantage if everyone can simply do it for their advantage aswell, won't that make an oversaturated market of digital art? AI won't replace artists, but it will 100% totally reduce job positions by alot, only the best of the best will stay to work with it like Bo chen in league of legends or other principal/senior artists. And what does that give us? That's right, people cant earn money from their passion, meaning they have to focus on something else and keep art a minor hobby otherwise they'll gamble on life, because prodigies that draw since birth and are extremely good at it will take all of the jobs, there's no place for decency in the coming years in art. If you think artists will get hired as much as now to edit ai images, then youre insane or something. Of course we have to adapt to technology but right now its a painful problem to many people. We also need to make sure that technology doesn't take our lives from us, it's meant to HELP us, makes our lives better not take what makes us happy and human from us, generated art might be crucial to future artificial inteligence functionalities, but releasing this to the public should put altman in front of court, that's literally terrorism, openai contributed to destroying many people's lifes and ambitions, for what exactly? For 12 to kids to generate will smith eating spaghetti? It's used commercialy,for memes, and for undressing people. AMAZING. It was totally worth it right, we cant surely live without this tech. It has big positives for ai development and big negatives for society, so WHY THE FUCK DID THEY RELEASE IT? I see it as equivalent as sharing military tech blueprints to the public, totally unresponsible and openai should get it consequences for contributing to sharing dangerous tech, for using nonprofit datasets for profit, and for contributing to decreasing quality of life for many people. Let more responsible people develop AI for god's sake, they have all the money they could dream of from chatgpt, and now they want 7 trillion$ to create some sort of ARASAKA semiconductor monopoly, and plan on releasing sora which will destroy THE INTERNET, not only artists but the whole internet mind you, ai generated videos used by trolls scammers and manipulators will be such a pain that openai should be criticized not applauded
It's not about art as a means to express oneself, it's about the ever-shrinking job market for creatives. In fact, the job market for all those who sit behind the computer screen will rapidly shrink within the next few years, and there won't be any new job that arises to replace them.
My white collar job in a non-creative field is doneski as well, there will be no such thing as auditors in 2 years time. There are people who just started a coding or accounting degree who won't have a job by the time they finish. I just manage to be a bit more realistic about it without getting angry.
Honestly if you're talented and creative and you don't monetize your talent or at least freelance you're not looking out for yourself and best interests why are you relying on a job in 2024 with talent?
The job market for those not behind a computer screen is also shrinking. Automation has been replacing human jobs for a long time. AI is just a drop on the ocean by comparison.
Let's not kid ourselves; the billionaire parasites have said that they'll eliminate up to 80% of ALL jobs with AI and robotics within ten years. They're even hellbent on getting rid of doctors, nurses and teachers so that second opinions no longer exist. Not a world I want to live in!
Drawing will survive and the traditional idea of being an artist but historically artists were also artisans and did jobs they loved that were relevant to the times they live in eg painting churches etc That idea of being an artist that is relevant to the time they live in, contributing to the creation of the character of society around them and being praised for it is very much threatened by ai.
Which is why we need tighter local communities too. AI art will never decorate your neighbourhood backdoor alleys, nor will it be used to create wall art or grafitis in your smaller town or even anywhere that isn't in the rich part of a city, etc. Local gardens and local libraries probably want to hire local graphic designers or local artists for their posters, newsletter and panflets too.
So what I gather isn’t that AI will replace artists, rather that it will just become more elitist to be an artist and that it’ll be commercially unviable for a majority of artists, especially in poorer areas of the world. It takes money to live and not everyone is dealt a hand where they can have a good balance between work and being an artist. I consider myself lucky to be able to do my art as I please but most of my artist friends have had to give up cause they don’t have enough time anymore and they barely make enough to get by. They long to express themselves. As an artist, I imagine it must be true hell
I work in engineering, and this kind of problem predate A.I. art. Many of my friends cannot afford to work in STEM, and they went where the money's at, business, marketing, and they just used their Engineering diploma to impress hiring managers. So, I would say it is more about capitalism in general than just A.I. art. Capitalism doesn't see a value of good quality of life, something both art and science brings. A.I. art is a perfect artist for Capitalism, fast, low cost, no human need, it doesn't matter if it is bad, it just needs to be profitable. It doesn't want a refrigerator that last a lifetime and uses the least electricity, it doesn't want a painting depicting the artist childhood struggle and how they overcame it, it wants refrigerators made as cheap as possible and break as soon as the warrantee expires, and a picture that people will buy 30 of them and then throws away in less day a year.
@@EarthWingedDragon Capitalism along with technological progression gave most people on earth the highest living standards ever. I work full time as a programmer, make below my country's median wage and am partly helping with providing care for my elderly grandmother and I still have time to draw after work or play games with friends or go outside on the weekends. Just because you can't spend all day drawing what you want doesn't mean you have it bad, most commercial artists can't draw what they want without investing much of their free time.
@@CheeseOfMasters Your argument doesn't prove anything except you have a decently good life. My argument is saying that good quality of life (related to science and art) is not the aim of Capitalism, which is profit. Certain products of Capitalism are against good quality of life, such as endless short video scrolling or gamer energy drink. And that is why AI is the perfect, the better artist in Capitalism. Even if it makes worse arts, It can and will replace human artists because Capitalism as a system thrive on devaluing and controlling workers. Everyone should think about AI, which does a worse job and is less innovative, replacing them, including scientists. AI already start to replace some hiring managers even if it does worse job, such as rejecting candidate with a gap in resume, but the gap was for education or something that is valuable.
@@EarthWingedDragon Every system thrives on controlling workers to some extend, but I wouldn't say devaluing workers due to technological progress is the fault of capitalism, especially when we see that many consumers tend to favor human made goods. Capitalism is just the framework to provide efficiency in the market, our policies on top of that framework really decide how the progress will affect society as a whole.
Of course Ai won't replace artist and drawings but what it will replace is commecial art and that's where the money and career is for majority of the people that interested in art.
I mean just become an creative and create your own stories and such and use ai for the menial labour. If you are just an printer then you dont deserve the job.
Exactly. Just like the horse and carriage got replaced by the car. Sure, we still have horse and carriages. Even some limited commercial use! But where in the past everyone used horses and carriages. Now it's commercially viable for a select few. And the same with what he's explaining. There will be masters that can still make the most amazing pieces and be financially successful. But let's say about 90-99% or so of artists will not be able to make a living anymore like they do now. For most people, it will be reduced to a hobby. .. Anecdotal example. I was a Webdesigner. I ran a 2 man company with a friend. We aimed at small sites for small companies. Along came the flood of "make a site yourself" wave with things like squarespace. Not quite Ai, but it is digital automation. We had to stop. He went on to branding for big companies. Still does. And I ended up changing career, reschooling to skipper. We'll stil see man-made art. It will carry some extra significance. But commercially? The market will shrink. Even if it's just artists being faster to work with Ai assistance. And thus, requiring less artists.
Dont worry, AI will come for any commercial activity making a new organization system for humanity with a new found freedom from the necessity of making something commercially viable
As an amateur artist, a funny thing happened to me during the rise of gen AI. I began to appreciate human made artwork so much more. In fact, it’s reignited a creative passion in me. Using Midjourney is cool, but I mainly use it now to create wallpaper.
"...what i have not drawn, i have never really seen" This quote really captures my thoughts about sculpting. You never really notice all the details of something until you try to sculpt it, you get so much insight on what that thing looks like, every minute detail that you can later draw it from any persoective from memory. When you just look at thins in your day to day life you generalize and group things, you only notice the most importsnt things about an object, but when you start illustrating or sculpting it you hsve to deconstruct it completely and you finally see it for what it is.
Ai will dominate all the corporate commercial arts and such to the extent that there is no point doing art, except for the sheer expression and joy of it.
@@PrincessKushana Well so far it doesnt look like it AT ALL. The polls show that overwhelming majority of the public prefers "human made" output and distrusts AI generators, several big brands burned their hands big time when releasing even partially AI generated visuals. Not to mention the huge problem with a) resolution and output quality b) IP and copyright - somehow no big brand wants to be represented by visuals that have ZERO copyright protection, I wonder why.
I feel like you kinda missed the forest for the trees here. The reason why artist dont like AI because it WILL take jobs away from humans and unfortunately in our world we need to have a job to survive and the only way for a person to be able to dedicate themselves fully to art is to have money and you can only have money if you have a job (or are born rich). If people didnt need money to survive literally no one would care about AI because ITS NOT REPLACING ARTIST ITS REPLACING CREATIVE JOBS. So TLDR: Less people will have opportunities to dedicate themselves fully to art because they will have to get a second job to support themselves.
So true. Homemade jam and clothes are still being made today and arguably are thriving. The problem is people need a job to live so they can't use their time/lives for what is meaningful for them. This isn't a new problem though as only a small fraction of 'creatives' actually get to fulfil their purpose, often due to good industry contacts etc. However, isn't AI meant to liberate us from the grind ?
I'm sure, being creative, there are possibilities that could shift sustaining local systems that would meet the needs of the Community. Since 2019 you have to search to find all the many local, township, neighborhood Co-ops that are thriving. It was amazing what can happen with a good idea. 'Working People' skills are what will build our future. Beauty is an important aspect for Human welfare so Artists will play an important part.
@@billyliar1614it seems to be "liberating" us from what makes life worth living first and foremost if it's killing creatives before moving onto every other sector. As usual, a handful of billionaires will own the robotics and AI that take over 80% of all jobs. If 80% of all of humanity has no way of earning an income, but is still expected to participate in a consumer based economy, how's that going to work?
In my late teens I got more into digital drawing but still enjoyed traditional media. AI has got me back to wanting to create more with traditional media, water color and charcoal are my go to but I've always wanted to get better at oil painting, I think it's time to do that!
Being an artist is already not a reliably profitable job (from what I've seen and heard) and in a few years it might not be a viable option at all, but as long as people want to create, to be inspired, to have fun and to express themselves, drawing, painting and most other types of art will not die. Tho, it's still kinda sad knowing that the job that I've wanted to have since 5th grade might not (or WILL not) be an option
I've been wondering for a while how long it'll be before a youtuber into AI art makes a video where they say, "Today I want to tell you all about these things I've discovered called pencils. You can buy them online. And look, you can do this thing called drawing. And you don't need to be online to do it. You can take them, with a thing called a pad of paper, anywhere you want." And the comments will all be like, "Wow, that's crazy man. Going to get some of these for sure. More vids on this please."
@@samdavepollardtheres ais that you can scribble out a rough outline and itll make art from, theyll probably just talk about that instead of using actual pencils
I am a painter. I am 100% with you. I see beautiful images created by AI using prompts. AI is more like a visual translator, but the Artist is a narrator expressing emotions and feelings that mean something, coming from somewhere, and channeled in a visual image. There is a difference and eventually, people will come to terms with that after the novelty is over.
I don't want to sell my art unless i must. Whenever i show someone my sculptures or paintings they tell me about how i could do commission and stuff but that just absolutely obliterates my passion, I don't feel good making art other people want and I don't. I want to make money in order to be able to make art and not the other way around.
1965 the synthesizer was here, AND by 1970, we were told there will be no more live instrument performance bands by 1990. I feel the same about AI. In that the synthesizer definitely put an end to certain practices within the discipline of music performance, however I own an acoustic drum set in 2024. This was also NOT to be an option since electric kits came out in the 80's
The people that work with AI in real life (I have friends who have a tech company that provides AI solutions) are completely abject of any creativity and to be honest, soul or happiness. They live to earn money and for success.
I paint plen air with a group a friends and there are a couple of them who code as a living. I believe it is a minority, IT people tend to deviate from creativity just as painters tend to avoid mathematics. I might be wrong.
You pulled that out of your ass? Ai is here to make our quality of life extremely better, you have no idea what kind of good ai can bring, yet it has it consequences like loss of jobs, yet you think these people spend all this time learning advanced concepts just to give a middle finger to people? Insane, of course they like the money they earn now, but they started out of passion not greed
You *might*be right, but sadly that’s a gross oversimplification of the situation at hand. Artists their desire is to make art, and the only way to survive in the current day is by earning money. Even though art could and would be better if it were separate from money, it’s simply not possible. Since artists wouldn’t be able to earn money through their art and then have to sustain themselves with an unfulfilling job, it would circle back to hurting art again.
I am also all for accepting art-making or creative work as work, therefore it should be paid. Just "art" is, like "culture" an indirect variable. You can not "create" culture (only observe or protect or fund or explore it) and you cannot force creativity (Similar to its inverted version: "Now do NOT think about a pink elephant!"). In my field of scenery those music producers that make any OK or decent money are forced to niveau-limbo or just very lucky. Also: Very successful "art" (music?) is not automatically of high value just because it leads the charts. Of course this is simplified, but if you are desperately hunting to find your way to create true art, money stands in the way. And the reality of a health-insurance. @plopplop7112 @@plopplop7112
Just yesterday, I was thinking about how the more advanced AI/generative images become, the more magical human drawing or painting looks. It's amazing, isn't it - there is nothing but a blank surface and some color mud, or coal -and no computer at all - yet a person can create images! I think it is going to become more fascinating as time goes by :D
Totally agree. This is history repeating itself. The same thing happened with the invention of photography. But it didn’t stop people like Monet painting. Monet used photography as a tool (his cathedral series are a great example). Maybe there will be a similar direction with AI art. Some of us will use it as a tool in the creative process. Btw I loved you mentioned Peter Doig. He’s my favourite painter and a perfect example of why painting will never die.
i just switched majors from animation to oil painting before watching this video. I was miserable, I felt like I was going to be stuck in an office slaving away. I feel so much more free.
Lovely. I agree. It is as simple as the fact people are still drawing and painting portraits, even since we got photography for a really long time. No matter how many artificial Lensa portraits you can have the ai generated, a photo by a real photographer is always more real. And a real painting, where you can feel the paint, see the brushes, surpasses that by a million miles.
It's not AI. I keep saying this, over and over: it is a machine. The machine has no will, no volition, no opinion, it is incapable of ideation. All of that comes from a human being. The machine, like any machine, requires an operator. And it will then do whatever it does, faster and better than the operator could. Faster than ANYONE could. But not BETTER. We've had the assembly line for over a century, and "handmade" still matters. It always will. We've had the linotype and the printing press and silkscreen for decades. But people still hire artists, and buy original art, and they've never stopped. You can get any of Frazetta's paintings on a poster, but people still pay exorbitant amounts for the originals. And the camera was going to destroy the livelihoods of painters, remember? Who would buy a portrait when they could just take a picture? Who would spend the time painting a landscape, when they could just pull out their camera? Well, you can paint portraits of people who don't exist, and landscapes of places that don't exist. "The machine can do that." I hear you saying. "You ask for a person or place that doesn't exist and it farts one out in just a few seconds." Yeah. It's just not the one you were thinking of. And if you are a shitty artist, maybe the machine has farted out something BETTER than you were thinking of, but if you are even a MODERATELY trained artist all it has done is fucked up. Art is taking the thing in your head and putting it into the world. The machine absolutely sucks at this, because it can't see the thing in your head. You have to explain it, in detail, which is AT LEAST as hard as painting the fucking thing yourself. We're BETTER than the machine. We'll never be FASTER than the machine. And at some point in the relatively near future, we will start to see people with years of experience operating the machine who can get it to do exactly what they want. But those people, like photographers, will be stuck working with what the machine can do - and they'll gravitate mostly to what it does well. The artist's field is limitless. It is bounded only by the human imagination, which is not bounded at all. This is a technical analysis, not a philosophical one. You've handled the philosophical end well; people do not really want the picture you paint, they want you to have painted it. They want that connection, that bridge, between their eyes and your hands. To appreciate art is to connect with another human being. We may, in the future, be able to feel that connection with something that came out of a machine - we certainly do with photographs - but we will need to feel the artist within the result. We will need this machine operator's work to be distinctively different from that machine operator's work. We aren't just not there yet, we're actively trying to never get there. We want the machine to do what it does independently of the operator, so it doesn't matter how good the operator is. What we want is to press the "art" button and be applauded for our hard work when we show off the picture we didn't work for, and that is never going to happen. And the people pressing the button don't understand why.
We're machines too, but with smaller parts. Look close enough at cell organelles, DNA strands, proteins, atoms. None of these are sentient or alive by themselves. Put enough parts together and something magical happens: *life emerges.* I see no reason why this isn't possible with inorganic entities. Their neural networks have trillions of connections. To be clear, I'm not saying current AI achieves this... just that it's not categorically impossible like you suggest. My claim is simply ignorance in the face of possibility.
@@Maioubi What's impossible - and the ONLY thing I've said is impossible here - is that you can push a button and be praised for your hard work. Because it's not your work. No matter what that button may do, the work that comes out of the machine is not yours. You may as well demand accolades for clicking "Print." If you didn't make the thing that gets printed, nobody is going to praise you for it. Making the machine more capable - whether by making it intelligent or by making it alive, two completely unrelated proposals, neither of which is going to happen anytime soon - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
@@cdarklock I'll defer to your expertise. You probably have an advanced degree in computer science or machine learning based on the confidence with which you speak. I only have a bachelor's in CS with a focus on ML, designing AI systems for just over a decade. My views on the evolution of various model architectures and their internal world representations are limited by my inexperience.
@@Maioubi Not a contest you'd win, but also not the right contest. New eyes are exactly what the field needs. Calcified old farts like me are not. But regardless, the problem I'm talking about isn't in any way related to the field. The people who want to make art with a machine do not want the art. They want the attention and admiration of other people, and they don't understand why they aren't getting it. They think if they had a better machine, that would fix the problem. It won't.
This really helped with my current art anxiety lol. Just this morning I woke up to more news on how AI is threatening coders now too, and instantly all the worries were brought right back up. Obvious anxiety issues aside, the whole reason I DO things - everything I like really, whether it’s cooking, gardening, social media, and especially art - has always been for the joy of making something. Whether that’s digital art, something tangible, or a community. I’m still learning to not let strangers’ views affect me too much, but it’s always good to have a reminder of why I like doing any of it in the first place. It’s for me, and for simply making something. AI can never take that away
What a beautiful video you created. The lighting and colours make it look like an old masters painting. Thank you for your insights and the encouragement you bring to the art community. Very restful viewing.
What sucks is that the generated things get into spaces where artist, digital and traditional, tend to look for quick reference photos and alike. Blacklists are a good thing and training your eye to spot fakes is also a good and nescessary thing. (also dunno if it's my reading or not, but as someone who tends to work in digital medium... I still kinda get of a bit of slight assholishness in takes as "traditional painting and drawing is safer and better now than digital". I get you didn't want (hopefully) to sound like that but there is a tinge of suppiriority I feel)
I imagine having bots that can outplay any human on competitive gaming, and eventually in physical sports. Astounding human level feats will become commonplace with AI, yet AI will not cheapen these accomplishments. Art will likely be similar. There will be art as produce, but also art as art. The two have always been different, and will become increasingly different. Being lessor does not make one less meaningful. Your children will never be the best, but that's not reason to stop loving them.
But this is a misleading point. Nobody is claiming people will stop drawing and painting because of AI, the issue here is that professionals will lose their jobs, their talents gone to waste as they rot in a different job they hate from which they come back home too tired to pick up a pencil or a brush.
@@nefariouswatcher You're right, I might have been misleading a bit so to your point specifically I'll give three off the cuff rebuttals. 1. Some activities are undesireable to the point ppl have to be paid to do them, and others are so desireable that people pay to do them. Follow that line of logic 2. We've heard this line of argument every single time a new invention occured, including socrates time when lecturers got mad at books. If you want to make this point, make it for everyone including nonhuman animals. I'm still waiting for artists (of every generation) who stood in the way of new artists (photographers for one example) to pay for reparations. It seems like no one cares about this point but is instead caring about the slightly different point of 'main character syndrome' 3. You're making a lot of assumptions to 1, talents not being generalizable 2, workhours and intensity of work increasing, 3, people won't be interested in human art.
@nefariouswatcher And all by people that imo don't appreciate the medium, and only see it as a just consumeristic product. It also imo is easy to make into laziness due to those I met who claimed to use it to skip steps like shading. I also feel it also is part of that enforcement of seeing art as a hobby, not something to make a job, as one unironically called em parasites. I'm one who delve to digital and traditional and prefer to produce. I enjoy it.
@@blazearmoru 1. This line of logic doesn't apply to art because it's not something people who do it hate doing. On the contrary, artists often sacrifice their very financial safety because they love doing it so much that they're willing to suck it up and go underpaid and exploited to no end. It's a labor of love and now even the possibility of getting paid for it is under threat. The reason people pay for art is because they want it but don't have the skill or time to develop the skill because their vocation is elsewhere. This rebuttal of yours is completely bogus and an insult to life itself. 2. What are you even saying here? Read it out loud, you're not making any sense, try to reword it. 3. ... See #2 again, what are you even saying? Are you having a concussion? How am I assuming the work hours and intensity of work increasing due to... AI? What? That's nowhere near the ballpark of anything I'm saying, where are you getting this stuff from? And of course people will be interested in human art even after AI, that wasn't my point either. My point was that if entertainment companies and corporations can replace artists with AI to save a buck, they will, and to this point, none of your rebuttals make any sense.
God, your channel is such a refreshing look at art and AI, acknowledging all sides while still remaining optimistic. Everywhere else on the Internet is a raging sea of snobbery mixed with outrage and misunderstanding on one side and a lack of empathy for people's livelihoods on the other. Love your work. I love using AI art myself, I have no skill myself either in physical art or digital (though I think I've taken a decent landscape photo in my time on earth). I like landscapes, realistic or otherwise, lakes, rivers, mountains, sea & sky, these are the things I'll spend time absorbing when I happen upon art or maybe the rare time I visit a national gallery. It soothes me. I was also always enamoured of the way temples and castles were built in Japan to mirror or in some way be part of the natural landscape, my best photo ever was the stunning Kinkakuji temple in Kyoto which I've used constantly my whole life. So I like playing with AI to recreate that, just wandering. No one will ever see the AI art I create, it has no commercial purpose, I LIKE just randomly creating until I see something that resonates then it becomes my desktop for a month or whatever.
glad you mentioned Hockney's ipad work, before that he was part of a documentary called Painting with light (1986), open culture might have it to watch, where you have traditional artists trying out an early digital tablet, a quantel paintbox, it's crucial to get into material like that and think about it, understand what was going on, they were open and ready to play around with it in 86, what can it do and not do for them; pixar's computer animated luxo jr. was also in 1986, out there along side bill plymton's hand-drawn animation, Miyazaki, and the brothers quay stop motion
I agree wholeheartedly. I shared just recently a video about why AI doesn’t threaten me as an indie artist and it’s along the same lines. However , you have said my points in a more eloquent way with prettier visuals so Ill link this underneath my video. Thanks a lot for the video. *subscribed*
5:10 came to the same sort of conclusion. Artists, who get paid, are paid for working for someone else, when they could work for themselves, improving personally, creating value that goes beyond what AI takes from them. If all you have is your artstyle, you're not artist, you're artisan Also, I think modern media industry sucks bc everyone is working on someone else's vision. No one has a clear vision of what they're going to make, but they're paid to work on it, so everyone does what they think is appropriate, and there's no common direction
I just finished The Morels by Christopher Hacker; musing about art and expression and then came across this. So much to contemplate. Beautiful musings as always, thank for sharing!!
6:13 How long is the timewindow each do you get this stunning mood? Do you wait for sun to shine just to filme these shots? Just adds so much atmosphere to the said things :) Or is it some kind of post effect /setup? Looks liek a painting or a still frame of a great russian movie like from Stalker.
what if i told you it's Ai!? 🙂 No, it's the morning light by my desk. I would say I got about 40 minutes on this sunny day but only get this shot in winter when the sun is low. You can see i'm gradually more slumped in my chair to stay in the light as it rises. You need a decent camera with a higher dynamic range as it's a very high contrast shot (this is on Fuji XH2S), then I brought the highlights down and the shadows up a bit in Davinci Resolve.
You've said some profound arguments for why art will survive ai. If ai could walk for us, would we stop walking? That says it all. I still draw pictures for the enjoyment of it. When drawing, you get to notice things like details in a model you're looking at, or how your hand, arm, and shoulder feel while moving the pencil. When I use ai to make art, I type a prompt on the keyboard, click generate, and get a picture. It's a different experience.
Thank you, I'm so tired of that purely economic outlook on AI and art and all that gatekeeping bullshit. Truth is, art has been a fucking shit show for a while on the economic side, AI ain't changing that, it's just the scapegoat of a lot of existing frustrations.
To say that ai is not changing that is just plain wrong. Sure it did not start it, photography did, it did not deepen it, digital did, but it will strike the death blow to livelihoods. The issue has never been philosophical. In the real world people care less about that and art distanced itself from people by solely focusing on the philosophy. The issue is economical, and frankly art is just the canary in the coal mine. I see no problem in a future where human labor is 100% replaced, the problem is how society is structure where human labor is the only thing to keep humans alive. And how would a transition to system of labor abolition really work out? What leverage would the masses have especially if ai soldiers end up being created and democracies are systematically weakened? Or is a world where ai only effectively dominates the creative and managerial fields even more dystopian?
To me you make tons of sense. What has been shocking me is just how uniformed some of my fellow artists are about art though. They seem to sort of know what they do and that's it. I realised that before AI I didnt see many interesting discussions by artists about art online, just people posting what they have created. AI has at least started a conversation which I think is a good thing, but Im finding if I mention things like the struggles the Impressionists had getting accepted, or how Dada experimented with automatism and collage I just get met with a wall of silence - it doesnt seem to even mean anything to many of the artists Im talking with. Obviously they must know something about art more generally because you can usually see clear influences of a few well known artists in their paintings, but thats as far as it often goes. So its refreshing and very enjoyable just listening to you talk about art.
Your problem is that you're conflating art history with art practice. To take it hypothetical, is it equally disappointing to you if a professional framing carpenter, whose job is to lay up the walls in your house, doesnt know the historic provenance and development of house framing? I would imagine it would be minimal, if at all disappointing. What matters is that they don't fuck up the job. Primarily whats on their mind is the intricacies of craft, not the history behind it. Its "working knowledge"- exactly enough to get the job done. Or, maybe their field of art historic expertise is just different than what you were taught. Im sure there's people out there who could catalog the complete development and chart sample maps across the entire span of major vaporwave or hip-hop works, but would go blank when asked what figured bass is used for.
@@maiteleIn a way you are underlining my point - there is a difference between somebody who is just doing a job (in this can, they are able to draw) and someone who is informed and passionate about it (they can draw but they also love art). Its not about if they know the same things I know about art, its that so many are not even interested. In the case of music, look at the range of music professional musicians are influenced by and thus clearly listen to and even often directly reference in their music. Art and music do not happen in a cultural vacuum. Its been pretty fundamental throughout the history of art for artists to learn about the art that has gone before them - thats why if you go to art galleries you will see people sitting painting copies of the art works - its traditionally how artists learned to paint. You gained an appreciation of the tradition and techniques that inform your profession. Of course people can just draw, but I think its sad if they do not have any interest in the wider context of what they are doing.
Drawing will survive AI, just not on a commercial level. Nobody will keep you from drawing for what it really matters: for expression. You just can't make a living off it anymore.
i noticed with the dawn of Ai, professional artists are being more helpful to start up artists and have been giving more and more helpful art advice, ive seen an explosion of free tutorials and anatomy help which has been really lovely- the community is changing, it was compassionate before but its being way more compassionate now.
Hi. New subscriber, and a painter for 40 years. You are certainly right. 10 years ago I turned to digital media, spending the last seven years working on developing an ambitious 3d animation project. Last year the uneasiness set in, both about AI, and the almost hysterical response to it among artists. I have been exploring AI to understand it, and the most recent developments are not a surprise. Whole swaths of the digital art world will have the ground fall away underneath it. My own dreams and hard won digital skills have gone “poof”, just like that. My digital dreams have re-formed and they embrace AI, but where the creativity goes is very different. It is the originality of concept and depth of meaning that must count, not how well they are depicted. Your previous video said it well. All the hard won skill, the skill to make amazing images, is all suspect now, suspect, and I would add soon to be cheap as dirt. Oil on canvas and other traditional forms are about to become much more appreciated. Good painters, in a strange twist of fate, will experience a kind of renaissance. Pardon the sloppy writing…. I don’t have my reading glasses.
AI generators/AI Art is considered fine if it's just for something worthless or personal recreational. I like what my DnD group said about it: "We support genuine artists, it's just that the characters we have don't have an attachment to us at the moment. We'll commission when the campaign ends and if the characters grew on us."
3:34 This statement is not strictly correct. Every year more toddlers use iPads and don't use physical art supplies. I bet it's possible to graduate from many high schools without using physical art supplies. I think the most memorable and meaningful AI art I've seen was generated a couple years ago when AI tools were first becoming available to the general public. It was entitled "Checkmate Artists". Juan Brufal makes images that both don't look AI generated and don't look like an amateur did them . He uses a variety of brushstrokes or application methods. If you look at some of his more complex pieces, you might get the impression that he is consciously trying to make images that stand out from contemporary AI generated images. It will be interesting to see how successful AI tools become at generating images that resemble folk, outsider, and "amateur" art.
Bowie fan? Funny, at about the five minute mark that bowie clip started playing in my head, and a minute or so later, hey presto you included it. Very nice video. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
there's something to say about how drawing with something like procreate is only possible because of the realtime feedback loop between human input and software output. As AI gets faster, I have no doubt we will move away from text prompts and start communicating visual ideas to AI via reatime drawing input. Drawing will survive AI
One of the things i'm worried the most, is those children who will be told by their families (more than ever before!) that pursuing a career in art is "a waste of time", thus possibly breaking their hearts forever.
The point is that AI will make extremely difficult to get a living out of art. A lot of the entry level jobs that allows artist to get experience and a foot in the industry will disappear. We will always be able to make art to express ourselves and to satisfy our need for creation, but I see more and more companies substituting human artists with Ai crap. If there isn't any way to live off our art, it will become an activity that only elites with access to higher education and leisure time will be able to cultivate :( Many people forget that a lot of the art we celebrate today, like many reinassance paintings and sculptures, were actually COMMISSIONED pieces, by noble patreons and the church.
I was thinking about somethign similar earlier today. There are computers that are so good at Chess it is literally impossible for humans to beat them. This doesn't stop people from enjoying playing chess. The job losing aspect is something to take into consideration, these days people don't have to farm so much because we have machines doing so much of the work. Imagine, that our whole body was machine, every aspect of it was taken care of by machine. And we could generate any image, any sound that came to mind instantaneously. I think something like this is possible. What remains, though, is that all things that arise cease, and all things that cease are impermanent/unreliable, unsatisfactory/suffering, and devoid of a permanent essence.
AI can create art that looks amazing but it won't make me enjoy the fact that someone feels something that manifests in something that speaks to me. Art is more social than people think. It's about shared values and sharing emotions and thoughts with other people.
What everyone seems to forget is that unfortunately artists have to eat, too and that's what AI is making impossible for them. Not the ability to make art. And that's why all the arguments about AI are focused on the economical aspects of the issue. AI will kill art because potential artists won't have time and energy to make art after their soul destroying shifts in shitty jobs. Soon only those kind of jobs will be around for most of us and we'll have to fight even for those.
Great points as ever - novelty for the sake of novelty will rarely satisfy as art which is where we currently stand with a lot of AI productions. That frustration with the machines second-guessing our intent could lead to more human-made personal art springing up 🤷♂
Nice... I agree. I trust the collective will tire in time of industrial Art and those who find joy in the process that continue, could be the Trend of Tomorrow.
The problem was never that AI would replace all artists. All corporations will use artificial intelligence as an excuse to cut the wages of all artists, designers, musicians, etc. And of course, when it comes to copyright, the works of ordinary people are common property and those of companies like Disney are private property.
People are focused on the economy of art simply because it's a livelihood for millions of us. Of course I won't stop drawing entirely because of AI, but it is likely to cost me my job/career eventually. So while I might even enjoy drawing a bit more if it becomes just a hobby, I'm not sure I'll appreciate it while living under a bridge. And what about art education? Artists will be increasingly self taught hobbyists, because only a crazy person would go study painting from now on. Who will teach it when the current greats die? In general I am not comforted by this.
I go to an art university and there’s thousands of us doing art degrees, there are plenty of people still pursuing art and building a community and I hope it will stay that way. A world without art is a world not worth living in I was very close to dropping out but I decided to stay until i graduate because it’s worth it to be surrounded by fellow creatives before the world renders human individuality obsolete as seems to be the direction it wants to head
The reason why the economy of art matters is because it allows people who are perhaps not quite as well off an opportunity to create on a scale they otherwise would not be able to. And that is the most important thing that may be lost by AI leaving nothing but those with the financial privilege to pursue anything more than your average kitchen table sketch.
People keep saying that ai wont replace artists but as someone who did art commissions, it very much has Ever since the first trend of EVERYONE making AI profile pictures, my career was basically over 'cause my clients just started generating their own by feeding in art i drew for them before, they didn't need me anymore
'All I hear about is artistic economy' - because for some of us it's our food and rent and survival, as well as our vocational calling. If AI isn't an economic threat to you then you're in a privileged and enviable position, but it doesn't entitle you to dismiss the fears of people who _are_ affected by this as 'merely about money', as though their fear were somehow grubby and not fit for 'real artists'. AI was never a threat to people just painting for personal amusement: if you just want to paint pictures for fun and maybe exhibit a few, then you'll be in a safe little bubble isolated from the crappiness of AI, which sounds achingly nice; but that's not an option for those of us who'd fought to make this ''hobby'' into a meaningful career, including other traditional artists like me.
One thing artists (and everyone) needs to understand is that AI is mis-named, on purpose, for marketing. There is no artificial intelligence as we use the term "intelligence" with regards to a mind. All that large learning models are doing, are comparing patterns without knowing what those patterns represent. They are making guesses about what word, or what pixel, should be placed next to another word, or pixel, based on the examples they have been fed. The "AI" does not know what it is outputting. Now here's the thing. "AI" art is in fact the human-created art of everyone, everywhere, averaged together. The learning model never, ever, creates anything "new". It can't. What's more, without a continual supply of fresh input - made by humans - the output of the "AI" becomes increasingly stale and identical. All it cares about is finding the most optimal repeating pattern. This is already being tested and AI companies really don't want investors to know about it. For example, without new human-created input, a machine generated set of elephant images will, over the course of several generations, lose variety and eventually end up creating an image of almost the same elephant, in the same position, with the same lighting and background. The current "AI revolution" is a massive attempted swindle. It's being sold to corporations hungry for the dream of replacing all humans with robots they don't have to pay. "Thought products" such as writing and art, have been impossible to automate. A robot can be built to fold steel or print microchips. But frustratingly for capitalists, human beings are still living "means of production" for intangible "product". In its current form AI can't go anywhere. If people stop making real art and writing to feed the machine, the product of the machine goes bad. But the real danger is companies will do untold damage to the world as they try desperately to force this to work. They will destroy generations of livelihood. Discourage people from learning creative pursuits. Establish standards of mediocre art output in the hopes of training the public to accept poor, uninteresting imagery and words (even more than already). This in addition to the physical impossibilities of large scale computing, like resource consumption. AI pundits are blithely talking about building bespoke nuclear power plants for every data center. This will never happen.
This misses the point of most artists worries. It's not a creative concern. It's a labor concern. I have to pay rent, dude. Why should I not be able to because a technology inherently built on MY work (my as in our, the general art community, of course) is suddenly syphooning resources into the pockets of people who are quite literally "selling my shit"? It's an economics and legal issue, not a philosophical one. Horses also survived the diesel motor, but how many business you know keep their logistics running on horses nowadays?
Glad to see someone else who agrees with me on this. Art fun and enjoyable to do, and some AI supposedly doing it "better" isn't going to stop or ruin me.
I partly agree, but financing that comes from commercial art free’s up time and makes a lot of real art possible. For an accomplished artist AI might not be much of a threat but it can be pretty demotivating for art students I imagine. You do need many years of practice to get good at it.
As a digital artist who is strill growing but has gotten several people asking to draw for them (for pay and I even got paid on multiple occasions for those arts I done) I can say without a shaodw of a doubt that AI will not 100% make even us obsolete. The one thing that a lot of people refuse to see is that Art made by AI is consumer branded art. This type of art will never find its way into the hands of creatives. But I think people also overlook the peoples ability to create ACTUAL art with AI. Mind you, I have and am dabbling in AI generation of images on my own hardware (not paying for this stuff) and generally speaking its all just words you punch in, this much is very true. But something that many want to refuse and I mean a very clear "want" is to see that even tho thats all people do, some actually have an artistic vision with it. All of the pieces AI can make are generic that much is always true. AI cannot capture emotion. A man looking sad at a photograph of his wife? Yea its obvious what this is supposed to be. A grieving man. But thats it. That is all there is to it. A grieving man. Thats the prompt. Right? But what if you take that concept alone and tell a story in multiple pictures over time? From childhood to friendship, to school, to marriage, to having children, to aging and of course till eventually they pass. There is a story to be told and someone has done exactly that. I sadly dont remember who but it was the first time I could look at AI images generated and say "Thats art". Cause the Imagery itself wasnt important here, it was the story they told. And isnt that what Art is all about? The story? The emotion? The vision?
Well, I am an artist who do most of my art digitally for work for almost all the time. Considering that, my traditional art level is very basic. But I want to impress a girl so I decided to make a portrait of her using traditional method. Yup, I want her to see the effort. I am currently studying traditional drawing and oftentimes it's frustrating when I can't do it right. But I know I can finish the portrait in time. I guess that's what separates human artists from AI. The imperfections, the journey, the story of an art, makes you appreciate a human work.
I love this video so much, I've been echoing these same sentiments to my friend groups. Gonna just send people this video going forward lol. I feel such a lovely connection to the art you produce. Thanks for sharing this
Things are truly going to get weird! I agree with you in the hobby sense, however I feel like AI will be used in commercial settings, especially in my world of comics. There has just this past day been rumblings of AI being used in the current mainline Batman series, so I feel like we're on the event horizon and about to tip over.
The problem is (from a working artist point of view) AI art is flooding the internet (Etsy, Instagram,. Pinterest, etc.) making it almost impossible for new artists to get their work in front of buying customers.
Well, I mean, it's a nice sentiment that "AI won't take away our passion to create." i think that kinda misses the point of the concern. People are worried they'll have to give up art as a viable career while in a recession and housing crisis due to meaningless generative images based on theft flooding the market. It may not extinguish the flame of creativity but a lot of people are going to have much less time and security to create due to a frantic rush to look for jobs, and the fact that something as intrinsically human as art can be mass produced by a machine, I feel that not a lot of jobs outside of the creative fields are safe from AI and tech either. I will always create, i love being an artist, and i feel people will get over the fad of AI at some point similar to NFTs and Crypto Coins as people are forced to question why they're consuming art to begin with as this conversation grows about intent vs product. However, it's already such a bumpy road with how vehemently anti-artist a lot of these AI supporters are. I think AI could be a nice tool, but people WANT to replace artists right now. And that really hurts to see. The amount of people that have come after me calling me obsolete, that they "cant wait to see me starve", that I'm an anti-progress ludite, all these things just because i say i dont want my art in a learning algorithm. I just hope one day we can coexist and that the market will allow for artists to make a career from their craft. Unfortunately, big corpo doesn't play like that.
Why give “prompted by” credits? Technically you could give yourself “prompted” credited since you went on the internet and typed words to find that person’s prompted AI image.
The further we go with AI art, the more it makes me question what about art actually appeals to me. I think I don't even like art. I just like people making things.
I'm starting to feel the same way.
For some time people mislabeled art, elevate their ego as artists and be a snob about craft. A lot of times if something is handmade with passion someone will see the art in it. I’m still waiting for A.I. to compose a piece of music that makes people cry. It may happen and put a lot of people out of work. Should that piece of music be looked down on? It doesn’t take away from someone working passionately on their own music and hearing an A.I. tune for inspiration. What’s interesting are jobs that allow people to develop their craft going to A.I. or people preferring to buy A.I. in a blind choice over human.
I like humans doing a human thing because I am human
That's it though. Art has value because it's pleasing but also usually an admimirable skill and the fact it's made by a person. Ai art will be worthless. Basically only useful for TV and movies and maybe advertisements etc. No one will be selling AI art in store for more than basically the cost of the canvas and paint.
No go mention AI just copies, so if won't ever have any originality. It can only combine existing components.
@@Larimuss I worked for a guy that would see what sells at art shows, have other people copy it and then sell it off at his store as his own art. I quit for many reasons but years later talked with a potter that worked for the same guy. Was told the business owner wanted the potter to teach his original techniques to new employees and his time around this business owner ruined his passion for pottery. Some people saw through him but his business did very well. Sometimes there are people at farmer’s markets that sell from standard corporate distributors. It cuts into true farmers. Also A.I. art has already won awards. Yes, their are people who like buying things other people can’t and will see A.I. as just copies with no monetary value but by winning awards it does.
I agree philosophically here, but let's be realistic: being artists for a living is a dream for so many people, and now they're getting kicked out of their dream jobs in favor of AI because it's faster and cheaper. Having to find a different job will in turn make them unfulfilled and less productive (because they will dedicate their day to something entirely different and probably be too tired at the end of the day to pick up a pen). THAT'S what's at stake here. This horrible waste of talent and potential. And that's why I'm adamantly against AI and want it regulated into the ground, if not entirely destroyed.
I agree with your point but i think it should be clear that just because the idea of being a working artist is some peoples dream does not mean its not a real job. Its a realer job than most to be honest, and there's a whole lot lost in companies switching to ai over people other than just an illustration. The artists are the thinkers and problem solvers who use their collective experience to create everything that we watch or play or look at for entertainment.
@@reltcstone2 Oh, it's absolutely a real job, I didn't mean as it "unreal," rather, it's so incredibly hard to get yet people who get it are so passionate and caring about it that it's the stuff of dreams, even if the pay isn't the best. My bank took a hit the moment I decided to take art seriously and started filling financial gaps with other gigs rather than sticking to a 9-5 job. Why? Because it has always been my dream to be an artist, and now it's a goal I can pursue (with much sacrifice, but worth it).
@@nefariouswatcherYeah thats fair, I've been there, and i understand. I'm a concept artist myself.
What a backward idea. If everyone thought that way, we'd still be sending letters instead of having the internet. We need to go with the flow of the world, not against it. AI won't replace real artists, they'll just use it to their advantage.
@@Clodd1 no they won't omg. Did you even dive into the subject? How can you use ai to your advantage if even now people unrelated to art generate something in 10 minutes and use it for their ad? How can you use ai to your advantage, when ai takes the biggest advantage of an artist aka joy of creation? How can you use ai to your advantage if BIG COMPANIES use ai generated art without any artist intervention and little people care? How can you use it to your advantage if everyone can simply do it for their advantage aswell, won't that make an oversaturated market of digital art? AI won't replace artists, but it will 100% totally reduce job positions by alot, only the best of the best will stay to work with it like Bo chen in league of legends or other principal/senior artists. And what does that give us? That's right, people cant earn money from their passion, meaning they have to focus on something else and keep art a minor hobby otherwise they'll gamble on life, because prodigies that draw since birth and are extremely good at it will take all of the jobs, there's no place for decency in the coming years in art. If you think artists will get hired as much as now to edit ai images, then youre insane or something. Of course we have to adapt to technology but right now its a painful problem to many people. We also need to make sure that technology doesn't take our lives from us, it's meant to HELP us, makes our lives better not take what makes us happy and human from us, generated art might be crucial to future artificial inteligence functionalities, but releasing this to the public should put altman in front of court, that's literally terrorism, openai contributed to destroying many people's lifes and ambitions, for what exactly? For 12 to kids to generate will smith eating spaghetti? It's used commercialy,for memes, and for undressing people. AMAZING. It was totally worth it right, we cant surely live without this tech. It has big positives for ai development and big negatives for society, so WHY THE FUCK DID THEY RELEASE IT? I see it as equivalent as sharing military tech blueprints to the public, totally unresponsible and openai should get it consequences for contributing to sharing dangerous tech, for using nonprofit datasets for profit, and for contributing to decreasing quality of life for many people. Let more responsible people develop AI for god's sake, they have all the money they could dream of from chatgpt, and now they want 7 trillion$ to create some sort of ARASAKA semiconductor monopoly, and plan on releasing sora which will destroy THE INTERNET, not only artists but the whole internet mind you, ai generated videos used by trolls scammers and manipulators will be such a pain that openai should be criticized not applauded
It's not about art as a means to express oneself, it's about the ever-shrinking job market for creatives. In fact, the job market for all those who sit behind the computer screen will rapidly shrink within the next few years, and there won't be any new job that arises to replace them.
My white collar job in a non-creative field is doneski as well, there will be no such thing as auditors in 2 years time. There are people who just started a coding or accounting degree who won't have a job by the time they finish. I just manage to be a bit more realistic about it without getting angry.
That is true for physical jobs as well, the only reason why physical labor wasn't replaced by robots yet is lack of good enough AI.
Honestly if you're talented and creative and you don't monetize your talent or at least freelance you're not looking out for yourself and best interests why are you relying on a job in 2024 with talent?
The job market for those not behind a computer screen is also shrinking.
Automation has been replacing human jobs for a long time. AI is just a drop on the ocean by comparison.
Let's not kid ourselves; the billionaire parasites have said that they'll eliminate up to 80% of ALL jobs with AI and robotics within ten years. They're even hellbent on getting rid of doctors, nurses and teachers so that second opinions no longer exist.
Not a world I want to live in!
Drawing will survive and the traditional idea of being an artist but historically artists were also artisans and did jobs they loved that were relevant to the times they live in eg painting churches etc That idea of being an artist that is relevant to the time they live in, contributing to the creation of the character of society around them and being praised for it is very much threatened by ai.
Which is why we need tighter local communities too. AI art will never decorate your neighbourhood backdoor alleys, nor will it be used to create wall art or grafitis in your smaller town or even anywhere that isn't in the rich part of a city, etc.
Local gardens and local libraries probably want to hire local graphic designers or local artists for their posters, newsletter and panflets too.
So what I gather isn’t that AI will replace artists, rather that it will just become more elitist to be an artist and that it’ll be commercially unviable for a majority of artists, especially in poorer areas of the world. It takes money to live and not everyone is dealt a hand where they can have a good balance between work and being an artist. I consider myself lucky to be able to do my art as I please but most of my artist friends have had to give up cause they don’t have enough time anymore and they barely make enough to get by. They long to express themselves. As an artist, I imagine it must be true hell
I work in engineering, and this kind of problem predate A.I. art. Many of my friends cannot afford to work in STEM, and they went where the money's at, business, marketing, and they just used their Engineering diploma to impress hiring managers.
So, I would say it is more about capitalism in general than just A.I. art. Capitalism doesn't see a value of good quality of life, something both art and science brings. A.I. art is a perfect artist for Capitalism, fast, low cost, no human need, it doesn't matter if it is bad, it just needs to be profitable.
It doesn't want a refrigerator that last a lifetime and uses the least electricity, it doesn't want a painting depicting the artist childhood struggle and how they overcame it, it wants refrigerators made as cheap as possible and break as soon as the warrantee expires, and a picture that people will buy 30 of them and then throws away in less day a year.
art is a commodity not a necesity, this would have happened with or without AI, sooner or later
@@EarthWingedDragon Capitalism along with technological progression gave most people on earth the highest living standards ever. I work full time as a programmer, make below my country's median wage and am partly helping with providing care for my elderly grandmother and I still have time to draw after work or play games with friends or go outside on the weekends.
Just because you can't spend all day drawing what you want doesn't mean you have it bad, most commercial artists can't draw what they want without investing much of their free time.
@@CheeseOfMasters Your argument doesn't prove anything except you have a decently good life. My argument is saying that good quality of life (related to science and art) is not the aim of Capitalism, which is profit. Certain products of Capitalism are against good quality of life, such as endless short video scrolling or gamer energy drink.
And that is why AI is the perfect, the better artist in Capitalism. Even if it makes worse arts, It can and will replace human artists because Capitalism as a system thrive on devaluing and controlling workers. Everyone should think about AI, which does a worse job and is less innovative, replacing them, including scientists.
AI already start to replace some hiring managers even if it does worse job, such as rejecting candidate with a gap in resume, but the gap was for education or something that is valuable.
@@EarthWingedDragon Every system thrives on controlling workers to some extend, but I wouldn't say devaluing workers due to technological progress is the fault of capitalism, especially when we see that many consumers tend to favor human made goods.
Capitalism is just the framework to provide efficiency in the market, our policies on top of that framework really decide how the progress will affect society as a whole.
Of course Ai won't replace artist and drawings but what it will replace is commecial art and that's where the money and career is for majority of the people that interested in art.
I mean just become an creative and create your own stories and such and use ai for the menial labour. If you are just an printer then you dont deserve the job.
Exactly
Exactly. Just like the horse and carriage got replaced by the car. Sure, we still have horse and carriages. Even some limited commercial use! But where in the past everyone used horses and carriages. Now it's commercially viable for a select few.
And the same with what he's explaining. There will be masters that can still make the most amazing pieces and be financially successful. But let's say about 90-99% or so of artists will not be able to make a living anymore like they do now. For most people, it will be reduced to a hobby.
..
Anecdotal example. I was a Webdesigner. I ran a 2 man company with a friend. We aimed at small sites for small companies. Along came the flood of "make a site yourself" wave with things like squarespace. Not quite Ai, but it is digital automation. We had to stop. He went on to branding for big companies. Still does. And I ended up changing career, reschooling to skipper.
We'll stil see man-made art. It will carry some extra significance. But commercially? The market will shrink. Even if it's just artists being faster to work with Ai assistance. And thus, requiring less artists.
Dont worry, AI will come for any commercial activity making a new organization system for humanity with a new found freedom from the necessity of making something commercially viable
AI is cheap and no one likes it. It will be used for tacky UA-cam thumbnails, memes, profile pics, and newsletter illustrations. That’s about it.
As an amateur artist, a funny thing happened to me during the rise of gen AI. I began to appreciate human made artwork so much more. In fact, it’s reignited a creative passion in me. Using Midjourney is cool, but I mainly use it now to create wallpaper.
"...what i have not drawn, i have never really seen"
This quote really captures my thoughts about sculpting. You never really notice all the details of something until you try to sculpt it, you get so much insight on what that thing looks like, every minute detail that you can later draw it from any persoective from memory.
When you just look at thins in your day to day life you generalize and group things, you only notice the most importsnt things about an object, but when you start illustrating or sculpting it you hsve to deconstruct it completely and you finally see it for what it is.
Thats a little bit like saying that in the era of corporate, globalized popmusic, playing the violin will have profound meaning and voice. Does it?
Perhaps.
But I do think that it's not delving how the corporate, globalized, and such are part of the problems of modern tech and such.
Joshua Bell in New York subway. No one even paid attention.
Ai will dominate all the corporate commercial arts and such to the extent that there is no point doing art, except for the sheer expression and joy of it.
@@PrincessKushana Well so far it doesnt look like it AT ALL. The polls show that overwhelming majority of the public prefers "human made" output and distrusts AI generators, several big brands burned their hands big time when releasing even partially AI generated visuals. Not to mention the huge problem with a) resolution and output quality b) IP and copyright - somehow no big brand wants to be represented by visuals that have ZERO copyright protection, I wonder why.
@@f4ust85Ha, that's good to know. Thanks.
I feel like you kinda missed the forest for the trees here. The reason why artist dont like AI because it WILL take jobs away from humans and unfortunately in our world we need to have a job to survive and the only way for a person to be able to dedicate themselves fully to art is to have money and you can only have money if you have a job (or are born rich). If people didnt need money to survive literally no one would care about AI because ITS NOT REPLACING ARTIST ITS REPLACING CREATIVE JOBS.
So TLDR: Less people will have opportunities to dedicate themselves fully to art because they will have to get a second job to support themselves.
So true. Homemade jam and clothes are still being made today and arguably are thriving. The problem is people need a job to live so they can't use their time/lives for what is meaningful for them. This isn't a new problem though as only a small fraction of 'creatives' actually get to fulfil their purpose, often due to good industry contacts etc. However, isn't AI meant to liberate us from the grind ?
Yep. I'm not a great artist, but i am one. What do i do for a living? I'm a copy editor. It leaves much less time than I'd like for my paintings.
I'm sure, being creative, there are possibilities that could shift sustaining local systems that would meet the needs of the Community. Since 2019 you have to search to find all the many local, township, neighborhood Co-ops that are thriving. It was amazing what can happen with a good idea. 'Working People' skills are what will build our future. Beauty is an important aspect for Human welfare so Artists will play an important part.
And since the billionaire parasites intend on eliminating 80% of all jobs within 5-10 years using robotics and AI, that leaves us all where, exactly?
@@billyliar1614it seems to be "liberating" us from what makes life worth living first and foremost if it's killing creatives before moving onto every other sector. As usual, a handful of billionaires will own the robotics and AI that take over 80% of all jobs. If 80% of all of humanity has no way of earning an income, but is still expected to participate in a consumer based economy, how's that going to work?
In my late teens I got more into digital drawing but still enjoyed traditional media. AI has got me back to wanting to create more with traditional media, water color and charcoal are my go to but I've always wanted to get better at oil painting, I think it's time to do that!
HOW DID YOU LIGHT THAT SHOT?? Looks crazy. Love it.
We need to know! 😲
But seriously though! I also was curious about that!
Betting it wasn't with ai! 😂
Being an artist is already not a reliably profitable job (from what I've seen and heard) and in a few years it might not be a viable option at all, but as long as people want to create, to be inspired, to have fun and to express themselves, drawing, painting and most other types of art will not die.
Tho, it's still kinda sad knowing that the job that I've wanted to have since 5th grade might not (or WILL not) be an option
I think that traditional will not only survive, but it will thrive.
Yeah, I feel like the more AI art develops the more I'm seeing people appreciate traditional or human made art
I've been wondering for a while how long it'll be before a youtuber into AI art makes a video where they say, "Today I want to tell you all about these things I've discovered called pencils. You can buy them online. And look, you can do this thing called drawing. And you don't need to be online to do it. You can take them, with a thing called a pad of paper, anywhere you want." And the comments will all be like, "Wow, that's crazy man. Going to get some of these for sure. More vids on this please."
@@samdavepollardtheres ais that you can scribble out a rough outline and itll make art from, theyll probably just talk about that instead of using actual pencils
I am a painter. I am 100% with you. I see beautiful images created by AI using prompts. AI is more like a visual translator, but the Artist is a narrator expressing emotions and feelings that mean something, coming from somewhere, and channeled in a visual image. There is a difference and eventually, people will come to terms with that after the novelty is over.
I don't want to sell my art unless i must. Whenever i show someone my sculptures or paintings they tell me about how i could do commission and stuff but that just absolutely obliterates my passion, I don't feel good making art other people want and I don't.
I want to make money in order to be able to make art and not the other way around.
1965 the synthesizer was here, AND by 1970, we were told there will be no more live instrument performance bands by 1990.
I feel the same about AI.
In that the synthesizer definitely put an end to certain practices within the discipline of music performance, however I own an acoustic drum set in 2024.
This was also NOT to be an option since electric kits came out in the 80's
The people that work with AI in real life (I have friends who have a tech company that provides AI solutions) are completely abject of any creativity and to be honest, soul or happiness. They live to earn money and for success.
What a salty, generalizing and obviously wrong claim.
Gee... 🙄
@@peka__ thats the people I know personally. IDK about anybody else
I paint plen air with a group a friends and there are a couple of them who code as a living. I believe it is a minority, IT people tend to deviate from creativity just as painters tend to avoid mathematics. I might be wrong.
@@canobenitezi am so jealous that you have a group of people to do this with
You pulled that out of your ass? Ai is here to make our quality of life extremely better, you have no idea what kind of good ai can bring, yet it has it consequences like loss of jobs, yet you think these people spend all this time learning advanced concepts just to give a middle finger to people? Insane, of course they like the money they earn now, but they started out of passion not greed
This video may have just brought me out of an existential crisis.
Thank you for this.
(Im a traditional artist)
Decoupling money from Art always was and will be the key to comprehend it. Thanx!
spoken like a true priviledged ass. artists deserve to get paid
You *might*be right, but sadly that’s a gross oversimplification of the situation at hand. Artists their desire is to make art, and the only way to survive in the current day is by earning money. Even though art could and would be better if it were separate from money, it’s simply not possible. Since artists wouldn’t be able to earn money through their art and then have to sustain themselves with an unfulfilling job, it would circle back to hurting art again.
Not an attack btw, just trying to show you a different perspective on your take
I am also all for accepting art-making or creative work as work, therefore it should be paid. Just "art" is, like "culture" an indirect variable. You can not "create" culture (only observe or protect or fund or explore it) and you cannot force creativity (Similar to its inverted version: "Now do NOT think about a pink elephant!"). In my field of scenery those music producers that make any OK or decent money are forced to niveau-limbo or just very lucky. Also: Very successful "art" (music?) is not automatically of high value just because it leads the charts. Of course this is simplified, but if you are desperately hunting to find your way to create true art, money stands in the way. And the reality of a health-insurance. @plopplop7112 @@plopplop7112
Too bad for artists who live in a world where you kinda need money to live.
Just yesterday, I was thinking about how the more advanced AI/generative images become, the more magical human drawing or painting looks. It's amazing, isn't it - there is nothing but a blank surface and some color mud, or coal -and no computer at all - yet a person can create images! I think it is going to become more fascinating as time goes by :D
well sometimes we use computers
Sure, but it gets the point across better the way I said it :) @@cryingwatercolours8127
I really don't care if AI can generate perfect images. I like seeing imperfections in art. It makes them feel human and relatable.
@@excalibro8365the ai can make imperfections if you simply ask it to
Totally agree. This is history repeating itself. The same thing happened with the invention of photography. But it didn’t stop people like Monet painting. Monet used photography as a tool (his cathedral series are a great example). Maybe there will be a similar direction with AI art. Some of us will use it as a tool in the creative process. Btw I loved you mentioned Peter Doig. He’s my favourite painter and a perfect example of why painting will never die.
i just switched majors from animation to oil painting before watching this video. I was miserable, I felt like I was going to be stuck in an office slaving away. I feel so much more free.
Lovely. I agree. It is as simple as the fact people are still drawing and painting portraits, even since we got photography for a really long time. No matter how many artificial Lensa portraits you can have the ai generated, a photo by a real photographer is always more real. And a real painting, where you can feel the paint, see the brushes, surpasses that by a million miles.
It's not AI. I keep saying this, over and over: it is a machine. The machine has no will, no volition, no opinion, it is incapable of ideation. All of that comes from a human being. The machine, like any machine, requires an operator. And it will then do whatever it does, faster and better than the operator could. Faster than ANYONE could. But not BETTER.
We've had the assembly line for over a century, and "handmade" still matters. It always will. We've had the linotype and the printing press and silkscreen for decades. But people still hire artists, and buy original art, and they've never stopped. You can get any of Frazetta's paintings on a poster, but people still pay exorbitant amounts for the originals.
And the camera was going to destroy the livelihoods of painters, remember? Who would buy a portrait when they could just take a picture? Who would spend the time painting a landscape, when they could just pull out their camera?
Well, you can paint portraits of people who don't exist, and landscapes of places that don't exist.
"The machine can do that." I hear you saying. "You ask for a person or place that doesn't exist and it farts one out in just a few seconds."
Yeah. It's just not the one you were thinking of. And if you are a shitty artist, maybe the machine has farted out something BETTER than you were thinking of, but if you are even a MODERATELY trained artist all it has done is fucked up.
Art is taking the thing in your head and putting it into the world. The machine absolutely sucks at this, because it can't see the thing in your head. You have to explain it, in detail, which is AT LEAST as hard as painting the fucking thing yourself.
We're BETTER than the machine. We'll never be FASTER than the machine. And at some point in the relatively near future, we will start to see people with years of experience operating the machine who can get it to do exactly what they want. But those people, like photographers, will be stuck working with what the machine can do - and they'll gravitate mostly to what it does well.
The artist's field is limitless. It is bounded only by the human imagination, which is not bounded at all.
This is a technical analysis, not a philosophical one. You've handled the philosophical end well; people do not really want the picture you paint, they want you to have painted it. They want that connection, that bridge, between their eyes and your hands. To appreciate art is to connect with another human being. We may, in the future, be able to feel that connection with something that came out of a machine - we certainly do with photographs - but we will need to feel the artist within the result. We will need this machine operator's work to be distinctively different from that machine operator's work.
We aren't just not there yet, we're actively trying to never get there. We want the machine to do what it does independently of the operator, so it doesn't matter how good the operator is. What we want is to press the "art" button and be applauded for our hard work when we show off the picture we didn't work for, and that is never going to happen.
And the people pressing the button don't understand why.
We're machines too, but with smaller parts. Look close enough at cell organelles, DNA strands, proteins, atoms. None of these are sentient or alive by themselves.
Put enough parts together and something magical happens: *life emerges.*
I see no reason why this isn't possible with inorganic entities. Their neural networks have trillions of connections.
To be clear, I'm not saying current AI achieves this... just that it's not categorically impossible like you suggest. My claim is simply ignorance in the face of possibility.
@@Maioubi What's impossible - and the ONLY thing I've said is impossible here - is that you can push a button and be praised for your hard work.
Because it's not your work. No matter what that button may do, the work that comes out of the machine is not yours. You may as well demand accolades for clicking "Print." If you didn't make the thing that gets printed, nobody is going to praise you for it.
Making the machine more capable - whether by making it intelligent or by making it alive, two completely unrelated proposals, neither of which is going to happen anytime soon - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
@@cdarklock I'll defer to your expertise. You probably have an advanced degree in computer science or machine learning based on the confidence with which you speak.
I only have a bachelor's in CS with a focus on ML, designing AI systems for just over a decade. My views on the evolution of various model architectures and their internal world representations are limited by my inexperience.
@@Maioubi Not a contest you'd win, but also not the right contest. New eyes are exactly what the field needs. Calcified old farts like me are not.
But regardless, the problem I'm talking about isn't in any way related to the field.
The people who want to make art with a machine do not want the art. They want the attention and admiration of other people, and they don't understand why they aren't getting it. They think if they had a better machine, that would fix the problem. It won't.
This really helped with my current art anxiety lol. Just this morning I woke up to more news on how AI is threatening coders now too, and instantly all the worries were brought right back up. Obvious anxiety issues aside, the whole reason I DO things - everything I like really, whether it’s cooking, gardening, social media, and especially art - has always been for the joy of making something. Whether that’s digital art, something tangible, or a community. I’m still learning to not let strangers’ views affect me too much, but it’s always good to have a reminder of why I like doing any of it in the first place. It’s for me, and for simply making something. AI can never take that away
What a beautiful video you created.
The lighting and colours make it look like an old masters painting.
Thank you for your insights and the encouragement you bring to the art community.
Very restful viewing.
What sucks is that the generated things get into spaces where artist, digital and traditional, tend to look for quick reference photos and alike.
Blacklists are a good thing and training your eye to spot fakes is also a good and nescessary thing.
(also dunno if it's my reading or not, but as someone who tends to work in digital medium... I still kinda get of a bit of slight assholishness in takes as "traditional painting and drawing is safer and better now than digital". I get you didn't want (hopefully) to sound like that but there is a tinge of suppiriority I feel)
Been subbed for a while. You have put out captivating narratives time after time. Not to mention, I enjoy seeing your work.
Man you really cooked with that color grading
I imagine having bots that can outplay any human on competitive gaming, and eventually in physical sports. Astounding human level feats will become commonplace with AI, yet AI will not cheapen these accomplishments. Art will likely be similar. There will be art as produce, but also art as art. The two have always been different, and will become increasingly different. Being lessor does not make one less meaningful. Your children will never be the best, but that's not reason to stop loving them.
love yes.. pay ? maybe
But this is a misleading point. Nobody is claiming people will stop drawing and painting because of AI, the issue here is that professionals will lose their jobs, their talents gone to waste as they rot in a different job they hate from which they come back home too tired to pick up a pencil or a brush.
@@nefariouswatcher You're right, I might have been misleading a bit so to your point specifically I'll give three off the cuff rebuttals.
1. Some activities are undesireable to the point ppl have to be paid to do them, and others are so desireable that people pay to do them. Follow that line of logic
2. We've heard this line of argument every single time a new invention occured, including socrates time when lecturers got mad at books. If you want to make this point, make it for everyone including nonhuman animals. I'm still waiting for artists (of every generation) who stood in the way of new artists (photographers for one example) to pay for reparations. It seems like no one cares about this point but is instead caring about the slightly different point of 'main character syndrome'
3. You're making a lot of assumptions to 1, talents not being generalizable 2, workhours and intensity of work increasing, 3, people won't be interested in human art.
@nefariouswatcher
And all by people that imo don't appreciate the medium, and only see it as a just consumeristic product.
It also imo is easy to make into laziness due to those I met who claimed to use it to skip steps like shading.
I also feel it also is part of that enforcement of seeing art as a hobby, not something to make a job, as one unironically called em parasites.
I'm one who delve to digital and traditional and prefer to produce.
I enjoy it.
@@blazearmoru 1. This line of logic doesn't apply to art because it's not something people who do it hate doing. On the contrary, artists often sacrifice their very financial safety because they love doing it so much that they're willing to suck it up and go underpaid and exploited to no end. It's a labor of love and now even the possibility of getting paid for it is under threat. The reason people pay for art is because they want it but don't have the skill or time to develop the skill because their vocation is elsewhere. This rebuttal of yours is completely bogus and an insult to life itself.
2. What are you even saying here? Read it out loud, you're not making any sense, try to reword it.
3. ... See #2 again, what are you even saying? Are you having a concussion? How am I assuming the work hours and intensity of work increasing due to... AI? What? That's nowhere near the ballpark of anything I'm saying, where are you getting this stuff from? And of course people will be interested in human art even after AI, that wasn't my point either. My point was that if entertainment companies and corporations can replace artists with AI to save a buck, they will, and to this point, none of your rebuttals make any sense.
Your videos look like works of art. Love your style.
God, your channel is such a refreshing look at art and AI, acknowledging all sides while still remaining optimistic. Everywhere else on the Internet is a raging sea of snobbery mixed with outrage and misunderstanding on one side and a lack of empathy for people's livelihoods on the other. Love your work.
I love using AI art myself, I have no skill myself either in physical art or digital (though I think I've taken a decent landscape photo in my time on earth). I like landscapes, realistic or otherwise, lakes, rivers, mountains, sea & sky, these are the things I'll spend time absorbing when I happen upon art or maybe the rare time I visit a national gallery. It soothes me. I was also always enamoured of the way temples and castles were built in Japan to mirror or in some way be part of the natural landscape, my best photo ever was the stunning Kinkakuji temple in Kyoto which I've used constantly my whole life.
So I like playing with AI to recreate that, just wandering. No one will ever see the AI art I create, it has no commercial purpose, I LIKE just randomly creating until I see something that resonates then it becomes my desktop for a month or whatever.
What a great video. I will remember and, likely, mention your channel in my own future episodes. Thank you.
glad you mentioned Hockney's ipad work, before that he was part of a documentary called Painting with light (1986), open culture might have it to watch, where you have traditional artists trying out an early digital tablet, a quantel paintbox, it's crucial to get into material like that and think about it, understand what was going on, they were open and ready to play around with it in 86, what can it do and not do for them; pixar's computer animated luxo jr. was also in 1986, out there along side bill plymton's hand-drawn animation, Miyazaki, and the brothers quay stop motion
At what point do the tools no longer need the artists? And is it still art then??
I agree wholeheartedly. I shared just recently a video about why AI doesn’t threaten me as an indie artist and it’s along the same lines. However , you have said my points in a more eloquent way with prettier visuals so Ill link this underneath my video. Thanks a lot for the video. *subscribed*
the way you pose and the lighting looks so rembrandt
5:10 came to the same sort of conclusion. Artists, who get paid, are paid for working for someone else, when they could work for themselves, improving personally, creating value that goes beyond what AI takes from them. If all you have is your artstyle, you're not artist, you're artisan
Also, I think modern media industry sucks bc everyone is working on someone else's vision. No one has a clear vision of what they're going to make, but they're paid to work on it, so everyone does what they think is appropriate, and there's no common direction
I just finished The Morels by Christopher Hacker; musing about art and expression and then came across this. So much to contemplate. Beautiful musings as always, thank for sharing!!
I really enjoy your thoughts. Respect!
6:13 How long is the timewindow each do you get this stunning mood? Do you wait for sun to shine just to filme these shots? Just adds so much atmosphere to the said things :)
Or is it some kind of post effect /setup? Looks liek a painting or a still frame of a great russian movie like from Stalker.
what if i told you it's Ai!? 🙂 No, it's the morning light by my desk. I would say I got about 40 minutes on this sunny day but only get this shot in winter when the sun is low. You can see i'm gradually more slumped in my chair to stay in the light as it rises. You need a decent camera with a higher dynamic range as it's a very high contrast shot (this is on Fuji XH2S), then I brought the highlights down and the shadows up a bit in Davinci Resolve.
What lens did you use? The colors are beautiful!!
Viltrox 13mm f1.4 for x mount
@@samhamper Thank you man, what an amazing photography
your framing is a master piece
You've said some profound arguments for why art will survive ai. If ai could walk for us, would we stop walking? That says it all. I still draw pictures for the enjoyment of it. When drawing, you get to notice things like details in a model you're looking at, or how your hand, arm, and shoulder feel while moving the pencil. When I use ai to make art, I type a prompt on the keyboard, click generate, and get a picture. It's a different experience.
Thank you, I'm so tired of that purely economic outlook on AI and art and all that gatekeeping bullshit. Truth is, art has been a fucking shit show for a while on the economic side, AI ain't changing that, it's just the scapegoat of a lot of existing frustrations.
To say that ai is not changing that is just plain wrong. Sure it did not start it, photography did, it did not deepen it, digital did, but it will strike the death blow to livelihoods. The issue has never been philosophical. In the real world people care less about that and art distanced itself from people by solely focusing on the philosophy. The issue is economical, and frankly art is just the canary in the coal mine. I see no problem in a future where human labor is 100% replaced, the problem is how society is structure where human labor is the only thing to keep humans alive. And how would a transition to system of labor abolition really work out? What leverage would the masses have especially if ai soldiers end up being created and democracies are systematically weakened? Or is a world where ai only effectively dominates the creative and managerial fields even more dystopian?
I don't know if it's edited but your room gives me so warm and cool vibes I love it
To me you make tons of sense. What has been shocking me is just how uniformed some of my fellow artists are about art though. They seem to sort of know what they do and that's it. I realised that before AI I didnt see many interesting discussions by artists about art online, just people posting what they have created. AI has at least started a conversation which I think is a good thing, but Im finding if I mention things like the struggles the Impressionists had getting accepted, or how Dada experimented with automatism and collage I just get met with a wall of silence - it doesnt seem to even mean anything to many of the artists Im talking with. Obviously they must know something about art more generally because you can usually see clear influences of a few well known artists in their paintings, but thats as far as it often goes.
So its refreshing and very enjoyable just listening to you talk about art.
Your problem is that you're conflating art history with art practice.
To take it hypothetical, is it equally disappointing to you if a professional framing carpenter, whose job is to lay up the walls in your house, doesnt know the historic provenance and development of house framing? I would imagine it would be minimal, if at all disappointing. What matters is that they don't fuck up the job.
Primarily whats on their mind is the intricacies of craft, not the history behind it. Its "working knowledge"- exactly enough to get the job done.
Or, maybe their field of art historic expertise is just different than what you were taught. Im sure there's people out there who could catalog the complete development and chart sample maps across the entire span of major vaporwave or hip-hop works, but would go blank when asked what figured bass is used for.
@@maiteleIn a way you are underlining my point - there is a difference between somebody who is just doing a job (in this can, they are able to draw) and someone who is informed and passionate about it (they can draw but they also love art). Its not about if they know the same things I know about art, its that so many are not even interested. In the case of music, look at the range of music professional musicians are influenced by and thus clearly listen to and even often directly reference in their music.
Art and music do not happen in a cultural vacuum. Its been pretty fundamental throughout the history of art for artists to learn about the art that has gone before them - thats why if you go to art galleries you will see people sitting painting copies of the art works - its traditionally how artists learned to paint. You gained an appreciation of the tradition and techniques that inform your profession.
Of course people can just draw, but I think its sad if they do not have any interest in the wider context of what they are doing.
Drawing will survive AI, just not on a commercial level. Nobody will keep you from drawing for what it really matters: for expression. You just can't make a living off it anymore.
Loved this reflection. Thank you.
i noticed with the dawn of Ai, professional artists are being more helpful to start up artists and have been giving more and more helpful art advice, ive seen an explosion of free tutorials and anatomy help which has been really lovely- the community is changing, it was compassionate before but its being way more compassionate now.
Hi. New subscriber, and a painter for 40 years. You are certainly right. 10 years ago I turned to digital media, spending the last seven years working on developing an ambitious 3d animation project. Last year the uneasiness set in, both about AI, and the almost hysterical response to it among artists. I have been exploring AI to understand it, and the most recent developments are not a surprise. Whole swaths of the digital art world will have the ground fall away underneath it. My own dreams and hard won digital skills have gone “poof”, just like that. My digital dreams have re-formed and they embrace AI, but where the creativity goes is very different. It is the originality of concept and depth of meaning that must count, not how well they are depicted. Your previous video said it well. All the hard won skill, the skill to make amazing images, is all suspect now, suspect, and I would add soon to be cheap as dirt. Oil on canvas and other traditional forms are about to become much more appreciated. Good painters, in a strange twist of fate, will experience a kind of renaissance. Pardon the sloppy writing…. I don’t have my reading glasses.
AI generators/AI Art is considered fine if it's just for something worthless or personal recreational.
I like what my DnD group said about it:
"We support genuine artists, it's just that the characters we have don't have an attachment to us at the moment. We'll commission when the campaign ends and if the characters grew on us."
3:34 This statement is not strictly correct. Every year more toddlers use iPads and don't use physical art supplies. I bet it's possible to graduate from many high schools without using physical art supplies.
I think the most memorable and meaningful AI art I've seen was generated a couple years ago when AI tools were first becoming available to the general public. It was entitled "Checkmate Artists".
Juan Brufal makes images that both don't look AI generated and don't look like an amateur did them . He uses a variety of brushstrokes or application methods. If you look at some of his more complex pieces, you might get the impression that he is consciously trying to make images that stand out from contemporary AI generated images.
It will be interesting to see how successful AI tools become at generating images that resemble folk, outsider, and "amateur" art.
Bowie fan?
Funny, at about the five minute mark that bowie clip started playing in my head, and a minute or so later, hey presto you included it.
Very nice video. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The cries of stealing definitely ARE valid. It's really not a matter of uncertainty.
there's something to say about how drawing with something like procreate is only possible because of the realtime feedback loop between human input and software output. As AI gets faster, I have no doubt we will move away from text prompts and start communicating visual ideas to AI via reatime drawing input. Drawing will survive AI
Just visually beautiful video all round
This video has such good compositon my god
Great video. Thank you keep it up!
One of the things i'm worried the most, is those children who will be told by their families (more than ever before!) that pursuing a career in art is "a waste of time", thus possibly breaking their hearts forever.
The point is that AI will make extremely difficult to get a living out of art. A lot of the entry level jobs that allows artist to get experience and a foot in the industry will disappear.
We will always be able to make art to express ourselves and to satisfy our need for creation, but I see more and more companies substituting human artists with Ai crap.
If there isn't any way to live off our art, it will become an activity that only elites with access to higher education and leisure time will be able to cultivate :(
Many people forget that a lot of the art we celebrate today, like many reinassance paintings and sculptures, were actually COMMISSIONED pieces, by noble patreons and the church.
That's a nice shot sir
I agree with you! I was going to write a paper on AI art, and your video is extremely insightful.
I was thinking about somethign similar earlier today. There are computers that are so good at Chess it is literally impossible for humans to beat them. This doesn't stop people from enjoying playing chess.
The job losing aspect is something to take into consideration, these days people don't have to farm so much because we have machines doing so much of the work.
Imagine, that our whole body was machine, every aspect of it was taken care of by machine. And we could generate any image, any sound that came to mind instantaneously. I think something like this is possible.
What remains, though, is that all things that arise cease, and all things that cease are impermanent/unreliable, unsatisfactory/suffering, and devoid of a permanent essence.
I could listen to you all day
AI can create art that looks amazing but it won't make me enjoy the fact that someone feels something that manifests in something that speaks to me. Art is more social than people think. It's about shared values and sharing emotions and thoughts with other people.
My take is that if an illustrator feels threatened by an AI, it only points out the quality of work he produces.
What everyone seems to forget is that unfortunately artists have to eat, too and that's what AI is making impossible for them. Not the ability to make art. And that's why all the arguments about AI are focused on the economical aspects of the issue. AI will kill art because potential artists won't have time and energy to make art after their soul destroying shifts in shitty jobs. Soon only those kind of jobs will be around for most of us and we'll have to fight even for those.
Great points as ever - novelty for the sake of novelty will rarely satisfy as art which is where we currently stand with a lot of AI productions. That frustration with the machines second-guessing our intent could lead to more human-made personal art springing up 🤷♂
0:38 This piece started from AI but was worked on quite a bit by a human artist
Nice... I agree. I trust the collective will tire in time of industrial Art and those who find joy in the process that continue, could be the Trend of Tomorrow.
hahaha david hotney is exactly the kind of artist i like, he sees a new medium and is like "oh it's great! no cleanup, everything's right there!"
love your videos
I like your Caravaggio style lighting
Great thoughts on AI but also art in general. Just happen to see this when it popped up here in the Stats late at night making art.
The problem was never that AI would replace all artists.
All corporations will use artificial intelligence as an excuse to cut the wages of all artists, designers, musicians, etc.
And of course, when it comes to copyright, the works of ordinary people are common property and those of companies like Disney are private property.
People are focused on the economy of art simply because it's a livelihood for millions of us. Of course I won't stop drawing entirely because of AI, but it is likely to cost me my job/career eventually.
So while I might even enjoy drawing a bit more if it becomes just a hobby, I'm not sure I'll appreciate it while living under a bridge.
And what about art education? Artists will be increasingly self taught hobbyists, because only a crazy person would go study painting from now on. Who will teach it when the current greats die?
In general I am not comforted by this.
I go to an art university and there’s thousands of us doing art degrees, there are plenty of people still pursuing art and building a community and I hope it will stay that way. A world without art is a world not worth living in
I was very close to dropping out but I decided to stay until i graduate because it’s worth it to be surrounded by fellow creatives before the world renders human individuality obsolete as seems to be the direction it wants to head
The reason why the economy of art matters is because it allows people who are perhaps not quite as well off an opportunity to create on a scale they otherwise would not be able to. And that is the most important thing that may be lost by AI leaving nothing but those with the financial privilege to pursue anything more than your average kitchen table sketch.
Thank you for the video.
A bit of a side topic (but just as valid as any !) : I am looking for a reliable, flexible desk lamp. Would you recommend the one seen at 5:36 ?
People keep saying that ai wont replace artists but as someone who did art commissions, it very much has
Ever since the first trend of EVERYONE making AI profile pictures, my career was basically over 'cause my clients just started generating their own by feeding in art i drew for them before, they didn't need me anymore
'All I hear about is artistic economy' - because for some of us it's our food and rent and survival, as well as our vocational calling. If AI isn't an economic threat to you then you're in a privileged and enviable position, but it doesn't entitle you to dismiss the fears of people who _are_ affected by this as 'merely about money', as though their fear were somehow grubby and not fit for 'real artists'.
AI was never a threat to people just painting for personal amusement: if you just want to paint pictures for fun and maybe exhibit a few, then you'll be in a safe little bubble isolated from the crappiness of AI, which sounds achingly nice; but that's not an option for those of us who'd fought to make this ''hobby'' into a meaningful career, including other traditional artists like me.
If here will be painters who will paint, paintings won't be ever dead.
Oh man these visuals 😍
Am I the only one who thinks the man is really into an video art and speaking to us?! 🤯
One thing artists (and everyone) needs to understand is that AI is mis-named, on purpose, for marketing. There is no artificial intelligence as we use the term "intelligence" with regards to a mind.
All that large learning models are doing, are comparing patterns without knowing what those patterns represent. They are making guesses about what word, or what pixel, should be placed next to another word, or pixel, based on the examples they have been fed. The "AI" does not know what it is outputting. Now here's the thing. "AI" art is in fact the human-created art of everyone, everywhere, averaged together. The learning model never, ever, creates anything "new". It can't. What's more, without a continual supply of fresh input - made by humans - the output of the "AI" becomes increasingly stale and identical. All it cares about is finding the most optimal repeating pattern. This is already being tested and AI companies really don't want investors to know about it.
For example, without new human-created input, a machine generated set of elephant images will, over the course of several generations, lose variety and eventually end up creating an image of almost the same elephant, in the same position, with the same lighting and background.
The current "AI revolution" is a massive attempted swindle. It's being sold to corporations hungry for the dream of replacing all humans with robots they don't have to pay. "Thought products" such as writing and art, have been impossible to automate. A robot can be built to fold steel or print microchips. But frustratingly for capitalists, human beings are still living "means of production" for intangible "product".
In its current form AI can't go anywhere. If people stop making real art and writing to feed the machine, the product of the machine goes bad. But the real danger is companies will do untold damage to the world as they try desperately to force this to work. They will destroy generations of livelihood. Discourage people from learning creative pursuits. Establish standards of mediocre art output in the hopes of training the public to accept poor, uninteresting imagery and words (even more than already).
This in addition to the physical impossibilities of large scale computing, like resource consumption. AI pundits are blithely talking about building bespoke nuclear power plants for every data center. This will never happen.
This misses the point of most artists worries. It's not a creative concern. It's a labor concern. I have to pay rent, dude. Why should I not be able to because a technology inherently built on MY work (my as in our, the general art community, of course) is suddenly syphooning resources into the pockets of people who are quite literally "selling my shit"?
It's an economics and legal issue, not a philosophical one. Horses also survived the diesel motor, but how many business you know keep their logistics running on horses nowadays?
Glad to see someone else who agrees with me on this. Art fun and enjoyable to do, and some AI supposedly doing it "better" isn't going to stop or ruin me.
2:13 boom, powerful. Thank you!
I partly agree, but financing that comes from commercial art free’s up time and makes a lot of real art possible. For an accomplished artist AI might not be much of a threat but it can be pretty demotivating for art students I imagine. You do need many years of practice to get good at it.
As a digital artist who is strill growing but has gotten several people asking to draw for them (for pay and I even got paid on multiple occasions for those arts I done) I can say without a shaodw of a doubt that AI will not 100% make even us obsolete. The one thing that a lot of people refuse to see is that Art made by AI is consumer branded art. This type of art will never find its way into the hands of creatives.
But I think people also overlook the peoples ability to create ACTUAL art with AI. Mind you, I have and am dabbling in AI generation of images on my own hardware (not paying for this stuff) and generally speaking its all just words you punch in, this much is very true. But something that many want to refuse and I mean a very clear "want" is to see that even tho thats all people do, some actually have an artistic vision with it.
All of the pieces AI can make are generic that much is always true. AI cannot capture emotion. A man looking sad at a photograph of his wife? Yea its obvious what this is supposed to be. A grieving man. But thats it. That is all there is to it. A grieving man. Thats the prompt. Right?
But what if you take that concept alone and tell a story in multiple pictures over time? From childhood to friendship, to school, to marriage, to having children, to aging and of course till eventually they pass. There is a story to be told and someone has done exactly that. I sadly dont remember who but it was the first time I could look at AI images generated and say "Thats art". Cause the Imagery itself wasnt important here, it was the story they told. And isnt that what Art is all about? The story? The emotion? The vision?
Thank you.
Well, I am an artist who do most of my art digitally for work for almost all the time. Considering that, my traditional art level is very basic. But I want to impress a girl so I decided to make a portrait of her using traditional method. Yup, I want her to see the effort. I am currently studying traditional drawing and oftentimes it's frustrating when I can't do it right. But I know I can finish the portrait in time.
I guess that's what separates human artists from AI. The imperfections, the journey, the story of an art, makes you appreciate a human work.
great vid m8
I love this video so much, I've been echoing these same sentiments to my friend groups. Gonna just send people this video going forward lol. I feel such a lovely connection to the art you produce. Thanks for sharing this
Things are truly going to get weird! I agree with you in the hobby sense, however I feel like AI will be used in commercial settings, especially in my world of comics. There has just this past day been rumblings of AI being used in the current mainline Batman series, so I feel like we're on the event horizon and about to tip over.
The problem is (from a working artist point of view) AI art is flooding the internet (Etsy, Instagram,. Pinterest, etc.) making it almost impossible for new artists to get their work in front of buying customers.
Well, I mean, it's a nice sentiment that "AI won't take away our passion to create." i think that kinda misses the point of the concern. People are worried they'll have to give up art as a viable career while in a recession and housing crisis due to meaningless generative images based on theft flooding the market. It may not extinguish the flame of creativity but a lot of people are going to have much less time and security to create due to a frantic rush to look for jobs, and the fact that something as intrinsically human as art can be mass produced by a machine, I feel that not a lot of jobs outside of the creative fields are safe from AI and tech either. I will always create, i love being an artist, and i feel people will get over the fad of AI at some point similar to NFTs and Crypto Coins as people are forced to question why they're consuming art to begin with as this conversation grows about intent vs product. However, it's already such a bumpy road with how vehemently anti-artist a lot of these AI supporters are. I think AI could be a nice tool, but people WANT to replace artists right now. And that really hurts to see. The amount of people that have come after me calling me obsolete, that they "cant wait to see me starve", that I'm an anti-progress ludite, all these things just because i say i dont want my art in a learning algorithm. I just hope one day we can coexist and that the market will allow for artists to make a career from their craft. Unfortunately, big corpo doesn't play like that.
Well, that was fucking beautiful. Thank you.
Why give “prompted by” credits? Technically you could give yourself “prompted” credited since you went on the internet and typed words to find that person’s prompted AI image.
100% agree with this video, hes spot on