• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Art, AI and I

Migrated topic.
Voidmatrix said:
And maybe the hijacker liked your art? Maybe? Perhaps? Regardless that sucks.

One love
Click to expand...

I really doubt that played into their motivation, but whateva. It does suck, it's not uncommon, and I'm the one who clicked on the link. I won't make the same mistake again.

I'm pissed, but in the end it's really just money. I've already taken steps to make the pieces unsellable on Opensea. That's the only recourse I have.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, this is my response to the OP.

I've never been that much into visual art; I'm much more responsive to music. I haven't drawn or painted since I left elementary school, and in school I sucked at it.

I've recently started discovering AI art tools and I'm amazed by them.

The way I see it, there are many components to art creation. Firstly, you need an idea you want to express. Then you need to refine it to a certain degree of detail and implement it in the style of your choice.

I'm not a good paintbrush wielder, but I do have ideas. I can see how AI can allow me to focus on something I'm good at and interested in and outsource the rest to a machine (I could outsource it to a human too and hire someone on Fiverr, but that would be more costly).

Think of a writer who has an idea for a book, but is not good at spelling and may even be dyslexic. They write a book and have someone proofread it for them, or use software. The fact they're dyslexic shouldn't prevent them from sharing / expressing their ideas and it doesn't.

The degree of machine involvement is usually much higher in the case of AI art; the analogy would be fairer if the writer could ask a machine to write an entire story about this and that, featuring characters X, Y and Z with such and such traits (and I believe AI for that exists too). But still, the difference can be seen as quantitative.

On one end of the spectrum your AI art prompt can be a simple phrase, on the other the generated art can be the result of many iterations connecting numerous elements in various configurations and relations. It can involve as much or as little human input as is desired. You can also take, for example, your own intricate line art drawing and turn it into a watercolor painting, in which case your input was almost as much as the resulting output, with the AI only changing the style.

AI tools show us that art is not only creative but also has a tedious, mechanical side to it. Which I guess every artist knew already.
The AI artist can choose to breathe their creative spirit into any part of the process; they can choose to use their talent on the face of the character in the foreground and let the machine paint the tree in the background.

Now that I can express myself through art myself, I'm more interested in it. The fact that my capacity is limited to certain aspects of art doesn't prevent me from producing a complete work of art that others can appreciate.
 
With all due respect, I think your analysis of the creative process is a bit simplistic. Yes, it is a matter of concept and execution, but the way you describe it the creativity is in the concept and the rest is all mindless monkey work.

I can tell you that in my personal experience it doesn't at all work that way. It's a process of discovery that only occurs as a result of doing the work - of rolling up one's sleeves and letting the art become whatever it wants to. Or maybe that's one of the differences between, say, art and illustration, which tends to be more about the execution of an image intended to carry a specific narrative. But in my experience art relies a great deal on intangibles - happy accidents and new perspectives discovered along the way.

I think of it too like this:

If I walk into a bar and yell out "Play Freebird" and the band then obliges me, I have not played Freebird. This to me seems obvious. I have not had anything whatsoever to do with the playing of Freebird, other than asking the band to do so, and any claims to the contrary will never make it so.

That's how I think of Midjourney (and others). You pay your subscription fee, ask them to play Freebird, and then get whatever they give you. There is no number of keywords or magical combination thereof which will make them your creation. They're machine assembled pastiches of other artists' efforts.
 
Bill Cipher said:
With all due respect, I think your analysis of the creative process is a bit simplistic. Yes, it is a matter of concept and execution, but the way you describe it the creativity is in the concept and the rest is all mindless monkey work.

I can tell you that in my personal experience it doesn't at all work that way. It's a process of discovery that only occurs as a result of doing the work - of rolling up one's sleeves and letting the art become whatever it wants to. Or maybe that's one of the differences between, say, art and illustration, which tends to be more about the execution of an image intended to carry a specific narrative. But in my experience art relies a great deal on intangibles - happy accidents and new perspectives discovered along the way.

I think of it too like this:

If I walk into a bar and yell out "Play Freebird" and the band then obliges me, I have not played Freebird. This to me seems obvious. I have not had anything whatsoever to do with the playing of Freebird, other than asking the band to do so, and any claims to the contrary will never make it so.

That's how I think of Midjourney (and others). You pay your subscription fee, ask them to play Freebird, and then get whatever they give you. There is no number of keywords or magical combination thereof which will make them your creation. They're machine assembled pastiches of other artists' efforts.
Click to expand...
That's definately how i look at it as well.

I think it could be a very usefull tool for people like screenplaywriters or filmdirectors though. To give a quick rough sketch of a situation, and if you don't like it you can make it darker or lighter, or grittier or less gritty, more or less zoomed in, etc.
 
I take it as another tool to express ideas.

My main expertise is sound design and there are already some AI tools that can help with stuff that were not possible few years ago. I jump on every new AI invention in my filed because it helps me finish the idea faster.
I read somewhere that they did a Chess tournament with real humans, AIs and a Human + AI team. The Human + AI was the best.
As an illustrator has an eye for the beauty and knows what direction is the more aligned one, I too as sound designer have the ear to know how to communicate with the AI tools.

"Human and AI learning to communicate with each other"
grid_0.png
 
For me, AI is an extension of the human mind, and as such, any art created by it is, essentially, art created by the human mind, despite the new "man" in the middle.

It is still too early to say if AI will be able to completely displace artists in the distant future, but my instict tells me it will be. The impact such technology has on society is yet to be evaluated, but it is definitely massive.

As someone that has never had the ability to draw anything beautiful, I find this tech to be a game-changer. However, those of you that have been born with this innate ability to put beautiful visions on paper in one way or another, probably feel a bit threatened by this, and I fully understand and hope it won't have that much of an impact on artists' living.

Guess only time will tell.
 
Nydex said:
For me, AI is an extension of the human mind, and as such, any art created by it is, essentially, art created by the human mind, despite the new "man" in the middle.

It is still too early to say if AI will be able to completely displace artists in the distant future, but my instict tells me it will be. The impact such technology has on society is yet to be evaluated, but it is definitely massive.

As someone that has never had the ability to draw anything beautiful, I find this tech to be a game-changer. However, those of you that have been born with this innate ability to put beautiful visions on paper in one way or another, probably feel a bit threatened by this, and I fully understand and hope it won't have that much of an impact on artists' living.

Guess only time will tell.
Click to expand...
It all depends on the definition we give to the term "art". We should not focus only on the experiential aspect of the individual, in my opinion. Isn't there a component of progress in artistic movements? art accompanied different worldviews, philosophies, social movements. It's not just drawing on some paper.

There is also the issue of the progress of the artistic medium itself: let's imagine that before Caravaggio we had a similar system and we had decided (I don't know how) that from now on only AI should deal with art. Do you think AI would ever have come to use chiaroscuro in such an overbearing way, as he did, going against everything that had been done up to then and changing the course of art? No, because it cannot get out of what is imposed on it through the database.

In my opinion, I repeat myself, we underestimate ourselves a lot
 
I don't get into it personally.. it has novel value sure - especially as most artists won't just craft your mind's strange musings on a whim. That side of it is cool and at times quite funny. But there is something to experiencing a fully realized work from a human being's vision.. in all its flaws and glory which AI art lacks to me. There's a feeling to it.

I shudder to think whats going to happen in the world of music. Could be the next "pre made loop" sample pack phenomenon in DAW based production. I haven't looked into that.. maybe its already begun.
 
I have to say that I am just done with this garbage. I find myself feeling nostalgic for like three weeks ago, back when my social media feeds were only 50% dominated by Midjourney images. Seems like now the takeover has become complete. Mass adoption is a done deal. It's a world of lazyass art pretenders, and it makes me sad for humanity, to be honest.

I don't understand how people can so easily overlook the obvious ethical implications, because to me it is clear as day. Every time you drop a quarter into this shitty Midjourney jukebox and extract a dozen or so pristine images compiled from hundreds of thousands of artists who never consented to have their work stolen, you are contributing to the death of art and legitimizing theft.

I've heard all of the half assed justifications from people who post (and sell) these images, and they're all so pitifully hollow. People will say "oh, but don't you use reference material?", and "no one is completely original; everyone copies their influences", but the comparisons are ludicrous and transparently self-serving.

Art is a human endeavor. Styles are born from doing the work; from engaging in the process, daily and intimately, and discovering them over time. AI "art" is the opposite of art. It's the death knell of creative endeavor. And those who use it (and then somehow claim creative ownership of the spoon fed results) do so to the detriment of those who have done the work.
 
Hey Bill, thanks for posting that video in the other AI thread. So far I only watched 20 minutes and it's been quite informative. I never bothered to understand how these things work, but now I know, which makes me wonder whether it's a good idea to post my art online in future. Seems like only a proper solar storm will wipe out this new technology ;).

I haven't engaged in this discussion lately, because it felt like it's not going to change the opinions of the proponents nor the opinion of the opponents.
Also at some stage it felt as if the hype around AI art generators was dipping. I don't use any social media accept for two well known psychedelic forums one of them being the Nexus.
I hoped that people have realized that it's not the "real deal". It appears that this was wishful thinking.

Luckily I do not create art to make a living (even though it has always been a dream of mine).

So far I tried to avoid even just looking at the generated pictures as much as possible. Just because I do not want these images to influence my artwork unconsciously. I want nature and psychedelics to be the primary influence on my drawings, not some technology which has the main function of making money.
Cheers to the future!
 
Oh no, it is absolutely exploding. It's everywhere, dominating social media just this week with for pay AI self portrait generators.

I understand your concern about posting work online. I share it for sure, but I do want my work to be seen, you know? The genie's not going back in the bottle here. I don't think retreating's the answer.

I do think it's a given though, that by posting online you're fair game for their sampling. That needs to change through legislation and litigation.
 
Bill Cipher said:
I understand your concern about posting work online. I share it for sure, but I do want my work to be seen, you know? The genie's not going back in the bottle here. I don't think retreating's the answer.
Click to expand...
Yes, retreating isn't the answer. I will continue to post my work here. You surely noticed that I always take a picture of my drawings showing some surroundings of the actual drawing like for example the wooden table it has been created on. I partially do that because I thought it might be more difficult to copy it. It seems like that's not really doing much though.

I guess one has to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages, when it comes to uploading one's work online.
For a long time I worked just for myself as I enjoy getting lost in the process, but the more I post online the more I see the benefits of feedback from others. Besides that I really enjoy seeing the reactions.

It feels like I contribute something positive to this world.
 
Very interesting topic :)

fink said:
Now, another avenue to consider I might use an abstract example to describe. As a teenager I learned how to mix dance music on a set of turntables using vinyl records. After some years of practice I became quite good at this skill.

At some point a switch was made and DJs started using digital library and automatic mixing station that perfectly matched the beats without the need to learn or refine the skill.

Of course to me at the time this was the most cheap and unrespectable evolution. Suddenly a person with money could produce a flawless live set within a matter of weeks without the need of commitment, practice or skill. No longer did a performer need to hump around a heavy box of records when an ipod would hold 1000 times more in your pocket. No more years of spending spare cash on a couple of new releases in the record shop. Just click, download, plug in, presto... you're a DJ.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this meme :
 

Attachments

  • doctor_dj.jpg
    doctor_dj.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 0
Back
Top Bottom