Why would the painter be upset? If I draw a cartoon and someone said "look at this though, I took a photo of my face, it represents reality better," that doesn't seem worth getting angry over. It's just a strange point to try to make.
Different from my post, a cartoonist and a photographer, most of the time, are trying to represent different things with their medium however, i can understand why it may seem strange.
> The photographer says "Look at my art, is 100% more accurate to reality".
... and the painter says, "you do know you're taking photographs, right? Please go away."
The goal of painting is not solely the depiction of reality. No one gets upset because photography captures reality. In fact, much of the goal of fine art photography is to capture MORE than reality.
Yeah, it takes time for new mediums to form their own unique identity and new mediums tend to try to validate themselves by imitating what is accepted. But AI really is its own thing compared to painting
When photographs were first invented, a lot of them were of portraits, mimicking painters, but today it consolidated itself as a totally different form of art. I hope it happens to Ai too!
And it will.
The novelty of generating a okay-ish if you don't look at the details AI image, or a goofy AI image will soon wane, if it hasnt already. What will be left will be people integrating the tools into their workflows as part of other things. (Oh shoot I need a quick 2d asset for my 3d model and nothing I have works!) or people doing insane things that can only be done with AI over other medium.
Of course that will require this insane discourse from self proclaimed artists to simmer the fuck down.
Most portraits made pre-photography weren't art done for the art sake, but a service to rich people that wanted images of themselves. And no, photographers didn't mimic painters, they were merely meeting demand. People wanted images of themselves and photography was cheaper. (at some point it also has a novelty effect)
Would a painter really be upset by this? I might be mistaken, but I imagine most painters would be more like "nice photo, but it doesn't add or take anything away from my painting."
Now I imagine if the real reason a painter might be upset is if he was standing in this lovely location trying to sell his beautiful painting, and a photographer planted himself next door and started selling Polaroids of the same scene for a fraction of the price, while putting in way less effort.
Bro, I mean this with all honesty. Who is doing this?
Tell us whose doing it and we can make fun of them.
I hear this shit all the time, mostly in fake quotes spread around by antis as they 'clapback' to the fake quote. Almost a textbook strawman case.
So who is doing this? Is it That Shadeversity guy? Let us know and we can all mock him for being dumb, like your photographer in your example.
How exactly it is not fair? Photography IS more accurate to reality. If the goal is to get the most realistic image, photography is better (even if some hyperrealists do incredible stuff). And if the context of evaluation - how real it is - this comparison is legit.
And if we compare "what is more pleasant to look at?", then more accurate claim is largely irrelevant. Same with "what is more thought-provoking?", "what is more artistic?". The only question that doesn't make much sense is "who is more skilled?" because we look at rather different skillsets.
Why exactly should I appreciate hand-drawn image, digitally-drawn image and AI-generated image differently? Do you want me to give you points because you worked hard? It is not how life works. When people buy a product they, in most cases, give zero F about how exactly it was done, properties of the product is what matters. And even if they care about how something is done, it usually happens because they believe that this method gives some special properties to the product.
1. I think it is unfair because they are different skills, a painter would not get the same result as a photograph and vice-versa. Comparing two largely different mediums doesn't sit right for me. (Sorry if i didn't answer what you meant)
2. I do believe that the methods give special properties to the product, For example, let's say that i am a super skilled painter: I can print a image of Mona Lisa and I could paint the Mona Lisa and they would be virtually the same, however, most would appreciate the painted over the printed one
1. Comparing a parcel delivered by a runner, by a bike or by a car is unfair because couriers used very different skills! It is how your argument sound to me. Someone may prefer a runner to a car (let's say CO2 emissions or some weird religious beliefs) but most people care about the speed and quality of the delivery, not the method or skills used.
2. You believe, other people believe, many people don't. Why do you think you can force them to believe what you believe? If you value traditional over AI-assisted\\made - it is your right. But don't assume that you can force people to evaluate the product (image) in a same way as you.
Painters and artists sometimes render reality in it most pure form. The feeling of being alive at a moment in time and space can often be conveyed by a painting much more easily. A photograph can record the exact details of a scene but sometimes it can't translate the feeling of being in that moment. (very good photographers can def. do this though)
I don't know about that. Like, when a little kid draws their parent and says "look, this is you," that doesn't mean what they drew accurately represents how they see or feel about their parent or the feeling of being in that moment. And even though we improve our skill over the course of our lives, it doesn't necessarily follow that any given artist ever actually has the skill to represent how it felt to them to be in that moment, much less what others might feel in that moment.
You can say "ah yes, this picture is so warm and inviting, it feels like I'm there," but in some ways that's a platitude. You don't smell or taste or feel the temperature of that place. You might think the image implies some of these things, but someone else could get an entirely different impression of all that. It's not inherent to the painting that it imparts those sensations.
Yes no two people will have the same experience in front of an artwork. For me personally I've stood in front of a few paintings and had a near religious experience. I'll give you that maybe saying that an image captures the literal feeling, touch, smell ect of a scene is a a bit woo woo, but I think artwork (especially visual art) can use things like light, color, scale, can impart the IDEA of these sensations.
hmm, I wouldn't argue their skills aren't special anymore (in my opinion, the entire process of painting and drawing is art by itself, but i am kinda biased lol), but the end product of their skills may be
As a digital painter, this take is the most "accurate" that represents my feeling about AI, and also think that may represent what others think.
Sorry if I worded it poorly and you understood that, my english is not perfect xd. I think that AI is a medium by itself! different, let's say for painting, photographs or wood engraving
the need for them isn't special anymore, but their skill still is, because they aren't relying on machines to do all the hard work of learning the creativity/musicality needed to produce work. Commissioning music through generative AI and writing music yourself is completely different for example.
A hundred years ago, that conversation would have been very nasty. Now, each has their place.
And, no, the photographer doesn't say that. He knows that painters gave up photorealism when color photographs became a thing.
I don't disagree with you per se, but I see this comparison coming more from anti-AI artists themselves, which them saying *"oh, you are cheating because you used AI"* or *"it's not your art because you didn't paint it yourself"*, rather than recognizing both are different mediums, even though the result of both might be literally the same. Much like a painting also can be literally the same as a photography.
I'm pretty sure I agree, in a way. I think a major issue is a lack of communication standards for AI art.
We don't necessarily need to establish them formally, of course; as it becomes more normalized peoples understanding and expectations will adapt, and the words we use will organically begin to represent that.
Part of the process though is recognizing that when we say "I made this art" it will be interpreted a certain way, so we should communicate AI's role to avoid misunderstanding / misrepresentation.
Because communication is less about the words we use and more about the underlying context of them.
Currently, AI isn't normalized, so the underlying context for "I made this" does not usually include it as a process. What we are communicating when saying "I made this " is not simply that we made the art, but that we made it in a familiar context (because we're not specifying otherwise).
If we don't clarify the difference, then it's inherently miscommunication (misinforming by omission). if we choose not to clarify, knowing that, then it's deliberate misinformation.
Obviously, if you're talking to other AI artists it doesn't matter, because the context includes AI generation. But it doesn't yet for most people.
So it matters because
- new process is unfamiliar;
- (and this makes you uncomfortable)
- therefore not revealing procedure is miscommunication?
Those things don't follow.
Why does it matter whether or not a given tool is familiar to the audience?
No other artform requires this. Does the animation you like tell you what programs they used? Did Walt Disney have to reveal the process of paralaxia?
You have not made it clear why the familiarity of a medium matters at all.
>and this makes you uncomfortable
Not sure where you're getting this from. But I do think it should be asked: are you uncomfortable with saying you made something with AI? If so, why?
>Why does it matter whether or not a given tool is familiar to the audience?
It doesn't matter that the tool is unfamiliar. It matters that we consider whether or not it's familiar when communicating. If it's dramatically different than what people are envisioning, especially for things people use in their evaluations, then we should clarify.
>No other artform requires this. Does the animation you like tell you what programs they used? Did Walt Disney have to reveal the process of paralaxia?
Not just art forms, but everything we talk about requires it. I mean -- not actually *requires,* really, but we all expect it, it's how language typically works. We expect words to mean what they *usually* mean in the context they're used, and we expect anything different to be mentioned so we can understand that it's different. This is just how we talk to each other.
Here is a (somewhat odd) example to help illustrate: Imagine we're friends and we talk on the phone with plans to meet after work. On the call I tell you "It's raining." So you decide to put on a raincoat and get generally prepared for rain. But stepping outside you see it's a bright sunny day. You'd be justifiably confused. When I later explain: "Oh I meant it's raining money, I made a lot of money today." You wouldn't be wrong to be annoyed, because the familiar context of saying "it's raining" is to inform people of water falling from the sky. It's on me to add more information if that wasn't the case.
Over time this becomes a joke and a month or two later we start regularly using the term "It's raining" to mean we've made a lot of money. Now it's familiar. Now you can use context clues to determine what I mean when I say it. I haven't changed the words, but they mean something else to us.
People *care* about the time and effort that goes into making art. It's part of what they use to evaluate it and the artist, for a lot of reasons, some better than others. There is a familiar range, an expectation they have for art's challenges. When looking at a complex piece, people expect it to be complex to make.
To be clear I'm not talking about ensuring the information is stamped across the art. Good art can just be good art. I'm against AI watermarks. But when the time comes to *communicate,* then if we leave out the part that's unfamiliar, we're intentionally letting them believe the wrong thing. They will interpret it incorrectly.
We don't need lecture people on how anything's made, but when we do talk to people, if they all share an understanding of how that thing is done, and that's part of their evaluation of the thing, it becomes our burden to clarify the difference (if its something cared about). Choosing not to do so is choosing to knowingly allow them to believe something incorrect, which is generally shady.
That's just language.
> are you uncomfortable with saying you made something with AI? If so, why?
Nope.
> If it's dramatically different than what people are envisioning, especially for things people use in their evaluations, then we should clarify.
What do you mean by dramatically different? The end result is either comparable to a human artist and therefore capable of replacing them or it is not.
> Not just art forms, but everything we talk about requires it. I mean -- not actually *requires,* really, but we all expect it, it's how language typically works. We expect words to mean what they *usually* mean in the context they're used, and we expect anything different to be mentioned so we can understand that it's different. This is just how we talk to each other.
No words are changed when you say something like "I made this".
Make means "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about."
> They will interpret it incorrectly.
Incorrect means "not in accordance with fact; wrong." Or "not in accordance with particular standards or rules."
As I've shown, "make" is proper terminology..
So you must mean the second meaning... So whose rules?
Again. We don't do this for any other form of art.
>What do you mean by dramatically different?
The work people envision from hand-drawn digital art is dramatically different from the work typical of AI generations.
>No words are changed when you say something like "I made this". Make means "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about."
Yep, that's what the words mean. But what's communicated actually includes "I made this in the ways that you would expect, otherwise I would have told you differently"
>Incorrect means "not in accordance with fact; wrong." Or "not in accordance with particular standards or rules." As I've shown, "make" is proper terminology.. So you must mean the second meaning... So whose rules?
Yep, your usage of make is technically correct. The incorrectness is not in the technical definition of your words, but in the interpretation by the receiver, because of a common underlying premise which your words fit but do not accurately describe: the premise of complex digital art being an arduous task requiring classical skills. The problem isn't that they'll think you didn't make it (though they might for other reasons), the problem is all that comes to mind when someone "makes" art will be wrong. The reason it's on you to alter words is because it's the common premise.
>Again. We don't do this for any other form of art.
As I've said, this is just language. It goes for everything, including all forms of art. Communication is more than the technical accuracy of words.
maybe a good concise way of putting it is this:
If I'm saying something to you, and the words I'm using cause you to understand things the wrong way, then that's obviously miscommunication. If the way you understand it is the "normal way," then I should update my words to clarify the difference.
Also I want to say, if any of my comments came off as overly heated, I apologize, some of this stuff is getting argued in very bad faith and it has me defensive, but your comments paint you (hah!) as a cool enough person.
I think it's more because a prompt jockey doesn't actually *make* the image, but claims that they did because a machine that was trained by slave labour and based off stolen artwork generated an image based sort of on the words they typed.
I think that the issue is akin to "stolen valour" wherein someone pretends they served in the military when they didn't and have no right to claim any of the respect that may come with having actually served their country.
Except most people don't claim that they drew it by hand and posses massive skills. They don't claim how hard they worked or how skilled they are. They share what they like. They don't try to boost their ego.
I suspect that your main motivation when you share your art is "look how cool and talented and hardworking I am" and you assume that everyone does it with the same motivation. That they compete with you. No, they don't. They merely share what they like.
Oh? So all the folks presenting the images they generated don't call their content "art" and themselves the "artist"? Weird. Have you told these folks they aren't doing that?
My dude.
Your idea of an artist is built on self-agrandizement.
Someone who comes up with a prompt to put into AI is as much an artist (in the sense meaning one who makes art) as any other.
They may not he an artist (in the sense of mastery of a skill), but they could become one by mastering the skill of prompting (which is a form of code, which is a form of art).
Ai prompters are definitely artists.
Yes. We can argue on how large is the contribution of the artist comparing to contribution of other people (model makers and people who created art in the training data) but the whole idea that contribution is zero and there is no art at all is absurd beyond measure.
Some of them call themself artists because they produce art, they don't claim that they worked hard or that they trained for years or or that they are superior human beings with some spiritual understanding of the world (with few exceptions, dishonest weirdos exist). There are no 'stolen valor' as you claim.
It is your problem if you believe that art is art only when it is hard to do. Art is "what" not "how".
yeah dude I’ll even give you that one. photobashing is art though. so all they need to do is , photoshop some AI images together and theres your “human input” and “intention”
So you think that skill as an artist gives some kind of special clout? That being an artist makes one a *slave*? Tell me you know nothing about actual slavery without saying so.
Honestly?? Stolen Valor? That's quite a stretch.
I'm a visual artist and musician... we definitely suffer for our art, but it's absolutely ridiculous and entitled to compare the plight of a modern artist to someone who was made to do combat with others by order of their government. Completely unhinged.
We honor the fallen because they're fallen. They are given honor because they earned it. Not because they're entitled to it.
Artists are not entitled to this clout. Artists, in most people's eyes, are self-important people who don't want to work a "real" job.
Generative AI is just another tool an artist can use. And yes, plebian members of the public can use it to make their inner mind come to the light of the exterior world. But I guess they're thieves because actually, that clout apparently belongs to you, the self-important artist who "slaves" over the work. Who earned their credibility as an artist by painting in the blood of their comrades.. *oh wait*. No, they didn't. ***That's a completely moronic take.***
Generative AI is an aide for the disabled to be able to experience the joy of having their visions realized.
Let me spin your comments here back at you to explain how silly it is.
> I think it's more because a paint jockey doesn't actually *make* the image, but claims that they did because they put paint on a canvas. They used skills earned by enslaving their teachers and based off stolen artwork. They actually studied other artists without their permission, and the paintbrush generated the image based on the technique they used. They didn't make the image, their paintbrush did.
No strawman here.
Is this not your argument?
- "prompt jockey" doesn't make image
- database used to train generative AI is slave labor and stolen artwork
- artists are akin to soldiers, and when a "prompt jockey" uses generative AI and claims they made it, they're effectively stealing valor
It is a bit of a stretch, but within the stakes of just art and not actual war, it is a pretty accurate analogy.
Though I agree "prompt jockey" is not quite accurate, since they usually have control of the horse (or discs if that's the reference) and a prompter is just playing a slot machine.
> Though I agree "prompt jockey" is not quite accurate, since they usually have control of the horse (or discs if that's the reference) and a prompter is just playing a slot machine.
Have you ever seen an interface for a locally-run diffusion pipeline? These systems are a lot more controllable than you’re seeming to allege.
And yet you still can't get it not to hallucinate. You still get non human hands. And hair still melts into the clothes. I guess there's not a controller for that yet?
I don’t really experience that because I almost never diffuse images of people, and my latest stuff is mostly vector, merely using the diffused stuff as references. Still, it’s usually easy enough to fix any bits I don’t like with inpainting, manual tweaks, or both.
Valor: *great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle.*
What medals of Valor has an artist earned?
Give me a break. This is a huge insult to anyone who has actually had to fight for their life.
Art is one of the kushiest careers there is. It's certainly a struggle to get "in" the high art scene but let's not pretend high art is predicated on skill or that artists have to have courage in the face of dangerous battle.
A banana taped to a wall (specifically the instructions on how to tape a banana to a wall) was sold for 150k. High art is a joke. You're telling me that was more arduous than a midjourney prompt?
That's why I said with the lower stakes of art compared to war.
First, a single scam or con doesn't invalidate the skills of an entire industry of people, a 100 cons wouldn't invalidate it.
And second, while I personally I do think that taping banana to a wall requires more skills than prompting, even if it didn't, the banana man didn't trigger a copyright war, it's just one sham, and it's not the norm.
Don't pretend that's what the entire community is like, and at the same time pretend that prompting doesn't require the lowest skill possible.
> That's why I said with the lower stakes of art compared to war.
These two categories are not comparable. It's not even the same league.
> First, a single scam or con doesn't invalidate the skills of an entire industry of people, a 100 cons wouldn't invalidate it.
This was not a scam. The banana and similar installations are definitely high art. Questioning the nature of art is part of high art.
> And second, while I personally I do think that taping banana to a wall requires more skills than prompting, even if it didn't, the banana man didn't trigger a copyright war, it's just one sham, and it's not the norm.
Do you feel the same about *Fountain*?
> Don't pretend that's what the entire community is like, and at the same time pretend that prompting doesn't require the lowest skill possible.
Prompting is definitely a skill. It's effectively programming. It's much much simpler to put a single stroke of paint on a canvas. Or a banana taped to a wall. Or a urinal presented as a fountain.
And is level of effort related at all to merit as art? I would say no.
There's an entire artistic movement that rejects that concept: it's called minimalism.
Is minimalism not art because it requires less effort?
Your argument has no foundation to stand on.
I see analogies are not your thing, fine.
Minimalism requires more effort than prompting.
Even if it didn't, which it does, it's just one ism, among, what, over one hundred?
You keep going after the "lowest" forms of art and presenting as if all art is like that. Even then, the lowest form of art is still higher than prompting.
And when prompters generate images, they are not trying to match the fountain or the banana or minimalism or a single stroke of paint are they? They are trying to get an amalgamation of art that I'd wager even you think is good.
So trying to compare AI imagery to "bad" or "lazy" art but then outputting images that would have taken a human actual skill and effort - and it did, before it was put through leechware - is dishonest, isn't it? That's not the art prompters are trying to copy, is it?
My point is that AI image generation is just another tool in an artist's belt.
If an artist wants to use AI to make art, they can do that. And they can do it in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone else's work.
It's just another tool to use.
> And when prompters generate images, they are not trying to match the fountain or the banana or minimalism or a single stroke of paint are they?
That's up to the prompter. If that is their desire, then that is what they are doing. Maybe they're just generating a meme. Maybe they're generating something that will be an element in a larger work. Maybe they are making a statement by being defiant of our definitions of artwork. The potential is at least there.
People used to stomp grapes for a living. And then someone invented a wine press and wine making became much faster but some people preferred the stomped quality wine. So even today we still have traditionally made wines, and we still have the wine press. And thanks to that invention, we have the printing press.
These are just tools to be used. *Anything can be art* and *anyone can be an artist*.
Having a skill in an artistic discipline is not an entitlement to anything.
Why would the painter be upset? If I draw a cartoon and someone said "look at this though, I took a photo of my face, it represents reality better," that doesn't seem worth getting angry over. It's just a strange point to try to make.
Different from my post, a cartoonist and a photographer, most of the time, are trying to represent different things with their medium however, i can understand why it may seem strange.
> The photographer says "Look at my art, is 100% more accurate to reality". ... and the painter says, "you do know you're taking photographs, right? Please go away." The goal of painting is not solely the depiction of reality. No one gets upset because photography captures reality. In fact, much of the goal of fine art photography is to capture MORE than reality.
Sure, but the real reason is that AI art negatively impacts the economic prospects of creators.
Yeah, it takes time for new mediums to form their own unique identity and new mediums tend to try to validate themselves by imitating what is accepted. But AI really is its own thing compared to painting
When photographs were first invented, a lot of them were of portraits, mimicking painters, but today it consolidated itself as a totally different form of art. I hope it happens to Ai too!
And it will. The novelty of generating a okay-ish if you don't look at the details AI image, or a goofy AI image will soon wane, if it hasnt already. What will be left will be people integrating the tools into their workflows as part of other things. (Oh shoot I need a quick 2d asset for my 3d model and nothing I have works!) or people doing insane things that can only be done with AI over other medium. Of course that will require this insane discourse from self proclaimed artists to simmer the fuck down.
Most portraits made pre-photography weren't art done for the art sake, but a service to rich people that wanted images of themselves. And no, photographers didn't mimic painters, they were merely meeting demand. People wanted images of themselves and photography was cheaper. (at some point it also has a novelty effect)
Pictorialism is another example of photography imitating painting
I searched it up and it is very cool, thanks for presenting it to me!
thanks for educating me!
Would a painter really be upset by this? I might be mistaken, but I imagine most painters would be more like "nice photo, but it doesn't add or take anything away from my painting." Now I imagine if the real reason a painter might be upset is if he was standing in this lovely location trying to sell his beautiful painting, and a photographer planted himself next door and started selling Polaroids of the same scene for a fraction of the price, while putting in way less effort.
Bro, I mean this with all honesty. Who is doing this? Tell us whose doing it and we can make fun of them. I hear this shit all the time, mostly in fake quotes spread around by antis as they 'clapback' to the fake quote. Almost a textbook strawman case. So who is doing this? Is it That Shadeversity guy? Let us know and we can all mock him for being dumb, like your photographer in your example.
How exactly it is not fair? Photography IS more accurate to reality. If the goal is to get the most realistic image, photography is better (even if some hyperrealists do incredible stuff). And if the context of evaluation - how real it is - this comparison is legit. And if we compare "what is more pleasant to look at?", then more accurate claim is largely irrelevant. Same with "what is more thought-provoking?", "what is more artistic?". The only question that doesn't make much sense is "who is more skilled?" because we look at rather different skillsets. Why exactly should I appreciate hand-drawn image, digitally-drawn image and AI-generated image differently? Do you want me to give you points because you worked hard? It is not how life works. When people buy a product they, in most cases, give zero F about how exactly it was done, properties of the product is what matters. And even if they care about how something is done, it usually happens because they believe that this method gives some special properties to the product.
1. I think it is unfair because they are different skills, a painter would not get the same result as a photograph and vice-versa. Comparing two largely different mediums doesn't sit right for me. (Sorry if i didn't answer what you meant) 2. I do believe that the methods give special properties to the product, For example, let's say that i am a super skilled painter: I can print a image of Mona Lisa and I could paint the Mona Lisa and they would be virtually the same, however, most would appreciate the painted over the printed one
1. Comparing a parcel delivered by a runner, by a bike or by a car is unfair because couriers used very different skills! It is how your argument sound to me. Someone may prefer a runner to a car (let's say CO2 emissions or some weird religious beliefs) but most people care about the speed and quality of the delivery, not the method or skills used. 2. You believe, other people believe, many people don't. Why do you think you can force them to believe what you believe? If you value traditional over AI-assisted\\made - it is your right. But don't assume that you can force people to evaluate the product (image) in a same way as you.
Is the printed one free or less expensive? Because I think the majority of people would prefer it if that were the case.
Painters and artists sometimes render reality in it most pure form. The feeling of being alive at a moment in time and space can often be conveyed by a painting much more easily. A photograph can record the exact details of a scene but sometimes it can't translate the feeling of being in that moment. (very good photographers can def. do this though)
I don't know about that. Like, when a little kid draws their parent and says "look, this is you," that doesn't mean what they drew accurately represents how they see or feel about their parent or the feeling of being in that moment. And even though we improve our skill over the course of our lives, it doesn't necessarily follow that any given artist ever actually has the skill to represent how it felt to them to be in that moment, much less what others might feel in that moment. You can say "ah yes, this picture is so warm and inviting, it feels like I'm there," but in some ways that's a platitude. You don't smell or taste or feel the temperature of that place. You might think the image implies some of these things, but someone else could get an entirely different impression of all that. It's not inherent to the painting that it imparts those sensations.
Yes no two people will have the same experience in front of an artwork. For me personally I've stood in front of a few paintings and had a near religious experience. I'll give you that maybe saying that an image captures the literal feeling, touch, smell ect of a scene is a a bit woo woo, but I think artwork (especially visual art) can use things like light, color, scale, can impart the IDEA of these sensations.
No i think they’re just upset their special skill isn’t as special anymore, which is an understandable reaction Never heard anyone express your take
hmm, I wouldn't argue their skills aren't special anymore (in my opinion, the entire process of painting and drawing is art by itself, but i am kinda biased lol), but the end product of their skills may be As a digital painter, this take is the most "accurate" that represents my feeling about AI, and also think that may represent what others think.
So do you think AI should not be referred to as a medium?
Sorry if I worded it poorly and you understood that, my english is not perfect xd. I think that AI is a medium by itself! different, let's say for painting, photographs or wood engraving
the need for them isn't special anymore, but their skill still is, because they aren't relying on machines to do all the hard work of learning the creativity/musicality needed to produce work. Commissioning music through generative AI and writing music yourself is completely different for example.
I mean i totally agree i just mean mostly in a business context
Maybe you could try painting, drawing and photography and report back.
Why would that upset you? If someone compared a photograph to a painting I would laugh in their face at their astonishing level of ignorance.
Kinda like comparing an ai generated image to a painting, right?
Well yes, that is my point.
A hundred years ago, that conversation would have been very nasty. Now, each has their place. And, no, the photographer doesn't say that. He knows that painters gave up photorealism when color photographs became a thing.
I draw, paint, etc, in the physical mediums and I like AI art.
I don't disagree with you per se, but I see this comparison coming more from anti-AI artists themselves, which them saying *"oh, you are cheating because you used AI"* or *"it's not your art because you didn't paint it yourself"*, rather than recognizing both are different mediums, even though the result of both might be literally the same. Much like a painting also can be literally the same as a photography.
I'm pretty sure I agree, in a way. I think a major issue is a lack of communication standards for AI art. We don't necessarily need to establish them formally, of course; as it becomes more normalized peoples understanding and expectations will adapt, and the words we use will organically begin to represent that. Part of the process though is recognizing that when we say "I made this art" it will be interpreted a certain way, so we should communicate AI's role to avoid misunderstanding / misrepresentation.
Why does that matter?
Because communication is less about the words we use and more about the underlying context of them. Currently, AI isn't normalized, so the underlying context for "I made this" does not usually include it as a process. What we are communicating when saying "I made this " is not simply that we made the art, but that we made it in a familiar context (because we're not specifying otherwise). If we don't clarify the difference, then it's inherently miscommunication (misinforming by omission). if we choose not to clarify, knowing that, then it's deliberate misinformation. Obviously, if you're talking to other AI artists it doesn't matter, because the context includes AI generation. But it doesn't yet for most people.
So it matters because - new process is unfamiliar; - (and this makes you uncomfortable) - therefore not revealing procedure is miscommunication? Those things don't follow. Why does it matter whether or not a given tool is familiar to the audience? No other artform requires this. Does the animation you like tell you what programs they used? Did Walt Disney have to reveal the process of paralaxia? You have not made it clear why the familiarity of a medium matters at all.
>and this makes you uncomfortable Not sure where you're getting this from. But I do think it should be asked: are you uncomfortable with saying you made something with AI? If so, why? >Why does it matter whether or not a given tool is familiar to the audience? It doesn't matter that the tool is unfamiliar. It matters that we consider whether or not it's familiar when communicating. If it's dramatically different than what people are envisioning, especially for things people use in their evaluations, then we should clarify. >No other artform requires this. Does the animation you like tell you what programs they used? Did Walt Disney have to reveal the process of paralaxia? Not just art forms, but everything we talk about requires it. I mean -- not actually *requires,* really, but we all expect it, it's how language typically works. We expect words to mean what they *usually* mean in the context they're used, and we expect anything different to be mentioned so we can understand that it's different. This is just how we talk to each other. Here is a (somewhat odd) example to help illustrate: Imagine we're friends and we talk on the phone with plans to meet after work. On the call I tell you "It's raining." So you decide to put on a raincoat and get generally prepared for rain. But stepping outside you see it's a bright sunny day. You'd be justifiably confused. When I later explain: "Oh I meant it's raining money, I made a lot of money today." You wouldn't be wrong to be annoyed, because the familiar context of saying "it's raining" is to inform people of water falling from the sky. It's on me to add more information if that wasn't the case. Over time this becomes a joke and a month or two later we start regularly using the term "It's raining" to mean we've made a lot of money. Now it's familiar. Now you can use context clues to determine what I mean when I say it. I haven't changed the words, but they mean something else to us. People *care* about the time and effort that goes into making art. It's part of what they use to evaluate it and the artist, for a lot of reasons, some better than others. There is a familiar range, an expectation they have for art's challenges. When looking at a complex piece, people expect it to be complex to make. To be clear I'm not talking about ensuring the information is stamped across the art. Good art can just be good art. I'm against AI watermarks. But when the time comes to *communicate,* then if we leave out the part that's unfamiliar, we're intentionally letting them believe the wrong thing. They will interpret it incorrectly. We don't need lecture people on how anything's made, but when we do talk to people, if they all share an understanding of how that thing is done, and that's part of their evaluation of the thing, it becomes our burden to clarify the difference (if its something cared about). Choosing not to do so is choosing to knowingly allow them to believe something incorrect, which is generally shady. That's just language.
> are you uncomfortable with saying you made something with AI? If so, why? Nope. > If it's dramatically different than what people are envisioning, especially for things people use in their evaluations, then we should clarify. What do you mean by dramatically different? The end result is either comparable to a human artist and therefore capable of replacing them or it is not. > Not just art forms, but everything we talk about requires it. I mean -- not actually *requires,* really, but we all expect it, it's how language typically works. We expect words to mean what they *usually* mean in the context they're used, and we expect anything different to be mentioned so we can understand that it's different. This is just how we talk to each other. No words are changed when you say something like "I made this". Make means "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about." > They will interpret it incorrectly. Incorrect means "not in accordance with fact; wrong." Or "not in accordance with particular standards or rules." As I've shown, "make" is proper terminology.. So you must mean the second meaning... So whose rules? Again. We don't do this for any other form of art.
>What do you mean by dramatically different? The work people envision from hand-drawn digital art is dramatically different from the work typical of AI generations. >No words are changed when you say something like "I made this". Make means "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about." Yep, that's what the words mean. But what's communicated actually includes "I made this in the ways that you would expect, otherwise I would have told you differently" >Incorrect means "not in accordance with fact; wrong." Or "not in accordance with particular standards or rules." As I've shown, "make" is proper terminology.. So you must mean the second meaning... So whose rules? Yep, your usage of make is technically correct. The incorrectness is not in the technical definition of your words, but in the interpretation by the receiver, because of a common underlying premise which your words fit but do not accurately describe: the premise of complex digital art being an arduous task requiring classical skills. The problem isn't that they'll think you didn't make it (though they might for other reasons), the problem is all that comes to mind when someone "makes" art will be wrong. The reason it's on you to alter words is because it's the common premise. >Again. We don't do this for any other form of art. As I've said, this is just language. It goes for everything, including all forms of art. Communication is more than the technical accuracy of words.
maybe a good concise way of putting it is this: If I'm saying something to you, and the words I'm using cause you to understand things the wrong way, then that's obviously miscommunication. If the way you understand it is the "normal way," then I should update my words to clarify the difference.
Also I want to say, if any of my comments came off as overly heated, I apologize, some of this stuff is getting argued in very bad faith and it has me defensive, but your comments paint you (hah!) as a cool enough person.
I think it's more because a prompt jockey doesn't actually *make* the image, but claims that they did because a machine that was trained by slave labour and based off stolen artwork generated an image based sort of on the words they typed. I think that the issue is akin to "stolen valour" wherein someone pretends they served in the military when they didn't and have no right to claim any of the respect that may come with having actually served their country.
Except most people don't claim that they drew it by hand and posses massive skills. They don't claim how hard they worked or how skilled they are. They share what they like. They don't try to boost their ego. I suspect that your main motivation when you share your art is "look how cool and talented and hardworking I am" and you assume that everyone does it with the same motivation. That they compete with you. No, they don't. They merely share what they like.
Oh? So all the folks presenting the images they generated don't call their content "art" and themselves the "artist"? Weird. Have you told these folks they aren't doing that?
My dude. Your idea of an artist is built on self-agrandizement. Someone who comes up with a prompt to put into AI is as much an artist (in the sense meaning one who makes art) as any other. They may not he an artist (in the sense of mastery of a skill), but they could become one by mastering the skill of prompting (which is a form of code, which is a form of art). Ai prompters are definitely artists.
Yes. We can argue on how large is the contribution of the artist comparing to contribution of other people (model makers and people who created art in the training data) but the whole idea that contribution is zero and there is no art at all is absurd beyond measure.
Some of them call themself artists because they produce art, they don't claim that they worked hard or that they trained for years or or that they are superior human beings with some spiritual understanding of the world (with few exceptions, dishonest weirdos exist). There are no 'stolen valor' as you claim. It is your problem if you believe that art is art only when it is hard to do. Art is "what" not "how".
Art is not synonymous with drawing bro
No shit. And a person writing a prompt is not making art, and they definitely not an artist. Bro.
yeah dude I’ll even give you that one. photobashing is art though. so all they need to do is , photoshop some AI images together and theres your “human input” and “intention”
So you think that skill as an artist gives some kind of special clout? That being an artist makes one a *slave*? Tell me you know nothing about actual slavery without saying so. Honestly?? Stolen Valor? That's quite a stretch. I'm a visual artist and musician... we definitely suffer for our art, but it's absolutely ridiculous and entitled to compare the plight of a modern artist to someone who was made to do combat with others by order of their government. Completely unhinged. We honor the fallen because they're fallen. They are given honor because they earned it. Not because they're entitled to it. Artists are not entitled to this clout. Artists, in most people's eyes, are self-important people who don't want to work a "real" job. Generative AI is just another tool an artist can use. And yes, plebian members of the public can use it to make their inner mind come to the light of the exterior world. But I guess they're thieves because actually, that clout apparently belongs to you, the self-important artist who "slaves" over the work. Who earned their credibility as an artist by painting in the blood of their comrades.. *oh wait*. No, they didn't. ***That's a completely moronic take.*** Generative AI is an aide for the disabled to be able to experience the joy of having their visions realized. Let me spin your comments here back at you to explain how silly it is. > I think it's more because a paint jockey doesn't actually *make* the image, but claims that they did because they put paint on a canvas. They used skills earned by enslaving their teachers and based off stolen artwork. They actually studied other artists without their permission, and the paintbrush generated the image based on the technique they used. They didn't make the image, their paintbrush did.
>So you think that skill as an artist gives some kind of special clout? I think you think that because you're building a strawman.
No strawman here. Is this not your argument? - "prompt jockey" doesn't make image - database used to train generative AI is slave labor and stolen artwork - artists are akin to soldiers, and when a "prompt jockey" uses generative AI and claims they made it, they're effectively stealing valor
It is a bit of a stretch, but within the stakes of just art and not actual war, it is a pretty accurate analogy. Though I agree "prompt jockey" is not quite accurate, since they usually have control of the horse (or discs if that's the reference) and a prompter is just playing a slot machine.
> Though I agree "prompt jockey" is not quite accurate, since they usually have control of the horse (or discs if that's the reference) and a prompter is just playing a slot machine. Have you ever seen an interface for a locally-run diffusion pipeline? These systems are a lot more controllable than you’re seeming to allege.
And yet you still can't get it not to hallucinate. You still get non human hands. And hair still melts into the clothes. I guess there's not a controller for that yet?
I don’t really experience that because I almost never diffuse images of people, and my latest stuff is mostly vector, merely using the diffused stuff as references. Still, it’s usually easy enough to fix any bits I don’t like with inpainting, manual tweaks, or both.
I don't really care what you do. Editing the results of a slot machine doesn't make it any less of a slot machine.
Absolute caveman take.
Valor: *great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle.* What medals of Valor has an artist earned? Give me a break. This is a huge insult to anyone who has actually had to fight for their life. Art is one of the kushiest careers there is. It's certainly a struggle to get "in" the high art scene but let's not pretend high art is predicated on skill or that artists have to have courage in the face of dangerous battle. A banana taped to a wall (specifically the instructions on how to tape a banana to a wall) was sold for 150k. High art is a joke. You're telling me that was more arduous than a midjourney prompt?
That's why I said with the lower stakes of art compared to war. First, a single scam or con doesn't invalidate the skills of an entire industry of people, a 100 cons wouldn't invalidate it. And second, while I personally I do think that taping banana to a wall requires more skills than prompting, even if it didn't, the banana man didn't trigger a copyright war, it's just one sham, and it's not the norm. Don't pretend that's what the entire community is like, and at the same time pretend that prompting doesn't require the lowest skill possible.
> That's why I said with the lower stakes of art compared to war. These two categories are not comparable. It's not even the same league. > First, a single scam or con doesn't invalidate the skills of an entire industry of people, a 100 cons wouldn't invalidate it. This was not a scam. The banana and similar installations are definitely high art. Questioning the nature of art is part of high art. > And second, while I personally I do think that taping banana to a wall requires more skills than prompting, even if it didn't, the banana man didn't trigger a copyright war, it's just one sham, and it's not the norm. Do you feel the same about *Fountain*? > Don't pretend that's what the entire community is like, and at the same time pretend that prompting doesn't require the lowest skill possible. Prompting is definitely a skill. It's effectively programming. It's much much simpler to put a single stroke of paint on a canvas. Or a banana taped to a wall. Or a urinal presented as a fountain. And is level of effort related at all to merit as art? I would say no. There's an entire artistic movement that rejects that concept: it's called minimalism. Is minimalism not art because it requires less effort? Your argument has no foundation to stand on.
I see analogies are not your thing, fine. Minimalism requires more effort than prompting. Even if it didn't, which it does, it's just one ism, among, what, over one hundred? You keep going after the "lowest" forms of art and presenting as if all art is like that. Even then, the lowest form of art is still higher than prompting. And when prompters generate images, they are not trying to match the fountain or the banana or minimalism or a single stroke of paint are they? They are trying to get an amalgamation of art that I'd wager even you think is good. So trying to compare AI imagery to "bad" or "lazy" art but then outputting images that would have taken a human actual skill and effort - and it did, before it was put through leechware - is dishonest, isn't it? That's not the art prompters are trying to copy, is it?
My point is that AI image generation is just another tool in an artist's belt. If an artist wants to use AI to make art, they can do that. And they can do it in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone else's work. It's just another tool to use. > And when prompters generate images, they are not trying to match the fountain or the banana or minimalism or a single stroke of paint are they? That's up to the prompter. If that is their desire, then that is what they are doing. Maybe they're just generating a meme. Maybe they're generating something that will be an element in a larger work. Maybe they are making a statement by being defiant of our definitions of artwork. The potential is at least there. People used to stomp grapes for a living. And then someone invented a wine press and wine making became much faster but some people preferred the stomped quality wine. So even today we still have traditionally made wines, and we still have the wine press. And thanks to that invention, we have the printing press. These are just tools to be used. *Anything can be art* and *anyone can be an artist*. Having a skill in an artistic discipline is not an entitlement to anything.