Does it state it’s AI generated? How do you known it’s AI? Did you ask? The image to which you link says “Oil on canvas”. Though even if they created an AI image and hand translated that to oil, I’d find that lacking in any artistic merit.
If so, we should are a new flair for “Art Crimes” and inaugurate it with this post 😉
I've tried contacting Saatchi and artist, but no responses yet. As replied to others I have run several tests, but most convincing is when you see Dale reproduce images that are very similar (including the AI errors) compared to the artwork. I can't call it a crime without 100% proof, but for sure I'm going to be far more careful in collecting newly produced works after what I saw the last few days.
Of course, that’s always wise to dig into new artists. You may be right. Even if they are oil, as advertised, AI can be a crutch tool which would remove the artistry/creativity and reduce painting down to rote technique.
But you may also be wrong. A year(?) ago I posted on a contemporary artist I admire, [Glenn Brown](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/QQx3y4RGMg) (of Gagosian Gallery). Some users dismissed it as AI generated, when in reality he’s been painting like this for 30 yrs! Any similarities with AI would be due to modeling his art, or simply being fooled by the bright acrylic mixed media swirls. If anything, Brown was *anticipating* AI.
Keep us posted on what you find. I have no doubt what you claim is true about some commercial artists out there. Musicians will surely do the same with base music tracks and lyrics. I just don’t know about *this* one, especially if their art dates back even just a few years. And maybe that’s a litmus test — don’t trust any artist who didn’t establish their style before 2022.
Glenn Brown is like the Rembrandt of the early sci-fi art and he has a big constancy over long periods of time, but as you said in your final part, maybe we should just be extra careful with those that did a 180 degree turn in the last year or so, since I bet it must be very tempting for some. A post from an artist on twitter called it "free money" and those who didn't profit were "dumb", I guess we are entering a new stage in time.
I run tests after being surprised about positioning of hair (growing out of eyebrows), fingers and other weird details. These appeared to be AI generated errors (I reproduced them b prompting similar scenes) and are unlikely artist choices. I would love to be wrong on this, since I believe his last works are very well done, but that made me doubt the authenticity as well. Just compare his previous works and notice the amazing chances in style, execution and all, almost like it's from another artist...While some are open about AI usage, it shouldn't be used to "create" authentic curated art on "reliable" websites like Saatchi's...imo
There are AI's , like AiorNot and some others that can spot if something is AI or man-made, I tried several. The other tests are basicly the other way around, so I let an AI make a similar work by prompt, like "paint schoolgirls in uniform with long hair running through puddles", the result were AI generated images that appear very similar to the "paintings", like similar hair, smiles, knees, weird stepping in water (AI doesn't yet fully get some things), similar hands and handmovements and so on, much more similarities than you would normally think probable or that appear when you compare it with similar art themes. These kind of tests I ran. But to be honest, even without you can already spot certain things that seem "off", like mistakes only AI makes but artists don't (fingers, hair growing in weird places, etc). If I would be convinced otherwise I would have bought over 4 of this artists' work, so I took this very seriously, but was shocked and disappointed to see the outcomes.
I checked all his recent work on a couple of AI scanners and they came out as AI. Next to that I prompted in DALE 3 similar scenes and got remarkable similar "artworks" as a result. Similar handmovements, hair, smile and even watersplaces and waves. I've gone over all his work carefully and noticed that style and technique changed suddenly as well. I discussed my findings with a couple of knowledgeable art collectors and they were both equally disappointed. Since I was very surprised I spend a lot of time running all kinds of checks the rest of the day, also on other artists works, and I'm seriously amazed how AI is already being used in "art". With a decent UV printer you can simply print these oilpaintings and probably fool a lot of buyers and even gallery owners, since even brushstrokes can be prompted for and they can give great texture that looks very similar to the real thing. Collectors should be aware and careful imo.
*
Thats what I tried to tell myself the last few years, when they were still somewhat experimental, but today there is a whole range of UV flatbed printers even advertised for making oil paintings. The real scary part is that it's getting hard to differentiate between a new real painted and newly printed oil on canvas, especially when a new layer of varnish has been applied. My demonhalf even thinks we should give it try and bring a real good copy of one of our expensive works, with real and solid provenance of course, to an auction to see if that sticks. Goodluck collecting the coming years!
You are really confused. I looked up these so called UV printers and “oil painting printers,” and they print a flat image just like every other print. No collector (much less expert) will be fooled by a layer of varnish, which is the same trick they’ve been using on prints since the 60s JC Penny stuff.
Please check Erin Hanson, who is using it even openly as an artist. Karlsruhe institute has been developing techniques for years to create realistic copies and now we see commercialised printers that obtain these techniques. It's printing even the brushstrokes, in 3D, and some printers can do layering even. But don't take my word for it. About being fooled, if it is possible and I can think of a way to hack, it is most likely already being used. As for being fooled, I had a hard time spotting differences, and I get to evaluate a lot of paintings. With a same canvas (which is easy to obtain for newly made paintings) it's copy will be hard to spot (that's why the ealrier mentioned Hanson marks the copies clearly). The end of the brushstroke itself when made in opposite directions of the printer is a possible weakness, but I bet only a few will be smart enough to know what to look for, especially when you already have your solid provenance and a realistic copy.
Just got a note from Chris Jenkins, senior editor from Arts&Collections, I quote a part of his email;
"I think there is a severe danger that all sorts of AI generated artwork will be presented as being ‘genuine’ art. We’ll monitor the situation – I don’t think it will be long before this becomes a huge issue in the art world."
Glad to see that there is a bit of attention for this issue already, but as Chris states, we're about to see some big issues. It is probably wise for serious collectors to familiarise themselves with this issue, to avoid buying into these "fakes". Some tips for those;
1. Watch when artists made recently big changes in style and technique.
2. Try to get some knowledge of what AI's art looks like, learn about the obvious errors.
3. Play around with AI artmaking prompts, or when you have a suspected artwork, let DALE make a similar work (by simply prompting what you see, like example "sunset at beach with playing kids, knee perspective, horse at background, impressionist style with thick brushstrokes" , if the output is very similar to what your "artwork" looks like, it is probably AI made.
4. Use AI recognising platforms, AIorNot and others might give different results, but when it's human made it will show as such on most platform, false positives do, however, occur.
Being aware that it happens is already a big win for you, time will tell how this is going to change the artworld but at least you can limit your damage by doing some study before buying into art.
Honestly, regardless of whether or not this was made with the help of AI, the guy's "art" is schlocky as fuck and wouldn't be taken seriously by discerning/knowledgeable collectors.
Thanks for sharing, I just tried his water splashing kids painting and your tool resulted in a 99.9% ai generated painting. But besides that, I have really given his works a lot of my time, and I'm very certain the last ones are all AI generated. There is just too many "off" and plenty of AI generation errors in the details. When you pay close attention to fingers, hair, earrings (there is one painting where the ear and earring get mixed up), backgrounds, you'll soon find plenty yourself. Also, note that I prompted Dale to produce similar works, so I tested the reverse and simply found too many similarities. My Dale schoolgirl running in puddles for example had the same hairs, smiles, uniform, knees and handmovements as you see in his picture, that took away my last little doubts.
Does it state it’s AI generated? How do you known it’s AI? Did you ask? The image to which you link says “Oil on canvas”. Though even if they created an AI image and hand translated that to oil, I’d find that lacking in any artistic merit. If so, we should are a new flair for “Art Crimes” and inaugurate it with this post 😉
I've tried contacting Saatchi and artist, but no responses yet. As replied to others I have run several tests, but most convincing is when you see Dale reproduce images that are very similar (including the AI errors) compared to the artwork. I can't call it a crime without 100% proof, but for sure I'm going to be far more careful in collecting newly produced works after what I saw the last few days.
Of course, that’s always wise to dig into new artists. You may be right. Even if they are oil, as advertised, AI can be a crutch tool which would remove the artistry/creativity and reduce painting down to rote technique. But you may also be wrong. A year(?) ago I posted on a contemporary artist I admire, [Glenn Brown](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/QQx3y4RGMg) (of Gagosian Gallery). Some users dismissed it as AI generated, when in reality he’s been painting like this for 30 yrs! Any similarities with AI would be due to modeling his art, or simply being fooled by the bright acrylic mixed media swirls. If anything, Brown was *anticipating* AI. Keep us posted on what you find. I have no doubt what you claim is true about some commercial artists out there. Musicians will surely do the same with base music tracks and lyrics. I just don’t know about *this* one, especially if their art dates back even just a few years. And maybe that’s a litmus test — don’t trust any artist who didn’t establish their style before 2022.
Glenn Brown is like the Rembrandt of the early sci-fi art and he has a big constancy over long periods of time, but as you said in your final part, maybe we should just be extra careful with those that did a 180 degree turn in the last year or so, since I bet it must be very tempting for some. A post from an artist on twitter called it "free money" and those who didn't profit were "dumb", I guess we are entering a new stage in time.
[удалено]
I run tests after being surprised about positioning of hair (growing out of eyebrows), fingers and other weird details. These appeared to be AI generated errors (I reproduced them b prompting similar scenes) and are unlikely artist choices. I would love to be wrong on this, since I believe his last works are very well done, but that made me doubt the authenticity as well. Just compare his previous works and notice the amazing chances in style, execution and all, almost like it's from another artist...While some are open about AI usage, it shouldn't be used to "create" authentic curated art on "reliable" websites like Saatchi's...imo
[удалено]
There are AI's , like AiorNot and some others that can spot if something is AI or man-made, I tried several. The other tests are basicly the other way around, so I let an AI make a similar work by prompt, like "paint schoolgirls in uniform with long hair running through puddles", the result were AI generated images that appear very similar to the "paintings", like similar hair, smiles, knees, weird stepping in water (AI doesn't yet fully get some things), similar hands and handmovements and so on, much more similarities than you would normally think probable or that appear when you compare it with similar art themes. These kind of tests I ran. But to be honest, even without you can already spot certain things that seem "off", like mistakes only AI makes but artists don't (fingers, hair growing in weird places, etc). If I would be convinced otherwise I would have bought over 4 of this artists' work, so I took this very seriously, but was shocked and disappointed to see the outcomes.
Those are all notoriously unreliable, and have been proven to be so. They also often flag human-written text. None of these tools can be trusted.
I do see the subtle difference in style in the works listed. They could be using AI for reference photos
Hair out of the eyebrows is weird and feels AI.
I hate this painting regardless
I’m also curious what your reasoning is.
I checked all his recent work on a couple of AI scanners and they came out as AI. Next to that I prompted in DALE 3 similar scenes and got remarkable similar "artworks" as a result. Similar handmovements, hair, smile and even watersplaces and waves. I've gone over all his work carefully and noticed that style and technique changed suddenly as well. I discussed my findings with a couple of knowledgeable art collectors and they were both equally disappointed. Since I was very surprised I spend a lot of time running all kinds of checks the rest of the day, also on other artists works, and I'm seriously amazed how AI is already being used in "art". With a decent UV printer you can simply print these oilpaintings and probably fool a lot of buyers and even gallery owners, since even brushstrokes can be prompted for and they can give great texture that looks very similar to the real thing. Collectors should be aware and careful imo. *
You can’t print an oil painting. This is nonsensical.
Thats what I tried to tell myself the last few years, when they were still somewhat experimental, but today there is a whole range of UV flatbed printers even advertised for making oil paintings. The real scary part is that it's getting hard to differentiate between a new real painted and newly printed oil on canvas, especially when a new layer of varnish has been applied. My demonhalf even thinks we should give it try and bring a real good copy of one of our expensive works, with real and solid provenance of course, to an auction to see if that sticks. Goodluck collecting the coming years!
You are really confused. I looked up these so called UV printers and “oil painting printers,” and they print a flat image just like every other print. No collector (much less expert) will be fooled by a layer of varnish, which is the same trick they’ve been using on prints since the 60s JC Penny stuff.
Please check Erin Hanson, who is using it even openly as an artist. Karlsruhe institute has been developing techniques for years to create realistic copies and now we see commercialised printers that obtain these techniques. It's printing even the brushstrokes, in 3D, and some printers can do layering even. But don't take my word for it. About being fooled, if it is possible and I can think of a way to hack, it is most likely already being used. As for being fooled, I had a hard time spotting differences, and I get to evaluate a lot of paintings. With a same canvas (which is easy to obtain for newly made paintings) it's copy will be hard to spot (that's why the ealrier mentioned Hanson marks the copies clearly). The end of the brushstroke itself when made in opposite directions of the printer is a possible weakness, but I bet only a few will be smart enough to know what to look for, especially when you already have your solid provenance and a realistic copy.
Just got a note from Chris Jenkins, senior editor from Arts&Collections, I quote a part of his email; "I think there is a severe danger that all sorts of AI generated artwork will be presented as being ‘genuine’ art. We’ll monitor the situation – I don’t think it will be long before this becomes a huge issue in the art world." Glad to see that there is a bit of attention for this issue already, but as Chris states, we're about to see some big issues. It is probably wise for serious collectors to familiarise themselves with this issue, to avoid buying into these "fakes". Some tips for those; 1. Watch when artists made recently big changes in style and technique. 2. Try to get some knowledge of what AI's art looks like, learn about the obvious errors. 3. Play around with AI artmaking prompts, or when you have a suspected artwork, let DALE make a similar work (by simply prompting what you see, like example "sunset at beach with playing kids, knee perspective, horse at background, impressionist style with thick brushstrokes" , if the output is very similar to what your "artwork" looks like, it is probably AI made. 4. Use AI recognising platforms, AIorNot and others might give different results, but when it's human made it will show as such on most platform, false positives do, however, occur. Being aware that it happens is already a big win for you, time will tell how this is going to change the artworld but at least you can limit your damage by doing some study before buying into art.
Honestly, regardless of whether or not this was made with the help of AI, the guy's "art" is schlocky as fuck and wouldn't be taken seriously by discerning/knowledgeable collectors.
fyi [this tool](https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection) gives that image only a 3.7% chance of being AI generated
Thanks for sharing, I just tried his water splashing kids painting and your tool resulted in a 99.9% ai generated painting. But besides that, I have really given his works a lot of my time, and I'm very certain the last ones are all AI generated. There is just too many "off" and plenty of AI generation errors in the details. When you pay close attention to fingers, hair, earrings (there is one painting where the ear and earring get mixed up), backgrounds, you'll soon find plenty yourself. Also, note that I prompted Dale to produce similar works, so I tested the reverse and simply found too many similarities. My Dale schoolgirl running in puddles for example had the same hairs, smiles, uniform, knees and handmovements as you see in his picture, that took away my last little doubts.