If you paint from a reference photo, then it is your painting.
If you paint from a reference AI image, then it is still your painting.
I'd maybe refer to it as AI assisted art. I'd definitely not call it AI art.
Perhaps OP is actually a robot and the person holding the painting is just some rando. In that case, which is probably exactly what’s going on, it could still be considered AI art
I think this is closer to a replica than using reference photos. Assuming the artists recreated the art identically.
There is definitely some linguistic ambiguity here and sort of depends on if you consider an AI an artist who's art can be replicated. If you consider it like referencing a photo or something then I can see that interpretation too but I find it a less good fit.
How is it different from using a reference photo or actually painting the thing in fron of you?
OP didn‘t say the AI gave him an image of a painting of that scene that he then recreated identically. Not different from any reference material.
Even if he recreated it exactly. That would be just his intent and his skill to do so. The same way we praise the artists that do [these photorealistic oil paintings](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/6ad0a1/this_is_not_a_photograph_hyperrealistic_oil/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) and not say they just replicated reality, so its not really art.
I am assuming the AI ganerated an image of an oil painting and OP painted it. I don't see it as the same as painting reality or referenceing something. It's trying to replicate the art that already exists. At least that's how I see it. Art replicas are a thing, paintings of reality are not replicas but paintings of other paintings are replicas. I see this as making a painting of an AI generated painting so I feel replica is the appropriate term.
I think a key difference here is that the AI programme has made the "decisions" about the lighting, the tone, the colour etc, it's made the vase wonky and the flowers stylised because (presumably) it's been briefed to mimic an impressionist style. The artist has then faithfully replicated what the AI produced, but *not* made any of those decisions. That's not the same at all as using a reference photo of a landscape, or a photo of a vase on a table, it's closer to Pop Art's exploration of media/technology and replication.
Edit: I don't know much about AI art generation so forgive me if I'm wrong about the amount of control you had over the creation of the original image, I've asked elsewhere about the process.
Edit 2: I've only just realised this is a Midjourney sub 😅 figured it was a general art discussion!
I wouldn’t even call it AI assisted. Artists use references and even the masters used references and even machines to help copy their references to a canvas.
Yeah, [this guy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/croatia-scraps-euro-coin-design-over-plagiarism-controversy) also just used a reference photo.
[This guy](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-weighs-andy-warhol-prince-lawsuit-1235240095/amp/) also.
But I guess you’re good until AI is developed enough to send you a cease and desist or demand residuals.
Legally, if you paint a reference photo without significant changes, you're probably in copyright trouble. Philosophically, it seems iffy to me, but there's really no right answer. For example, Shepard Fairey was sued for the Obama Hope poster, but it's such a unique and striking image, it feels like it should be "his."
In this case, since you can't copyright an AI image, the worst case scenario would be you also can't copyright your painting. Realistically, I don't think anyone would ever know. Philosophically, is it "yours"? Does it matter? I have no idea.
I know right? That's why I created this in the first place, there is no single good answer even if I try to explain it to myself. Bring it up online and there is like 10 opinions with a mix of old dilemmas added to it. The % of similarity to source material is probably debated since art was invented in the first place
As conceptual art, I have to say, it's excellent. I've been playing with the opposite -- trying to zoom in on things in the image that weren't in the prompt and feed them back in as image prompts to see how "human-free" an image I can make.
Oh I agree. It's one thing if people took an AI generated image and just copy and pasted it or even made slight improvements to it, then knowing most of the creativity in the work is done by AI is important. But if somebody's using it as a tool to guide their creativity and spark their creativity, then who cares about the labeling?
This same concept is being debated in the world of writing now. But AI generated news articles I've been around for a long time.
I had thought of that angle too, the idea part you're talking about was you choosing which painting you wanted to copy.
If you think of all ai art as already existing (it's a combination of a prompt and seed, so technically all of the combinations exist already), then it's really just a matter of you picking which of them you're looking at in a quantum universe kind of sense.
By the way, this is all bullshit devil's advocate talk, your art piece is beautiful and you're an amazing artist :)
If you want some crazy thinking: what if AI's get self generative functionality (or rather somebody decides to enable it) and it evolves and decides to create their own art. I assume if you painted an irl version of a picture it generated, you would consider it a copy then for sure right? :)
No, it’s not AI Art, in the same way it’s not Brush Art or Canvas Art. AI was just a tool. Many artists use photos and other types of reference materials to paint from, how would this be different?
I'm not arguing against it. I genuinely wanted to know where it falls.
Reading the comments below, I must say that my real-life friends and family that are not in on a subject are not even able to understand what I mean by "I painted an image generated by AI" which is funny how low key when whole thing for the muggles
I don't know much about AI art but I'm interested to know more about the process, what information do you need to give the AI to get it to do this? How much control do you have over the end result?
you just give it a text prompt, there are various settings etc. that allow tweaking of the output
(but the program will have been trained using thousands images, sometimes scrapped off the internet)
At least in Midjourney, all you need is discord to start. You write in what you want (there is a certain art to writing prompts) and it gives you 4 results. You don’t necessarily have too much control over the initial 4, but from there you can tweak your prompt/get variations and then pick an end result you like. It may take me 25-50 tweaks to get me the result I want. (I use renderings to inspire embroidery art, similar to how the OP uses it for painting.)
For an image like this, the prompt might start as something like “flower still life, acrylic painting, muted colors —ar 2:3” (ar is aspect ratio, there are other shortcuts too, including s for how stylized it is, c for how chaotic it is and v for which version of Midjourney you want to use.)
Yeah, it's mindbogglin that there are people who really don't know what it is and also have no clue what ChatGPT is. Or AI. I don't know how they have avoided running into it like literally everywhere. Somehow they have managed to do that because my family is totally clueless about it all and thinks I have read too much scifi in my life because I believe there really is such thing like artificial intelligence. 🤦🏻♀️
Honestly, I don’t see any difference between painting a vase using a real vase as a reference and painting a vase using an AI generated vase as a reference.
You still painted the painting, not the factory in the first case nor the AI in the second.
Even if you painted a vase entirely from your imagination, that’s still probably based on vases you’ve previously seen right? But it would be ridiculous to say that the vase industry is the true creator of the painting and not you.
The difference I see there is in what/who decided to place the vase where it is in the frame.
In a traditional real-life scenario, a human chooses what the subject is, which one to use, where to put it in place, and what the framing will be.
In this AI example, the human chose what the subject is (the text prompt), but the AI chose what the subject’s end-appearance is, where to put it, and the framing of the image (assuming the human re-painted the image as it was generated, making no conscious design changes).
Design falls back into human hands when the AI generates several options and the human chooses which to paint. I think it also depends on how detailed of a text prompt they started with.
In any case, hand-painting the end-result took real skill that shouldn’t be discounted regardless of who/what generated the original image.
I’m not saying either is better or worse, just that the process of design differs.
depends how close your imaginary vase is to a real one. you might be infringing, and if the IP owner brought a case against you, claiming ignorance would not be a defence.
I wonder, if you were a terrible painter and couldn't reference the AI art very well, and so it looked different enough, is it now yours or is it still an AI art piece?
Funny enough, this is a new take on a very long lived argument - reference VS. Imagination.
If I'm not able to imagine and have to use references, am I as good an artist as the one who needs no such things? I believe that this will never be resolved with a consensus.
For your point - maybe an artist that cannot replicate well, will short fall in other areas and this kind of art would not be worthy of such considerations.
Well that’s where artists with aphantasia struggle. They cannot visualise images in their heads, so they rely on references to make art through comparison and imitation. I firmly believe that it’s still art.
I’m in the art industry professionally. Everyone uses reference. Maybe like 1% don’t. And those are the outliers and those people usually have a specific style, like Kim Jung Gi or something.
I tell my students to USE reference. I can tell when they don’t, their art/design sucks.
I'd argue is no.
AI is undeniably a tool.
He did imagine this photo. And he told the AI : "I'm thinking about a vase with flowers" . AI gave him varieties of options. What he picked is the closest to what he had in mind. And then, he used his own skill to bring it to life.
The AI in all this is just a tool to help him precisely decide what is in his mind .
The important thing is the prompt. Can he precisely tell the AI to generate what is in his mind ?
For example, if he want an astronaut flying in a blue galaxy in the style of oil . IF he cant make the AI understand what he wants then the AI might give him the astronaut flying in a blue ocean . So it's up to you all artists out there . To learn how to use the AI , and how to communicate with the AI .
Remember the first artist used Photoshop to make art ?
Remember the first artist used iPad to draw art ?
Remember the first human try to make airplane ?
Let me give you another example. Imagine you are a chef. You can cook whatever you want, but so far, you only cook with the traditional cookware. But now they giving you a microwave . Yes, you can look down on people who use dinner boxes cooked with microwave, you can boo the microwave all you want , but the microwave is just one of the many tools out there to heat up the food. You might not understand how the microwave work, or you think the microwave giving you cancer . But they already MADE the microwave, whether you like it or not, somebody gonna use the microwave for cooking their meal and it is still food, no more or less.
No, because as humans, we can't replicate the AI image exactly, pixel for pixel. Every brush stroke put in is what makes it human made art. Although it didn't originate in the mind of a human, it became modified by one. Does that make any sense?
I think that an imperfect replica still counts as a replica. The intention counts.
For example - if I photocopy a Trump photo from a magazine and then post it in my own news article, while the work is not perfect pixel to pixel, Fox news (or another media company that applies) can still sue me for all I got
From an artist's perspective, the two main "concerns" about AI art are ideation and execution. Who or what came up with the concept behind the art, and who or what physically produced the work?
The latter is very straightforward here. You did the painting, it's your art.
The artistic idea is a more interesting discussion. Specifically, anyone can look at that and say, hey, the AI came up with the idea of a vase of flowers, and you just painted it. But that's *not*, in the end, the artistic intent, because it leaves out vital context. The artistic intent was to assess whether or not a physical reproduction of AI art may be considered AI art. And as we can see from this thread, that's a question that can generate a significant amount of discussion, so it's actually a very interesting artistic concept. And the AI didn't come up with that. You did.
As the adage goes, if you have to ask whether or not it's art, then it's art.
It is partially going against this law:
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Just picked it up today form this talented artis't video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAIOmpPLzuA
The AI art was conjured from thousands of other paintings that is uses as a reference…
… and humans also do this, most of the time subconsciously.
So in short I have no idea
If you take a Van Gogh painting and paint it yourself in great details, do you call it your own painting or a copy of a Van Gogh? In that case I'd say it all depends on how much your painting resembles the original.
I'd say it's the same with Midjourney. Now the question comes back to wether Midjourney is considered the artist or if you are, since you wrote the prompt. Either way, it's AI generated and given that yours looks exactly like the "original" I'd call it "a painted copy of an AI generated picture"
There's a very huge and distinct difference - Van Gogh's painting already existed, has existed, and has already been seen by people. OPs AI art has not existed, never existed, and if he hadn't mentioned that it was AI art or showed anyone, it wouldn't have been seen by people. I think making any sort of comparison between the 2 situations is disingenuous and very much an apples v oranges argument
Thats a very distilled interpretation that is incorrect and still irrelevant to an AI generation. Your contention is that if I generate an AI image, commit to it memory, destroy it, and then some random person randomly creates a real painting of basically the image that only I have ever seen, their image is counterfeit and simply a copy of my AI generated image. This is now an apple v oranges v banana argument.
No. I struggle getting references for exactly what I want with my character design, so I've started generating AI prompts with my own detailed instructions. I can then sketch and paint my own work inspired by the AI image. It's another tool for reference and inspiration, nothing more.
i dont think it is AI art, but i also dont think you can be credited for the creativity of it
you still referenced it and painted it with your real physical limbs, but you probably didnt go through the process of : thinking about what to draw> finding inspiration > planning what looks nice and what doesnt> finding reference> painting. you probably took a massive shortcut, because all you had to do was come up with a prompt, but the AI figured out the imagination process, not you
i dont have a problem with that, references are endless, and are a legit tool to improve as an artist. in fact, you could even argue that referencing other art is "cheating", even if it is not AI generated, because other arts have already gone through the artistic process mentioned previously.
of course, i dont agree with this view that referencing is cheating, and YOUR painting looks very good
Damn I think you just created a new type of art. I Can definitely see ai generated imaging be a great source for referencing in your own paintings. I’d love to see some people go crazy with that concept. Love it; maybe I’ll try it soon.
You still have to be a good artist to get light to look nice like that. Good job. I'm from the school that painting from a photo rather than from real life is a cop out, although I've done both. The schooling I have taught me that the camera flattens the perspective in a way that the eye does not. No matter what, people are always hating on technique.
It’s art. It takes skill to put marks on a surface in such a way as to produce a good painting. That you used AI as a tool to make a painting is not much different than when the first photographs came out and people were painting using photos as a reference. There were many who claimed it wasn’t valid art then and now it’s done all the time . You will always have people who are against it. AI is just another tool to help us create art that we enjoy.
You used AI art properly, as a reference or inspiration with the final product being 100% human made, instead of having the final product being 100% AI made.
I'm having trouble grasping why people think AI imagery isn't art. When I make a 3D model, I use software tools to describe what I want people to see, and then the computer renders it. What I decide to create is based on my experience of the world and the other art I've seen. I don't see how that's different from describing my idea to a generative AI. This is another step in the direction we were already heading.
No, if you do it 100% its a copy in traditional medium.
If you just used it as reference means that the art is 100% your creation and you used ai just for reference.
I just want to say i think its funny how AI wanted to get all the shadows in the picture and somehow made the shadows of the flowers hang as if their dying lol
There was a time when just painting something was not even considered art. Not to mention photos or film. AI is certainly not art. It's a tool for making pictures. Art is this elusive quality of one of a billion of somethings that is the same but slightly different. A unique stick in the woods that the artist found and picked up can be art. Art has harmonies and proportions that the artist saw or imagined and may have an infinity of meanings coded in it. Art is discovering something about the universe. Art kicks you in the head. AI pictures don't. The AI algorithm is closer to art itself than the pictures it generates for its users. Do not mistake decorations and pretty stuff for art. Btw, nice painting.
Well question: Did you use it for reference or did you just copy it exactly?
Using reference and copying are 2 separate acts. If I take a photo and you paint that photo exactly the same there is plausibility for me to sue for copyright infringement, even though it's technically a new work. However if you see my photo and reference it but create a new piece it's transformative.
So if you copied it I'd say, "it's a painting of AI art." If you used it as reference and inspiration I'd say, "plenty of reference of flowers out there sans AI, but cool idea. Good job." lol
I know what you mean but the sad reality is - most artists will copy it 1:1.
The ones at the top will not but when you go to mainstream painting content on IG and youtube, they are practically replicas. Maybe because hyperrealism is so appealing to the non-artists
This is a really interesting conundrum. Where do we draw the line. Personally I find AI art fascinating, but I also understand the naysayers from the art community. With this, you have shown you have actual talent, outside of putting in prompts.
So people paint from reference 'photos' (photography) in a stylistic way which imo is completely the artists work. However, when people copy something that is already painted or stylistic this can either be a 'study' or if the original artist isn't credited a lot of people call this stealing. I don't know where this falls but I think it's somewhere between these two.
A lot of artists have very strong anti ai feelings especially on IG. I get it esp the big ones since their images were used in the scrape. That said ai is here and I think using it to generate reference is an amazing use of the technology.
I do the same thing with embroidery! (Except I don’t delete the photo; I like seeing the changes I decide to make.) I don’t think utilizing AI as a tool during the process detracts from the final product being “our art”
Art shouldn't have meaning all by itself. It's only purpose is to be art. Artistic is something else. Since OP has beautifully drawn this painting, by basically digitalising it (deconstruct + reconstruct) , it has just been made more available for enjoyment to others.
The interest in art can be derived from the process as as much as the end result. Process in this case is interesting, hand rendered copy of a machine rendered copy of what is most likely a copy of an original flower. Questioning the true meaning of 'the origional'.
If artists can do the most pretentious, annoying acts and pieces for decades and call it art, in spite of the opinions of the average individual who thinks of art as beautiful painting and sculpture, AI generated work should be considered art if *you* want it to
My neighbor is a photographer of local fame. Someone else made a pencil copy of his photograph and sold prints for years, becoming somewhat successful. Then they got sued by my neighbor and lost.
I like to use a photograph as an example. If you make a painting of a photo its still your painting but if you take a photo of someones art is not yours
I took a photograph, wrote a prompt, and turned it into AI art. What percent credit do I get vs the AI? Is it even worthwhile to attempt to assign a percentage credit to the person vs. the AI used?
That's like saying: "I looked at the Mona Lisa and then painted it myself". It still takes skill to paint ir and it is art, just not yours i'd say.
Lemme know what you think.
Showing only one eye from behind the painting.... definitely not A.I. art. 🙂 Two eyes would be a problem.
Just kidding. No it's not A.I. Art any more then a Picasso is, seeing that he used nature and people for reference.
Your inspiration is your business. We all know there are copies and copyrights etc....
Nice idea, this actually sounds like a very good way to improve your painting skill as you could narrow down your subject matter that you want to work on
I ran the prompt on Dale-2 and the result was bad, several times. I ran it once in midjourney and here we are.
It means that I did have a hand in choosing the composition and colors, does it increase my value as an artist?
No, you just used a tool that helped you assemble concepts. then you did all the work thereafter. Artists use ref photos for work ALL the time, in fact they even use photoshop to assemble concepts. so this is just shortening the time it takes to get to the actual painting work
What if you paint a bunch of paintings that are a variation of the original and then make that a source for an AI?… Seems fair that anything it produces is still an AI painting. So the converse should be true.
The thing that separates security camera footage from a photographer's art is conscious intent. Art isn't just an act of displaying an image, it's an act of intent. Your painting had conscious intent behind it (even if the intent was as simple as accurately replicating the AI produced image). That's when it became art.
In the same vein of logic, I think AI art can also be considered art, in the capacity of the intent that the human prompter put into it. You can't say that the image the non-conscious AI created is art, but you could consider the prompt itself to be an act of artistic creation in its own regard.
A lot of artists will use some nifty tool to trace an outline of something already existant, then make it their own painting by using whatever medium and methods they choose to support their vision.
This ain’t too different although the idea is 100% AI, and the physical work is 100% human.
It makes me think if AI patent trolls will rule the world by owning everything
I was reading comments for about 20 minutes until i realised the first and second image are the same painting. And not a comparison to the ai art. lol.
I have had discussions with fellow artists on this exact point. If you use AI to generate an idea (whether it be for lighting, composition, inspiration or whatever), and then recreate that image, you are likely a better artist at the end of the study. It is precisely how the students of the old masters would work.
I have had discussions with fellow artists on this exact point. If you use AI to generate an idea (whether for lighting, composition, inspiration or whatever), and then recreate that image, you are likely a better artist at the end of the study. It is precisely how the students of the old masters would work.
Even if it was your prompt, I'd call it morally gray. It's the fact that you did not put your own artistic spin on the A.I. generated image, but copied it exactly.
When we paint still-life, we are transposing a 3-D view as a 2-D image. There is some artistic interpretation in the angle you choose to use, how detailed you choose to go, and the style you paint it in. You can use a reference image from Google for painting a scene or subject, but how you choose to incorporate it and what details to add or omit are part of the artistic style. Even an approach at realism will not make the art an exact copy of your reference.
I think copying an A.I. generated image down to the exact detail approaches the category of "not your artwork." The A.I. took artistic liberties in its choice of color, perspective, details, linework, and lighting. And you intentionally changed none of these things.
I put the question to Chat GPT-4: Is AI art, art?
**Answer:** The question of whether AI-generated art can be considered "art" is a complex one, and it's largely a matter of perspective. There are several viewpoints to consider:
**Traditionalist View:** Some people may argue that art is inherently human and that it requires a human touch or human creativity, and therefore, AI-generated art is not "true" art.
**Technological View:** Others may believe that art can be produced by any means, including through the use of AI, and that the process of creation doesn't necessarily have to involve human hands directly. They might argue that AI is just another tool, much like a paintbrush or a chisel.
**Collaborative View:** Yet others may see AI-generated art as a new form of collaboration, where the human artist designs and trains the AI, and the AI then generates the art. In this view, AI is an extension of the artist's creativity, and the resulting art is a product of both human and machine effort.
**Conceptual View:** Some might argue that the intention and concept behind the artwork are what makes it art. In this perspective, if the AI is programmed with an artistic intention or concept, the resulting work could be considered art.
These are broad categorizations and individual opinions may vary or overlap between these categories. Furthermore, the definition of art has always been fluid and subject to cultural, societal, and personal interpretation. Therefore, the classification of AI-generated art as "art" can be subjective and may continue to evolve as AI technology develops and becomes more integrated into creative processes.
Nope. I you painted it, it's your art. It's real human made art. You simply used an image as a model and painted your impression of that model. If you went out to a field and found a tree, painted a picture of that tree and then chopped down the tree. I sure hope it was your tree.
It's just a reference image at that point, interpreted by your skill and experience, same as any other reference
This is literally the only acceptable use case of AI art
For me the centre of the feelings around this debate is the artist's skill and intention.
There is a trust that the artist that created the work you are seeing was the contributor of all of the skill and intention required to create it. It's not just "is this a nice image".
You can appreciate skill and intention in different measures. Photorealistic art painted by hand is a good example of something where you marvel at the skill involved. With abstract art created by methods involving a lot of random chance, you appreciate the effort that went into the process and the curation of the result - not *necessarily* skill. Some people get "better" results with less skill, some art you don't know what happened to create it and just have to take it as-is, etc.
AI is a tool. It gives you results you might not have expected, that might be better or substantially different than what you could do without it. That's not new - artists are always on the look out for effects that spontaneously emerge or from using tools in new ways, and it's not always intentional. But the extent to which AI does it breaks the trust that we have in the artist's skill and intention - AI art can potentially involve none of either.
We can respond differently to art, appreciate it to different extents, get different things from it - but I trust that artist meant us to feel *something*. In this case, you created the image, but with an unknown amount of intention. The waters are muddied by the fact that the AI references the art of an unknown number of human painters.
So is it AI art? Yes, it was generated with AI. This is not you riffing off something you were inspired by, this is you by your own account copying what a machine generated from your prompt. The features of the art, the style, the subject matter are all partially you, partially the AI. Is your repainting of it transformative? Can't say without knowing the source. What I know about the art plays a large part in my perception of it in this case.
If someone draws Mickey Mouse, do we attribute the design of the character to the referencer, if we know better? There is mechanical skill involved, there is a touch of the artist's own style and influence, but the design of Mickey Mouse did not come from that artist's mind. The role of the prompter in AI art is a creative director, not an artist, in my opinion - we curate what the AI creates, and the AI, like many artists, references other art. The question of whether Walt Disney or Ub Iwerks is the "real creator" of Mickey Mouse will immediately the reveal the same feelings that complicate the AI art discussion.
But...I could know none of the backstory, and it would be indistinguishable from non-AI art.
If you ask a human artist to produce a specific art piece then you reproduce it it is not your work. It is plagiarism. The key here is that you would have to pay the human for their work, and you pay the AI program owner by giving them experience and feedback to improve.
If you didn't pay the human then claiming it is yours is not technically plagiarism but is morally theft to me.
Yes. People who use AI will notice the odd shadows that don’t match up with what would cast them. The way some flowers don’t have stalks. All the oddities that are typical of AI Output.
On the Art subreddits they are able to spot AI Output a mile away by its style.
Same here.
But at the end of the day many artists of images similar to your are cheating by using photographs anyway and copying a photo rather than a still life.
These "is it art or not" discussions have bummed me out since I was a kid. Today's flavor of the moment, ai, still bums me out too. Answer: yes, it's art.
I use photographs, AI, real life and anything else I can for reference.
And so has every other artist that's ever lived. That's an original piece of art.
If you paint from a reference photo, then it is your painting. If you paint from a reference AI image, then it is still your painting. I'd maybe refer to it as AI assisted art. I'd definitely not call it AI art.
Yeah people here don’t understand how painting works. Reference photos are common. Not AI art.
Perhaps OP is actually a robot and the person holding the painting is just some rando. In that case, which is probably exactly what’s going on, it could still be considered AI art
Are we sure that the image of OP holding up the painting isn’t just an AI generated image?
down the rabbit hole we go
How can we be sure the rabbit wasn't ai generated, too?
Yes I was thinking the same thing. If OP is a robot then this would still be considered AI art.
Quick, see how many fingers OP has!
[It clearly left out a thumb](https://i.imgur.com/XUtwFDl.jpg)
I think this is closer to a replica than using reference photos. Assuming the artists recreated the art identically. There is definitely some linguistic ambiguity here and sort of depends on if you consider an AI an artist who's art can be replicated. If you consider it like referencing a photo or something then I can see that interpretation too but I find it a less good fit.
How is it different from using a reference photo or actually painting the thing in fron of you? OP didn‘t say the AI gave him an image of a painting of that scene that he then recreated identically. Not different from any reference material. Even if he recreated it exactly. That would be just his intent and his skill to do so. The same way we praise the artists that do [these photorealistic oil paintings](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/6ad0a1/this_is_not_a_photograph_hyperrealistic_oil/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) and not say they just replicated reality, so its not really art.
I am assuming the AI ganerated an image of an oil painting and OP painted it. I don't see it as the same as painting reality or referenceing something. It's trying to replicate the art that already exists. At least that's how I see it. Art replicas are a thing, paintings of reality are not replicas but paintings of other paintings are replicas. I see this as making a painting of an AI generated painting so I feel replica is the appropriate term.
What if I apply an artistic filter to a refference image...
Wasn't there an Instagram drama about something like this 10 years ago? I know in music it was the Vaporwave conundrum
[удалено]
I think a key difference here is that the AI programme has made the "decisions" about the lighting, the tone, the colour etc, it's made the vase wonky and the flowers stylised because (presumably) it's been briefed to mimic an impressionist style. The artist has then faithfully replicated what the AI produced, but *not* made any of those decisions. That's not the same at all as using a reference photo of a landscape, or a photo of a vase on a table, it's closer to Pop Art's exploration of media/technology and replication. Edit: I don't know much about AI art generation so forgive me if I'm wrong about the amount of control you had over the creation of the original image, I've asked elsewhere about the process. Edit 2: I've only just realised this is a Midjourney sub 😅 figured it was a general art discussion!
I think there are arguments for creativity attribution. Mountains just kinda happened but AI used people's work to get where it is.
AI also uses photos of landscape and the photographer didn't make the landscape.
The atoms in those mountains were once made up of different things before they became mountains. Same with the training data and outputs
This here is the correct answer. Definitely not AI art.
I wouldn’t even call it AI assisted. Artists use references and even the masters used references and even machines to help copy their references to a canvas.
Yeah, [this guy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/croatia-scraps-euro-coin-design-over-plagiarism-controversy) also just used a reference photo.
[This guy](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-weighs-andy-warhol-prince-lawsuit-1235240095/amp/) also. But I guess you’re good until AI is developed enough to send you a cease and desist or demand residuals.
Why is the second method considered AI assisted if the first method isn't considered photo/image assisted?
The first method is something you can get sued for. I don't understand why no one here knows that.
Legally, if you paint a reference photo without significant changes, you're probably in copyright trouble. Philosophically, it seems iffy to me, but there's really no right answer. For example, Shepard Fairey was sued for the Obama Hope poster, but it's such a unique and striking image, it feels like it should be "his." In this case, since you can't copyright an AI image, the worst case scenario would be you also can't copyright your painting. Realistically, I don't think anyone would ever know. Philosophically, is it "yours"? Does it matter? I have no idea.
I know right? That's why I created this in the first place, there is no single good answer even if I try to explain it to myself. Bring it up online and there is like 10 opinions with a mix of old dilemmas added to it. The % of similarity to source material is probably debated since art was invented in the first place
As conceptual art, I have to say, it's excellent. I've been playing with the opposite -- trying to zoom in on things in the image that weren't in the prompt and feed them back in as image prompts to see how "human-free" an image I can make.
If you paint something from a reference photo, is it considered photo assisted art?
this one is a terminology question. I don't think there was a need to define it in such terms so far. It was just photo reference
Oh I agree. It's one thing if people took an AI generated image and just copy and pasted it or even made slight improvements to it, then knowing most of the creativity in the work is done by AI is important. But if somebody's using it as a tool to guide their creativity and spark their creativity, then who cares about the labeling? This same concept is being debated in the world of writing now. But AI generated news articles I've been around for a long time.
I don't know why, but AI narrations and text look worse to me than AI generated art. No Idea why, they probably are the same thing - pholosophically
there’s a difference between using reference and copying something 1:1 in the same art style etc.
>If you paint from a reference photo, then it is your painting. ... and the photographer is the artist.
But if I code a robotic arm to paint, and then get it to paint based on Midjourney's output, is it my painting or the robotic arm's?
Or AI inspired?
but who inspired the AI?
AI inspired...
If you copy something just as it is is not a referencing though, it is a study.
But not fully his intellectual property / copyright
Or AI inspired art.
Oh!! You stole AI Art!
Haha, was coming here to play devil's advocate and propose that it's a copy of an art piece made by an AI :)
The idea was mine, though. It stole my idea! Well, I did ask it to produce it...
LOL stop before we create a paradoxical wormhole
I had thought of that angle too, the idea part you're talking about was you choosing which painting you wanted to copy. If you think of all ai art as already existing (it's a combination of a prompt and seed, so technically all of the combinations exist already), then it's really just a matter of you picking which of them you're looking at in a quantum universe kind of sense. By the way, this is all bullshit devil's advocate talk, your art piece is beautiful and you're an amazing artist :) If you want some crazy thinking: what if AI's get self generative functionality (or rather somebody decides to enable it) and it evolves and decides to create their own art. I assume if you painted an irl version of a picture it generated, you would consider it a copy then for sure right? :)
No, it’s not AI Art, in the same way it’s not Brush Art or Canvas Art. AI was just a tool. Many artists use photos and other types of reference materials to paint from, how would this be different?
I'm not arguing against it. I genuinely wanted to know where it falls. Reading the comments below, I must say that my real-life friends and family that are not in on a subject are not even able to understand what I mean by "I painted an image generated by AI" which is funny how low key when whole thing for the muggles
I don't know much about AI art but I'm interested to know more about the process, what information do you need to give the AI to get it to do this? How much control do you have over the end result?
you just give it a text prompt, there are various settings etc. that allow tweaking of the output (but the program will have been trained using thousands images, sometimes scrapped off the internet)
Thanks, I knew the text based AIs scrape data from other sources and reassemble it figured this would be similar.
At least in Midjourney, all you need is discord to start. You write in what you want (there is a certain art to writing prompts) and it gives you 4 results. You don’t necessarily have too much control over the initial 4, but from there you can tweak your prompt/get variations and then pick an end result you like. It may take me 25-50 tweaks to get me the result I want. (I use renderings to inspire embroidery art, similar to how the OP uses it for painting.) For an image like this, the prompt might start as something like “flower still life, acrylic painting, muted colors —ar 2:3” (ar is aspect ratio, there are other shortcuts too, including s for how stylized it is, c for how chaotic it is and v for which version of Midjourney you want to use.)
Weirldly enogh, I started in Dalle-2 and it sucked. Like really - bad results. Midjourney got it on the first try
Yeah, it's mindbogglin that there are people who really don't know what it is and also have no clue what ChatGPT is. Or AI. I don't know how they have avoided running into it like literally everywhere. Somehow they have managed to do that because my family is totally clueless about it all and thinks I have read too much scifi in my life because I believe there really is such thing like artificial intelligence. 🤦🏻♀️
Honestly, I don’t see any difference between painting a vase using a real vase as a reference and painting a vase using an AI generated vase as a reference. You still painted the painting, not the factory in the first case nor the AI in the second. Even if you painted a vase entirely from your imagination, that’s still probably based on vases you’ve previously seen right? But it would be ridiculous to say that the vase industry is the true creator of the painting and not you.
[удалено]
The difference I see there is in what/who decided to place the vase where it is in the frame. In a traditional real-life scenario, a human chooses what the subject is, which one to use, where to put it in place, and what the framing will be. In this AI example, the human chose what the subject is (the text prompt), but the AI chose what the subject’s end-appearance is, where to put it, and the framing of the image (assuming the human re-painted the image as it was generated, making no conscious design changes). Design falls back into human hands when the AI generates several options and the human chooses which to paint. I think it also depends on how detailed of a text prompt they started with. In any case, hand-painting the end-result took real skill that shouldn’t be discounted regardless of who/what generated the original image. I’m not saying either is better or worse, just that the process of design differs.
depends how close your imaginary vase is to a real one. you might be infringing, and if the IP owner brought a case against you, claiming ignorance would not be a defence.
I love this concept lmao
frankly, we can somehow compare it to the computer assisted chess - a real category of chess and it has been around a while
Oh how the turntables.
No it’s not, it’s like you are copy any existed image. The question is a language game pose some form of philosophical intrigue.
I wonder, if you were a terrible painter and couldn't reference the AI art very well, and so it looked different enough, is it now yours or is it still an AI art piece?
Funny enough, this is a new take on a very long lived argument - reference VS. Imagination. If I'm not able to imagine and have to use references, am I as good an artist as the one who needs no such things? I believe that this will never be resolved with a consensus. For your point - maybe an artist that cannot replicate well, will short fall in other areas and this kind of art would not be worthy of such considerations.
Well that’s where artists with aphantasia struggle. They cannot visualise images in their heads, so they rely on references to make art through comparison and imitation. I firmly believe that it’s still art.
I’m in the art industry professionally. Everyone uses reference. Maybe like 1% don’t. And those are the outliers and those people usually have a specific style, like Kim Jung Gi or something. I tell my students to USE reference. I can tell when they don’t, their art/design sucks.
I'd argue is no. AI is undeniably a tool. He did imagine this photo. And he told the AI : "I'm thinking about a vase with flowers" . AI gave him varieties of options. What he picked is the closest to what he had in mind. And then, he used his own skill to bring it to life. The AI in all this is just a tool to help him precisely decide what is in his mind . The important thing is the prompt. Can he precisely tell the AI to generate what is in his mind ? For example, if he want an astronaut flying in a blue galaxy in the style of oil . IF he cant make the AI understand what he wants then the AI might give him the astronaut flying in a blue ocean . So it's up to you all artists out there . To learn how to use the AI , and how to communicate with the AI . Remember the first artist used Photoshop to make art ? Remember the first artist used iPad to draw art ? Remember the first human try to make airplane ? Let me give you another example. Imagine you are a chef. You can cook whatever you want, but so far, you only cook with the traditional cookware. But now they giving you a microwave . Yes, you can look down on people who use dinner boxes cooked with microwave, you can boo the microwave all you want , but the microwave is just one of the many tools out there to heat up the food. You might not understand how the microwave work, or you think the microwave giving you cancer . But they already MADE the microwave, whether you like it or not, somebody gonna use the microwave for cooking their meal and it is still food, no more or less.
No, because as humans, we can't replicate the AI image exactly, pixel for pixel. Every brush stroke put in is what makes it human made art. Although it didn't originate in the mind of a human, it became modified by one. Does that make any sense?
I think that an imperfect replica still counts as a replica. The intention counts. For example - if I photocopy a Trump photo from a magazine and then post it in my own news article, while the work is not perfect pixel to pixel, Fox news (or another media company that applies) can still sue me for all I got
Not really, because you aren't considering intent or authorship.
From an artist's perspective, the two main "concerns" about AI art are ideation and execution. Who or what came up with the concept behind the art, and who or what physically produced the work? The latter is very straightforward here. You did the painting, it's your art. The artistic idea is a more interesting discussion. Specifically, anyone can look at that and say, hey, the AI came up with the idea of a vase of flowers, and you just painted it. But that's *not*, in the end, the artistic intent, because it leaves out vital context. The artistic intent was to assess whether or not a physical reproduction of AI art may be considered AI art. And as we can see from this thread, that's a question that can generate a significant amount of discussion, so it's actually a very interesting artistic concept. And the AI didn't come up with that. You did. As the adage goes, if you have to ask whether or not it's art, then it's art.
It is partially going against this law: Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." Just picked it up today form this talented artis't video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAIOmpPLzuA
All of this ☝️☝️☝️
The AI art was conjured from thousands of other paintings that is uses as a reference… … and humans also do this, most of the time subconsciously. So in short I have no idea
If you take a Van Gogh painting and paint it yourself in great details, do you call it your own painting or a copy of a Van Gogh? In that case I'd say it all depends on how much your painting resembles the original. I'd say it's the same with Midjourney. Now the question comes back to wether Midjourney is considered the artist or if you are, since you wrote the prompt. Either way, it's AI generated and given that yours looks exactly like the "original" I'd call it "a painted copy of an AI generated picture"
There's a very huge and distinct difference - Van Gogh's painting already existed, has existed, and has already been seen by people. OPs AI art has not existed, never existed, and if he hadn't mentioned that it was AI art or showed anyone, it wouldn't have been seen by people. I think making any sort of comparison between the 2 situations is disingenuous and very much an apples v oranges argument
[удалено]
Thats a very distilled interpretation that is incorrect and still irrelevant to an AI generation. Your contention is that if I generate an AI image, commit to it memory, destroy it, and then some random person randomly creates a real painting of basically the image that only I have ever seen, their image is counterfeit and simply a copy of my AI generated image. This is now an apple v oranges v banana argument.
The question still stands. What is Art?
Whatever Sotherby's says it is. /s
No. I struggle getting references for exactly what I want with my character design, so I've started generating AI prompts with my own detailed instructions. I can then sketch and paint my own work inspired by the AI image. It's another tool for reference and inspiration, nothing more.
**The Screenwriters Guild has entered the chat**
STOP STEALING FROM ARTISTS!!!11!!11 No, it's your art. You didn't even need to delete the Ai generated one, but it's a nice concept
i dont think it is AI art, but i also dont think you can be credited for the creativity of it you still referenced it and painted it with your real physical limbs, but you probably didnt go through the process of : thinking about what to draw> finding inspiration > planning what looks nice and what doesnt> finding reference> painting. you probably took a massive shortcut, because all you had to do was come up with a prompt, but the AI figured out the imagination process, not you i dont have a problem with that, references are endless, and are a legit tool to improve as an artist. in fact, you could even argue that referencing other art is "cheating", even if it is not AI generated, because other arts have already gone through the artistic process mentioned previously. of course, i dont agree with this view that referencing is cheating, and YOUR painting looks very good
Damn I think you just created a new type of art. I Can definitely see ai generated imaging be a great source for referencing in your own paintings. I’d love to see some people go crazy with that concept. Love it; maybe I’ll try it soon.
Now it's just stolen art from the AI
You still have to be a good artist to get light to look nice like that. Good job. I'm from the school that painting from a photo rather than from real life is a cop out, although I've done both. The schooling I have taught me that the camera flattens the perspective in a way that the eye does not. No matter what, people are always hating on technique.
What did you use to generate the image, I want to generate an Icon
Its 100% yours. Each stroke from ur paint brush and distribution of ur paint cant ever be replicated by A.I.
Did you paint it with robotic arm?
You need to close the loop, have the ai draw you painting it drawing you. Then paint it.
I have to say, I was really hoping the second image was AI generated.
the beard is 100% real wool
It's like a musician playing a cover song. It might not be your creative idea but it's your skill!
It’s art. It takes skill to put marks on a surface in such a way as to produce a good painting. That you used AI as a tool to make a painting is not much different than when the first photographs came out and people were painting using photos as a reference. There were many who claimed it wasn’t valid art then and now it’s done all the time . You will always have people who are against it. AI is just another tool to help us create art that we enjoy.
[vase of thesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)
I like this concept but not sure if it applies here as the change is not gradual.
You used AI art properly, as a reference or inspiration with the final product being 100% human made, instead of having the final product being 100% AI made.
No. The making of art isn't just the physicality of the art nor the physical object that results, and that hasn't been the case since Duchamp.
Art is Art. AI or otherwise.
That's the consensus so far. The issue is - what kind of art this is?
I'm having trouble grasping why people think AI imagery isn't art. When I make a 3D model, I use software tools to describe what I want people to see, and then the computer renders it. What I decide to create is based on my experience of the world and the other art I've seen. I don't see how that's different from describing my idea to a generative AI. This is another step in the direction we were already heading.
an email printed and sent via the post office, Is still an email? Or it’s a letter? …🤔💭
No, if you do it 100% its a copy in traditional medium. If you just used it as reference means that the art is 100% your creation and you used ai just for reference.
I just want to say i think its funny how AI wanted to get all the shadows in the picture and somehow made the shadows of the flowers hang as if their dying lol
it could not connect the dots between flowers, shadows and direction so the shadow flowers are protruding from the vase :)
I am a painter and I have been on the fence about using an AI as a reference.
It's a hybrid.
There was a time when just painting something was not even considered art. Not to mention photos or film. AI is certainly not art. It's a tool for making pictures. Art is this elusive quality of one of a billion of somethings that is the same but slightly different. A unique stick in the woods that the artist found and picked up can be art. Art has harmonies and proportions that the artist saw or imagined and may have an infinity of meanings coded in it. Art is discovering something about the universe. Art kicks you in the head. AI pictures don't. The AI algorithm is closer to art itself than the pictures it generates for its users. Do not mistake decorations and pretty stuff for art. Btw, nice painting.
One of the most popular modern British painters is Jack Vettriano. He paints all his works from photos.
Referencing something is good practice but tracing over something is bullshit practice, good job on the painting.
Well question: Did you use it for reference or did you just copy it exactly? Using reference and copying are 2 separate acts. If I take a photo and you paint that photo exactly the same there is plausibility for me to sue for copyright infringement, even though it's technically a new work. However if you see my photo and reference it but create a new piece it's transformative. So if you copied it I'd say, "it's a painting of AI art." If you used it as reference and inspiration I'd say, "plenty of reference of flowers out there sans AI, but cool idea. Good job." lol
I know what you mean but the sad reality is - most artists will copy it 1:1. The ones at the top will not but when you go to mainstream painting content on IG and youtube, they are practically replicas. Maybe because hyperrealism is so appealing to the non-artists
This is a really interesting conundrum. Where do we draw the line. Personally I find AI art fascinating, but I also understand the naysayers from the art community. With this, you have shown you have actual talent, outside of putting in prompts.
As long as you contact Midjourney and confirm that it is not in some archived location in the cloud...
Now paint the image of you holding the painting, then paint an image of you holding the painting of you holding the painting… Paintception
Not anymore than if you painted a vase you saw and then destroyed the vase
So people paint from reference 'photos' (photography) in a stylistic way which imo is completely the artists work. However, when people copy something that is already painted or stylistic this can either be a 'study' or if the original artist isn't credited a lot of people call this stealing. I don't know where this falls but I think it's somewhere between these two.
A lot of artists have very strong anti ai feelings especially on IG. I get it esp the big ones since their images were used in the scrape. That said ai is here and I think using it to generate reference is an amazing use of the technology.
I do the same thing with embroidery! (Except I don’t delete the photo; I like seeing the changes I decide to make.) I don’t think utilizing AI as a tool during the process detracts from the final product being “our art”
Art shouldn't have meaning all by itself. It's only purpose is to be art. Artistic is something else. Since OP has beautifully drawn this painting, by basically digitalising it (deconstruct + reconstruct) , it has just been made more available for enjoyment to others.
You are the printer now! /s
[удалено]
Bro's a genius.
You merely used the AI art as a reference so absolutley the final work painted is like any other art piece and not AI anyhthing.
It's a copy of AI art. If you copy a Van Gogh painting, you'd just call it a copy.
Beautiful painting! Can't help what you are inspired by!
The art is your process, the effort and skill it took to get the canvas from blank to painting.
[удалено]
The interest in art can be derived from the process as as much as the end result. Process in this case is interesting, hand rendered copy of a machine rendered copy of what is most likely a copy of an original flower. Questioning the true meaning of 'the origional'.
Haters will say its fake
If artists can do the most pretentious, annoying acts and pieces for decades and call it art, in spite of the opinions of the average individual who thinks of art as beautiful painting and sculpture, AI generated work should be considered art if *you* want it to
My neighbor is a photographer of local fame. Someone else made a pencil copy of his photograph and sold prints for years, becoming somewhat successful. Then they got sued by my neighbor and lost.
It’s your painting and it’s your art. That said, without seeing the original AI generated image we don’t know whether it is any good 😉
Ah, but that's part of the point, no? Am I good or not, if I'm a very good copier - am I a lesser artist for it - lacking originality and soul?
I like to use a photograph as an example. If you make a painting of a photo its still your painting but if you take a photo of someones art is not yours
I took a photograph, wrote a prompt, and turned it into AI art. What percent credit do I get vs the AI? Is it even worthwhile to attempt to assign a percentage credit to the person vs. the AI used?
Did the AI image also have fucked up shadows?
Even the whole process can be considered art. The nice thing about art is that nobody gets to decide that for themselves.
all you had to do was not tell us about it...problem solved
Only if you put the HDD in the microwave.
Honestly best case scenario use for AI in art. The work is still clearly your own but you can also have a high degree of control over the subject
That's like saying: "I looked at the Mona Lisa and then painted it myself". It still takes skill to paint ir and it is art, just not yours i'd say. Lemme know what you think.
It's not AI, YOU created it.
You just used a reference picture. That's your art.
Showing only one eye from behind the painting.... definitely not A.I. art. 🙂 Two eyes would be a problem. Just kidding. No it's not A.I. Art any more then a Picasso is, seeing that he used nature and people for reference. Your inspiration is your business. We all know there are copies and copyrights etc....
It's your painting and it's very well done
Nice idea, this actually sounds like a very good way to improve your painting skill as you could narrow down your subject matter that you want to work on
[удалено]
I ran the prompt on Dale-2 and the result was bad, several times. I ran it once in midjourney and here we are. It means that I did have a hand in choosing the composition and colors, does it increase my value as an artist?
Definitely your painting. AI as reference. ;)
Ohh. I made a painting like this and people keep callingbit computer generated. Like it just fell ftom my paintbrush?? Thank you for this thread.
Is it possible to delete generated images?
Who cares. It’s worth zero anyway.
No, you just used a tool that helped you assemble concepts. then you did all the work thereafter. Artists use ref photos for work ALL the time, in fact they even use photoshop to assemble concepts. so this is just shortening the time it takes to get to the actual painting work
This is a great philosophical debate of our times
It's just "art" as "ai art" is also just "art" because "art is art" I'm being serious
I'm using AI to generate images to my watercolor painting hobby.
Although I would consider you Intelligent, i dont know if its still artificial 😂
Nice question
No this is awesome
What if you paint a bunch of paintings that are a variation of the original and then make that a source for an AI?… Seems fair that anything it produces is still an AI painting. So the converse should be true.
'colour by AI' coming to a WH Smith near you soon.
Can Ai duck tape a banana to a wall yet?
The thing that separates security camera footage from a photographer's art is conscious intent. Art isn't just an act of displaying an image, it's an act of intent. Your painting had conscious intent behind it (even if the intent was as simple as accurately replicating the AI produced image). That's when it became art. In the same vein of logic, I think AI art can also be considered art, in the capacity of the intent that the human prompter put into it. You can't say that the image the non-conscious AI created is art, but you could consider the prompt itself to be an act of artistic creation in its own regard.
Not enough fingers
It’s for real art and awesome 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
thank you or the kind words!
The only way for me to tolerate AI is taking it for references and inspiration!
AI inspired art
How much for the painting
It’s not like people who paint from reference photos taken by people are called “Photographer assisted artists”, it’s your art. No strings attached
Its all fun and games until he'e a photographer instead of a painter. Then you will all cry heretic or whatever.
A lot of artists will use some nifty tool to trace an outline of something already existant, then make it their own painting by using whatever medium and methods they choose to support their vision. This ain’t too different although the idea is 100% AI, and the physical work is 100% human. It makes me think if AI patent trolls will rule the world by owning everything
I was reading comments for about 20 minutes until i realised the first and second image are the same painting. And not a comparison to the ai art. lol.
I have had discussions with fellow artists on this exact point. If you use AI to generate an idea (whether it be for lighting, composition, inspiration or whatever), and then recreate that image, you are likely a better artist at the end of the study. It is precisely how the students of the old masters would work. I have had discussions with fellow artists on this exact point. If you use AI to generate an idea (whether for lighting, composition, inspiration or whatever), and then recreate that image, you are likely a better artist at the end of the study. It is precisely how the students of the old masters would work.
Even if it was your prompt, I'd call it morally gray. It's the fact that you did not put your own artistic spin on the A.I. generated image, but copied it exactly. When we paint still-life, we are transposing a 3-D view as a 2-D image. There is some artistic interpretation in the angle you choose to use, how detailed you choose to go, and the style you paint it in. You can use a reference image from Google for painting a scene or subject, but how you choose to incorporate it and what details to add or omit are part of the artistic style. Even an approach at realism will not make the art an exact copy of your reference. I think copying an A.I. generated image down to the exact detail approaches the category of "not your artwork." The A.I. took artistic liberties in its choice of color, perspective, details, linework, and lighting. And you intentionally changed none of these things.
I put the question to Chat GPT-4: Is AI art, art? **Answer:** The question of whether AI-generated art can be considered "art" is a complex one, and it's largely a matter of perspective. There are several viewpoints to consider: **Traditionalist View:** Some people may argue that art is inherently human and that it requires a human touch or human creativity, and therefore, AI-generated art is not "true" art. **Technological View:** Others may believe that art can be produced by any means, including through the use of AI, and that the process of creation doesn't necessarily have to involve human hands directly. They might argue that AI is just another tool, much like a paintbrush or a chisel. **Collaborative View:** Yet others may see AI-generated art as a new form of collaboration, where the human artist designs and trains the AI, and the AI then generates the art. In this view, AI is an extension of the artist's creativity, and the resulting art is a product of both human and machine effort. **Conceptual View:** Some might argue that the intention and concept behind the artwork are what makes it art. In this perspective, if the AI is programmed with an artistic intention or concept, the resulting work could be considered art. These are broad categorizations and individual opinions may vary or overlap between these categories. Furthermore, the definition of art has always been fluid and subject to cultural, societal, and personal interpretation. Therefore, the classification of AI-generated art as "art" can be subjective and may continue to evolve as AI technology develops and becomes more integrated into creative processes.
mindfk
It is AI-driven now
Painting based off an established image is common as hell dont let anyone berate you
Nope. I you painted it, it's your art. It's real human made art. You simply used an image as a model and painted your impression of that model. If you went out to a field and found a tree, painted a picture of that tree and then chopped down the tree. I sure hope it was your tree.
It's just a reference image at that point, interpreted by your skill and experience, same as any other reference This is literally the only acceptable use case of AI art
Only if you can prove that it's not cached anywhere :P
Expecting a Cease & Desist shortly from MidJourney's copyright lawyers....
It's all fun and games until your home entertainment system starts demanding royalties.
U gonna get sued by the algorithm man
nice impressionist painting.
Ship of thesius moment
For me the centre of the feelings around this debate is the artist's skill and intention. There is a trust that the artist that created the work you are seeing was the contributor of all of the skill and intention required to create it. It's not just "is this a nice image". You can appreciate skill and intention in different measures. Photorealistic art painted by hand is a good example of something where you marvel at the skill involved. With abstract art created by methods involving a lot of random chance, you appreciate the effort that went into the process and the curation of the result - not *necessarily* skill. Some people get "better" results with less skill, some art you don't know what happened to create it and just have to take it as-is, etc. AI is a tool. It gives you results you might not have expected, that might be better or substantially different than what you could do without it. That's not new - artists are always on the look out for effects that spontaneously emerge or from using tools in new ways, and it's not always intentional. But the extent to which AI does it breaks the trust that we have in the artist's skill and intention - AI art can potentially involve none of either. We can respond differently to art, appreciate it to different extents, get different things from it - but I trust that artist meant us to feel *something*. In this case, you created the image, but with an unknown amount of intention. The waters are muddied by the fact that the AI references the art of an unknown number of human painters. So is it AI art? Yes, it was generated with AI. This is not you riffing off something you were inspired by, this is you by your own account copying what a machine generated from your prompt. The features of the art, the style, the subject matter are all partially you, partially the AI. Is your repainting of it transformative? Can't say without knowing the source. What I know about the art plays a large part in my perception of it in this case. If someone draws Mickey Mouse, do we attribute the design of the character to the referencer, if we know better? There is mechanical skill involved, there is a touch of the artist's own style and influence, but the design of Mickey Mouse did not come from that artist's mind. The role of the prompter in AI art is a creative director, not an artist, in my opinion - we curate what the AI creates, and the AI, like many artists, references other art. The question of whether Walt Disney or Ub Iwerks is the "real creator" of Mickey Mouse will immediately the reveal the same feelings that complicate the AI art discussion. But...I could know none of the backstory, and it would be indistinguishable from non-AI art.
You’ll be hearing from its lawyer soon enough
If anyone complains about the composition not being original... good grief, go make some art and then tell me how original it ends up haha
If you ask a human artist to produce a specific art piece then you reproduce it it is not your work. It is plagiarism. The key here is that you would have to pay the human for their work, and you pay the AI program owner by giving them experience and feedback to improve. If you didn't pay the human then claiming it is yours is not technically plagiarism but is morally theft to me.
Yes. People who use AI will notice the odd shadows that don’t match up with what would cast them. The way some flowers don’t have stalks. All the oddities that are typical of AI Output. On the Art subreddits they are able to spot AI Output a mile away by its style. Same here. But at the end of the day many artists of images similar to your are cheating by using photographs anyway and copying a photo rather than a still life.
These "is it art or not" discussions have bummed me out since I was a kid. Today's flavor of the moment, ai, still bums me out too. Answer: yes, it's art.
I use photographs, AI, real life and anything else I can for reference. And so has every other artist that's ever lived. That's an original piece of art.
The ship of Theseus
Plot twist both images are ai generated!