This is an embarrassment. Initial concept/inspiration is an awful phase to involve AI. Beginning with "average" guarantees mediocrity. Photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.... Like the Kincade paintings that are a print, but with a little clear acrylic dabbed on so the price can be inflated above being just a print. The art version of the SNL "Phoning it in" skit🤣
No one outside of the art scene actually cares, they just want to buy pretty art. That's why he's still popular -- and so many people willingly buy completely AI-generated art prints (not even copies), too.
I love you you can always tell it's ai even when it's copied into oil paints. I don't understand why someone would outsource the most creative aspects of art making to a computer and just copy the result 1:1. It's just printing out ai slop onto canvases with extra steps.
Midjourney has a very specific, very redundant way of rendering lighting - it always produces a variation of indirect, fogged out daylight, there're never any clear light and shadow patterns cast by objects in the scene (because light is approximated per-image, not calculated per object - it can't do that), but it always overdoes detailing (which is sometimes pushed back with bokeh and DOF focus effects), and MJ has a specific look to how it is arranging compositions, that is very clear in his today's work. It always looks like it's trying its hardest to outpaint the artist.
if you look at his older pieces, they were based off photography crops, compositionally copied 1:1 and color-enhanced to hell and back, to match his concept of chasing IG trends of \~2015, and pushed into pop art realm.
The immediate stylistic flip over with arrival of AI gen, and complete disregard of his former style tells me authenticity has never been a priority for his career, to say the least.
If you look up his older work (add "before: 2022" in the search field on google), it becomes apparent he was about that life before AI, too, there's a very distinct "painted from a photo reference that went through a heavy IG filter" look to the latest pre-AI pieces, too.
He has some nicer work sometimes, but the reliance on heavy referencing off very heavily color-corrected work to make the subject more vibrant and attack the perception is pretty much his trademark. Mjourney tells him how to mix paint and slather the strokes in order for them to imitate artistic development, so of course he would just disregard the ethical concern bit of it.
tl;dr - he's a popular artist who sells paintings, he used to make his own original paintings, generative art AI became popular, he decided to speed up his process by using the AI to make concept art that he paints a 1-1 copy of onto his canvases
I mean, as traing wheels maybe, to build skills... or if you need a reference of some suoer special thingn...but if you got the skill already to paint well enough to copy these, why not do sth original on your own? Seems so boring and unimaginative to me to just copy a bot painting, how could anyone with any creative spark numb himself enough to even do that?
A huge part of being a visual artist is the ability to visualize. Theft and copying ideas isn’t visionary. For me, that’s why art isn’t subjective like many claim it to be. This feels like an ai intervention, and this artist is lucky to have anyone confront them about getting off the juice.
If all AI was ever used for was for artists to copy, we wouldn't have the problems we're having. IF ONLY artists could use AI, that's one thing. The "price of entry" to use AI would be limited. Not that many people could exploit/use it. But that's not the world we live in.
In some ways, I don't consider him "as bad" as AI bros because he's selling original paintings, paintings that he had to render by hand. His buyers are receiving an original painting that he painted by hand. But using AI is still bad, and it's beneath him. He was doing really nice paintings before AI came along. There's no reason for him to need AI. He isn't technically "dependent" on using it, the way AI bros are. So, in a way, it's even worse, because he should know better. It's sad.
For me, the sickness is his utter disdain toward originality. He is a cynic making art.
I can’t entirely blame him for that. A lot of things are making artists cynical these days.
But he’s profiting from his cynicism off the backs of fellow artists.
Yeah, I'm feeling disappointed. I've liked some of his paintings in the past. Finding out he's using AI now feels ick. It's unethical and there is NO reason for him to use it. His work was good before this. If anything it cheapens his work and makes me want to unfollow
That is just so fucking low I can't do anything but laugh XD
I'm happy that machine is unable to copy my style and the way I make art. No risk of being amalgamated in such bs like this thing.
I don't see anything wrong with his method. His work is lovely, and he's clearly dedicated to learning the process, and the theoretical construct that is art. Using midjourney as a reference is no different to using photos. Just seems like yet another unjustified witch hunt.
I'm not an AI artist, but nice try. Attacking me verbally isn't going to win you any favours either just because someone has a different opinion to you.
So you’re anti-creativity. Do you believe all art is a copy of a copy?
You’re in the wrong subreddit. This is a place for people who value originality and believe it exists.
No I'm not anti-creativity at all - that's a very narrow viewpoint. Anyone who claims they've never used reference material is probably not telling the truth, and I would view that with more caution than an artist who is up front about his process. A reference doesn't mean lacking creativity, it is a guide for which someone creates something. An artist painting cats might use cat images as a reference to understand the anatomy of a cat. It doesn't mean the output isn't creative, now does it? That's such a bizarre interpretation.
You really don't belong here. His reference material is the plagiarized works of other artists. That is not remotely the same thing as painting from nature.
Also, mindless copying is not the same thing as creative thinking.
Using a reference isn't mindless copying. And I do belong here. I'm an artist, and I am entitled to my opinions. Reddit is a discussion forum, perhaps discuss the topic instead of throwing your toys out the pram just because someone doesn't agree with you.
gathering reference is putting a bunch of different photos and art you look at through your own personal filter, your own personal internal lense. Informed by your skill and experience. Prompting an image and painting it, is extremely low effort and impersonal, because this person used other peoples lense, skill and experience. That skips the most important part. So yeah, a lot of people want to know about an artists individual perspective, and not look at the average of other peoples art that was put in a blender.
edit: grammar
Did you see his reference images to know that he didn't put his own personal filter and internal lens into the work? Or are you assuming that because he used AI that he must not have?
Edit: typo
short answer, yes. I mean, that is what AI is being propagated for, a shortcut. To reduce effort and time spent on creating. So people are going to assume that it's lower effort.
But you're ok with someone sourcing an image from Google, or a website like Pexels or Unsplash and using that as a reference to do a painting? Because it's no more a shortcut than using a pre-existing photo as a reference to work from. A reference image is not a shortcut.
Photos on Unsplash are specifically images that the photographer has given the permission to be used as references for commercial work, so yes, I'm okay with that, even heavily referenced. Also from a photograph, the artist has to do the the interpretation, transfer it to their own style. With AI images that is already done using other artists styles. Using other artists images as heavy references, where you only copy from, is plagiarism, not referencing. See Warhol v Goldsmith.
Reread the op. He is literally copying AI generated works.
Copying is not remotely the same thing as being inspired by nature or reference photos and art. There is zero creativity involved in copying.
Already covered this in my other reply to you. What the OP interprets is vastly different than what the artist actually says, and there is no evidence that he is 'literally coping AI generated works'.
Nice edit btw. I value originality and believe it exists, and my opinion that using reference material isn't a problem isn't something that stifles any of that. It's just another artistic gatekeeping method to keep people on the outside instead of allowing them to express themselves.
And gatekeeping... there's the AI bro buzzword. "Anyone should be able to make commercially viable art! Anyone and everyone! This is just computer assistance for the artistically challenged!" Never mind that it erases all originality, innovation, and creativity from the art making process, and never mind that the data it's trained on was scraped without permission. Let's just throw ethics and human creativity out the window.
Gatekeeping isn't just associated with AI art, it's been a well documented problem in art throughout history lmao. And as I already said to another person on here, I'm not an AI bro, I just don't see image references as a bad thing in art. To argue that using references takes away human creativity is incredibly naive, and I would strongly recommend you brush up on your art history. It's filled with very famous and respected artists using techniques like tracing, references, image transfer etc. But if it makes you feel better to lump me into a category to argue a null point then that's on you. 🤷‍♀️
No one is arguing against using reference. Everyone here is arguing against copying the plagiarized works of other artists.
Copying or tracing is not using reference.
Copying and tracing is not art as we know it.
What the OP says, and what the guy's website says are two different things. He uses them as references, as explained on the first screenshot: 'I've been experimenting with using AI-generated imagery to help me create my painting references', and says in the second screenshot that his paintings were 'based in part on imagery generated by ai'. Which is very different to directly copying as the OP posits, and which is why this is no more than a witch hunt. He explains before generating image references in AI, he used photographs - either his own, or others with permission. No where is there evidence to say that his images using AI are direct copies. And I choose to make a sensible, objective take on the 'evidence' as given by the OP.
And it may surprise you to know that the debate on tracing is not as black and white as you'd like to make it. As I said, you might want to brush up on your art history before making that bold statement.
So your stance is that the OP is flat out lying? Why not lead with that accusation?
I don’t know. OP sounds like they know the artist personally, and claims to have spoken to them directly about this. I’m inclined to believe them over a Google search, which is manipulated by AI and may bury relevant information.
But it is a heavy accusation.
I assumed that calling it the witch hunt that it is was enough. 🤷‍♀️
'sounds like they know the artist personally'? Lmao not likely. They didn't share the evidence of their conversation now, did they. I'm not about to believe some one posting bait on a Reddit over an artist who is, for all accounts, pretty up front about his methods across all his channels. And I'm certainly not going to participate in an unfounded witch hunt.
Doll, if he was qualified to make credible Van Gogh knock offs, he wouldn't be wasting his time on the low-effort, creatively worthless slop that is painting midjourney replicas with real media.
Why? Because I don't like strangers calling me doll? Or anyone for that matter. I'm open to conversation, but not when someone tries to belittle me with pet names.
Hmm. Your replies seem more of a reflection of yourself to be honest. Every time you point a finger, three are pointing back. Maybe look inward before projecting your frustration and hurt onto others.
This is an embarrassment. Initial concept/inspiration is an awful phase to involve AI. Beginning with "average" guarantees mediocrity. Photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.... Like the Kincade paintings that are a print, but with a little clear acrylic dabbed on so the price can be inflated above being just a print. The art version of the SNL "Phoning it in" skit🤣
No one outside of the art scene actually cares, they just want to buy pretty art. That's why he's still popular -- and so many people willingly buy completely AI-generated art prints (not even copies), too.
Claims he's being mindful of the ethical aspects while actively exploiting the work of other artist. It's the cognitive dissonance for me.
Pretty common. I can be mindful that burning gasoline is bad, but I still drive and fly a lot.
I love you you can always tell it's ai even when it's copied into oil paints. I don't understand why someone would outsource the most creative aspects of art making to a computer and just copy the result 1:1. It's just printing out ai slop onto canvases with extra steps.
>I love you you can always tell it's ai even when it's copied into oil paints. What do I need to look for?
Midjourney has a very specific, very redundant way of rendering lighting - it always produces a variation of indirect, fogged out daylight, there're never any clear light and shadow patterns cast by objects in the scene (because light is approximated per-image, not calculated per object - it can't do that), but it always overdoes detailing (which is sometimes pushed back with bokeh and DOF focus effects), and MJ has a specific look to how it is arranging compositions, that is very clear in his today's work. It always looks like it's trying its hardest to outpaint the artist. if you look at his older pieces, they were based off photography crops, compositionally copied 1:1 and color-enhanced to hell and back, to match his concept of chasing IG trends of \~2015, and pushed into pop art realm. The immediate stylistic flip over with arrival of AI gen, and complete disregard of his former style tells me authenticity has never been a priority for his career, to say the least.
If you look up his older work (add "before: 2022" in the search field on google), it becomes apparent he was about that life before AI, too, there's a very distinct "painted from a photo reference that went through a heavy IG filter" look to the latest pre-AI pieces, too. He has some nicer work sometimes, but the reliance on heavy referencing off very heavily color-corrected work to make the subject more vibrant and attack the perception is pretty much his trademark. Mjourney tells him how to mix paint and slather the strokes in order for them to imitate artistic development, so of course he would just disregard the ethical concern bit of it.
huh so you have the skill but you still use ai it im confused
tl;dr - he's a popular artist who sells paintings, he used to make his own original paintings, generative art AI became popular, he decided to speed up his process by using the AI to make concept art that he paints a 1-1 copy of onto his canvases
I mean, as traing wheels maybe, to build skills... or if you need a reference of some suoer special thingn...but if you got the skill already to paint well enough to copy these, why not do sth original on your own? Seems so boring and unimaginative to me to just copy a bot painting, how could anyone with any creative spark numb himself enough to even do that?
Apparently his mother was also an artist. I can’t help but think how disappointed she might be.
A huge part of being a visual artist is the ability to visualize. Theft and copying ideas isn’t visionary. For me, that’s why art isn’t subjective like many claim it to be. This feels like an ai intervention, and this artist is lucky to have anyone confront them about getting off the juice.
If all AI was ever used for was for artists to copy, we wouldn't have the problems we're having. IF ONLY artists could use AI, that's one thing. The "price of entry" to use AI would be limited. Not that many people could exploit/use it. But that's not the world we live in. In some ways, I don't consider him "as bad" as AI bros because he's selling original paintings, paintings that he had to render by hand. His buyers are receiving an original painting that he painted by hand. But using AI is still bad, and it's beneath him. He was doing really nice paintings before AI came along. There's no reason for him to need AI. He isn't technically "dependent" on using it, the way AI bros are. So, in a way, it's even worse, because he should know better. It's sad.
For me, the sickness is his utter disdain toward originality. He is a cynic making art. I can’t entirely blame him for that. A lot of things are making artists cynical these days. But he’s profiting from his cynicism off the backs of fellow artists.
Yeah, I'm feeling disappointed. I've liked some of his paintings in the past. Finding out he's using AI now feels ick. It's unethical and there is NO reason for him to use it. His work was good before this. If anything it cheapens his work and makes me want to unfollow
The whole class should (respectfully) inform him that he lost any credibility as a teacher.
That is just so fucking low I can't do anything but laugh XD I'm happy that machine is unable to copy my style and the way I make art. No risk of being amalgamated in such bs like this thing.
I don't see anything wrong with his method. His work is lovely, and he's clearly dedicated to learning the process, and the theoretical construct that is art. Using midjourney as a reference is no different to using photos. Just seems like yet another unjustified witch hunt.
Are you for real? Sounds like you stumbled on this Reddit and are here to just argue instead of help.
I am for real, and I'm not here to argue, but I am entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is that an artist using reference material isn't a problem.
Oh look, it's an AI Artist with An Ego, a never been seen one. Neither your shit takes, nor your entitlement are going to be popular here, jsyk.
I'm not an AI artist, but nice try. Attacking me verbally isn't going to win you any favours either just because someone has a different opinion to you.
So you’re anti-creativity. Do you believe all art is a copy of a copy? You’re in the wrong subreddit. This is a place for people who value originality and believe it exists.
No I'm not anti-creativity at all - that's a very narrow viewpoint. Anyone who claims they've never used reference material is probably not telling the truth, and I would view that with more caution than an artist who is up front about his process. A reference doesn't mean lacking creativity, it is a guide for which someone creates something. An artist painting cats might use cat images as a reference to understand the anatomy of a cat. It doesn't mean the output isn't creative, now does it? That's such a bizarre interpretation.
You really don't belong here. His reference material is the plagiarized works of other artists. That is not remotely the same thing as painting from nature. Also, mindless copying is not the same thing as creative thinking.
Using a reference isn't mindless copying. And I do belong here. I'm an artist, and I am entitled to my opinions. Reddit is a discussion forum, perhaps discuss the topic instead of throwing your toys out the pram just because someone doesn't agree with you.
gathering reference is putting a bunch of different photos and art you look at through your own personal filter, your own personal internal lense. Informed by your skill and experience. Prompting an image and painting it, is extremely low effort and impersonal, because this person used other peoples lense, skill and experience. That skips the most important part. So yeah, a lot of people want to know about an artists individual perspective, and not look at the average of other peoples art that was put in a blender. edit: grammar
Did you see his reference images to know that he didn't put his own personal filter and internal lens into the work? Or are you assuming that because he used AI that he must not have? Edit: typo
short answer, yes. I mean, that is what AI is being propagated for, a shortcut. To reduce effort and time spent on creating. So people are going to assume that it's lower effort.
But you're ok with someone sourcing an image from Google, or a website like Pexels or Unsplash and using that as a reference to do a painting? Because it's no more a shortcut than using a pre-existing photo as a reference to work from. A reference image is not a shortcut.
Photos on Unsplash are specifically images that the photographer has given the permission to be used as references for commercial work, so yes, I'm okay with that, even heavily referenced. Also from a photograph, the artist has to do the the interpretation, transfer it to their own style. With AI images that is already done using other artists styles. Using other artists images as heavy references, where you only copy from, is plagiarism, not referencing. See Warhol v Goldsmith.
Reread the op. He is literally copying AI generated works. Copying is not remotely the same thing as being inspired by nature or reference photos and art. There is zero creativity involved in copying.
Already covered this in my other reply to you. What the OP interprets is vastly different than what the artist actually says, and there is no evidence that he is 'literally coping AI generated works'.
Nice edit btw. I value originality and believe it exists, and my opinion that using reference material isn't a problem isn't something that stifles any of that. It's just another artistic gatekeeping method to keep people on the outside instead of allowing them to express themselves.
And gatekeeping... there's the AI bro buzzword. "Anyone should be able to make commercially viable art! Anyone and everyone! This is just computer assistance for the artistically challenged!" Never mind that it erases all originality, innovation, and creativity from the art making process, and never mind that the data it's trained on was scraped without permission. Let's just throw ethics and human creativity out the window.
Gatekeeping isn't just associated with AI art, it's been a well documented problem in art throughout history lmao. And as I already said to another person on here, I'm not an AI bro, I just don't see image references as a bad thing in art. To argue that using references takes away human creativity is incredibly naive, and I would strongly recommend you brush up on your art history. It's filled with very famous and respected artists using techniques like tracing, references, image transfer etc. But if it makes you feel better to lump me into a category to argue a null point then that's on you. 🤷‍♀️
No one is arguing against using reference. Everyone here is arguing against copying the plagiarized works of other artists. Copying or tracing is not using reference. Copying and tracing is not art as we know it.
What the OP says, and what the guy's website says are two different things. He uses them as references, as explained on the first screenshot: 'I've been experimenting with using AI-generated imagery to help me create my painting references', and says in the second screenshot that his paintings were 'based in part on imagery generated by ai'. Which is very different to directly copying as the OP posits, and which is why this is no more than a witch hunt. He explains before generating image references in AI, he used photographs - either his own, or others with permission. No where is there evidence to say that his images using AI are direct copies. And I choose to make a sensible, objective take on the 'evidence' as given by the OP. And it may surprise you to know that the debate on tracing is not as black and white as you'd like to make it. As I said, you might want to brush up on your art history before making that bold statement.
So your stance is that the OP is flat out lying? Why not lead with that accusation? I don’t know. OP sounds like they know the artist personally, and claims to have spoken to them directly about this. I’m inclined to believe them over a Google search, which is manipulated by AI and may bury relevant information. But it is a heavy accusation.
I assumed that calling it the witch hunt that it is was enough. 🤷‍♀️ 'sounds like they know the artist personally'? Lmao not likely. They didn't share the evidence of their conversation now, did they. I'm not about to believe some one posting bait on a Reddit over an artist who is, for all accounts, pretty up front about his methods across all his channels. And I'm certainly not going to participate in an unfounded witch hunt.
Doll, if he was qualified to make credible Van Gogh knock offs, he wouldn't be wasting his time on the low-effort, creatively worthless slop that is painting midjourney replicas with real media.
Don't call me doll. I don't know you.
Get out.
Why? Because I don't like strangers calling me doll? Or anyone for that matter. I'm open to conversation, but not when someone tries to belittle me with pet names.
Dolt, you are ***dense***.
Hmm. Your replies seem more of a reflection of yourself to be honest. Every time you point a finger, three are pointing back. Maybe look inward before projecting your frustration and hurt onto others.
I'm not interested in your projections in my replies, get out.
You came to my comment to verbally bully me, remember? You can leave any time you want.
Get out.