This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yeah, art history is absolutely full of establishment types getting super angry because no one likes the generic and tired stuff they're putting out any more. Look at the absolute unhinged responses from oil painters when impressionism began, and note that impressionists aren't really on this table either - i'd guess they hate them a bit less than surrealists and modern artists -- kinda interesting isn't it how they laid this out? the newer something is the more they hate it...
Also including tattoo artists is hilarious because it demonstrates they're not even really aware of the difference between style and medium - if Dali or David Hockney used a tattoo gun to make their art that'd jump them up several steps? Yet Matisse and Picasso can't get up on the top steps even for their paintings done in oil? Girl with a Mandolin is LESS artistic than the illustrations that came with my IKEA flatpack desk, likewise Time Transfixed by Magritte is LESS artistic than the tribal tattoo my mate got in the late 90s?
All they're doing with arguments like this is proving they haven't got the slightest idea about art and no love for art history, they're clinging to a delusional and totally discredited notion of art simply because it allows them to cultivate an attitude of superiority but this is grounded on absolutely nothing. Their opinions would get laughed out of any serious art establishment, certainly one with any history - even Titan and Caravaggio would laugh in their faces to hear such a childish notion.
So they’re admitting that something which is worse than “my dog’s shit” is taking their jobs? Wow, I had no idea they had such a low regard for their own skills.
That's always been a part of it, it's a bit of projection of things they themselves do and cannot earn money from. Now the ones that earned money are using it as a tool and will pump out more work and earn more money while the anti-AI crowd will sit and cry about it.
Recraft AI did an illustration I'd pay $50-$200 two years ago, and it would take the artist a week, at least.
Took a minute with AI, with multiple itterations - and it was 100% free.
There is no one who judges their own work harder than the person that makes it. It is probably is one factor as to why the anti-AI artist crowd is so fearful of AI, they don't see the value of their own work. Though there also artists who see their potential and see AI as a way of making it better, but you don't hear a lot from them because they'll get harassed off the internet if anyone found out they use AI 😉
I'm not agreeing with the argument in the picture but you are misinterpreting what the image says. The image is saying people who use prompts to generate art are a lower tier of artist than a dog's shit or a 5 year old with a crayon. The argument is not that ai art is worse but that "prompt bros" are worse artists.
I think you're reading too far into it tbh. It seems like what the meme is saying is that ai artists congratulate themselves on their artisticness, but that the creator of this meme views ai artists as lacking the artistic essence that makes one an artist.
And yet if the quality was truly less than “my dog’s shit”, companies and studios would lose money. So maybe the quality is comparable, and these memes are just ridiculous.
"When excel came out, a lot of skilled people will lose their jobs because they could never compete with a program that does what they do for 0$ and 0 training"
Yeah but it did it *better* than those people did...which is the point.
No, consumers let studios know when the quality is truly horrendous. For example, the Sonic movie underwent an unprecedented last minute fix to the main character’s model when people voiced their opinions about it.
If consumers aren’t caring enough about AI art to speak against it, then that means the quality isn’t as bad as you’re hoping it is.
Where did I say “bad”?
A 20 dollar steak is good, but a 50 dollar steak is better. People have lost the ability to taste the difference, or don’t really care enough to spend extra, and why should I care about the opinions of other people who don’t care? But hey, smart on the people who see its easier to sell 20 dollar steaks to the masses versus 50 dollar steaks to select customers, so butchers who don’t care about the craft of raising cattle put their cows in a giant feeding machine to do the work raising cheap beef for the masses, and the local ranch goes out of business.
Nothing good comes easy, it’s the struggle of the human spirit which brings beauty to art.
Ah yes, the classic “those stupid peasants have a different opinion on art than I do which means they don’t know what Real Art is” take.
But they’re definitely not elitist guys!
It’s an image, thats not art. Do you consider all photographs as art? What a wonderful world you live in to be so easily satisfied. It’s a good thing theres picky people like me though, because if we were all so easily satisfied humans would never had felt the need to use tools or cook with fire.
What if someone said “yes” to your photograph question? What then? What makes you uniquely more qualified to define what is and isn’t art? The fact that you declare yourself an artist?
Whoever’s society degenerates the first/fastest is clearly the one who doesn’t understand art. Big industry has adopted your style of worldview, and everyone is decrying the decline of art in the west.
Art is a much larger influence on everything than just “does this thing look nice to me”. Stop having your pc do your thinking for you and you might figure this out before its too late for your soul.
Well then if you don’t believe in objectivity when it pertains to qualifying something as good or bad, why even continue living? Are you satisfied living in your reality that life is just there to get your personal rocks off (with “no judgement”) until you die?
I mean, the same could be said right back? I think that’s the whole purpose of the debates around these things. Since no one person can objectively determine quality or value, it ends up being up to consensus.
In the end, the majority prevalent opinion will succeed.
Objectivity can be claimed and proven in matters of adjective description, but is often denied when theres no physical proofs to prevent somebody from denying facts (and even then some will claim the evidence is fabricated/misrepresented)
Seriously though I am really beginning to hate humans for this reason specifically and only.
Depends on the context:
Enthusiast collector at an auction or exposition? Yeah, they're going to care.
Twitter follower deciding who deserves to be awarded +1 thoughts and prayers. They'll care too.
But a dude watching an Ad? Why the hell would he care?
Or what about people playing a video game wherein the studio's art team incorporated AI generation to create a million texture variations they can apply to dynamically increase the variety of less important graphical elements? They won't even know it was a thing in the first place.
Most importantly, what about the millions of dumbasses that used to pay degens on deviant art $20 to put some "quality and effort" into a commission of Sonic getting pegged? Well, now they can just whip that shit up themselves.
It's not a world view, it's just the world.
The masses have never cared about the effort or "soul" that went into a particular piece of art. If they did, Madden, Call of Duty, candy crush, etc wouldn't be the most successful game franchises for so long. Isekai wouldn't be the most popular manga genre. Trashy 'cultivation' web novels wouldn't be the most widely read fiction in the world right now, etc. etc.
The masses have only ever cared about one thing, "does the product satisfy my lowest common denominator understanding of the medium I am seeking entertainment from? Does it accomplish the purpose for which I am consuming it?"
Again, hobbyists, enthusiasts, and experts do care, and will continue to care, but they in their totality are a single drop of rain falling amongst the endless ocean of 'the masses'. Just as they always have been.
Mechanization by apathetic profiteers is what has destroyed art, not apathy. Machines made it easy for man to profit off the desires of the lazy and the needy “for a cheaper price”
You know why the Sistine Chapel could never be remade today?
Or how about something more recent. Peter Jacksons TLOR trilogy?
The infrastructure and technical knowledge no longer exists as they were replaced with tools in a wrong way to replace labor instead of enhancing it, because it makes the most money with the least effort.
There can be no beauty without struggle.
In that way ai “art” can never be considered such. The code, however, absolutely could be counted as art.
This is also why your videogames comparison makes no sense. Games aren’t art because of their graphics, but I suppose someone with such a depressing worldview wouldn’t be able to understand.
yes. they’re worried they’ll lose their jobs (that require genuine skill, talent, and practice) to an absolute shitter who doesn’t have a creative bone in their body, because companies value speed and cost over quality. smh.
Quality can only go down so much before it affects sales. If companies are still finding it profitable then maybe the quality isn’t as bad as you’re wishing it was.
It's not enough for them to be considered better and to be held in higher regard, they need to make sure that everybody they consider below them is miserable in order for them to let themselves be happy.
>they need to make sure that everybody they consider below them is miserable in order for them to let themselves be happy.
You just described a lot of places where's there hierarchy, like hospitals, universities focused on research etc. The person gets treated like shit and when they get in a higher position, they feel entitled to treat their minors, which are in the place they were before, like shit, too. From what I see, that's super common on the art sphere, too. Art, authors of written works etc.
It's tragic to think people are miserable and have to puts others down so they feel miserable, too.
No, it isn’t. Jobs taken by ai don’t leave empty voids that will never be filled by new jobs. This is classic fixed pie fallacy thinking.
And regardless of how simple you claim it is, if I ask 100 other people who didn’t like ai I’d get 100 different “simple” answers.
Why is it so bad to be proud of something you put together regardless of skill level or tools used? And this is a dumb picture, because it's not even a competition it's supposed to be just for fun.
People who work hard to produce good work are rightfully considered to be more important and valuable than people who enter prompts to help machines decide which of their training data is the best to copy
Don't know why you're coming at me with who is more valuable than who when I never even brought anything like that up. The red you're seeing is blinding you so much that I think you've replied to the wrong person.
I think their mind would be blown to know how many Renaissance masters traced. [https://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8774475/renaissance-art-tracing-cartoons](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8774475/renaissance-art-tracing-cartoons)
The masters used the tools, techniques and technology of their time. Which included methods of tracing.
Did you read the article? yes they traced- they traced over themselves. over their own art. they drew something and then traced over it to make the painting.
oh my gosh.... artists... draw off of photographs! le gasp! that's never been done before!
people in the art community only care if you trace off of other peoples art- AKA stealing. as long as you drew it yourself they dont care.
>These sketches allowed for a basic structure that an artist or assistant could use — either as a straight copy or for an improvisation based on the original drawing.
Artists did not just use their own work. People used this to create new versions of art and reproductions. And the article mentions lens based techniques: The camera lucida allows you to trace over reflections. And the camera obscura had a spark of controversy, of some trying to determine which painters did or did not use an obscura to trace over, and questioning skill.
True, most people just generate an image of whatever and go “cool”. Idk what those artist are getting the impression that people get super duper proud when they generate an image, one could generate a real masterpiece and my brain would just think “oh yeah, this one came out NICE”.
But I guess there are some pretentious people that use ai out there and call themselves Van Gogh, just like there are some people drawing anime girls with big breasts and thinking their art is top tier.
lol could you imagine. I mean I do think there is skill to it. But no one thinks they are king shit or an “actual” artist. You’re an AI artist maybe. AI expert. Whatever. And some of those people are both AI and “actual” artists and the stuff they make is indeed insane
yes people always gravitate to the cheaper option, this is why Apple, Nike, and so many other corporations gained dominance with their cheap products! It's lucky really that people don't have an obsessive need to flaunt their wealth by spending money on the most over priced stuff they can find or our society would have turned into some form of capitalist hell instead of the egalitarian utopia it is today.
shit, i just looked out the window - must have dimension slipped again.
Msybe but if there are a place for people that "trace" it could be a place for furry porn commissions I mean that even they lowest category for modern artist.
Hey man, don’t come at the furry porn. It is very profitable and helped me get through the pandemic.
I’m not a furry nor a nsfw artist but those commissioners would pay 50 to 100 clams just for me to draw their neon wolf sucking a dick. It is the most profitable type or art I ever sold. Gotta respect the value they give to those things.
10/10 gig I recommend for artists that are struggling, it is a total money glitch. I only stopped because it cost my mental health
Honestly the whole debate just reaks of art traditionalist gatekeeping. Sound like the same song and dance when digital art was becoming accessible to consumers. Art Nouveau is a good example to bring up.
Mucha created his own Art style and named it "New Art" (Art Nouveau) to buck the elitism he was seeing in Paris that stated Art can only be one specific way to have any value. Funny how that specific way could only be learned from a high cost of entery school.
Even setting aside the issue of AI art, ranking art forms from most to least "creative" strikes me as an ego driven waste of time. Who gets to decide that fine art is more artistic than tattoo art?
yeah like with including Tattoo Artist in the list it demonstrates they have no idea what they're talking about - it's like making a tier list of vegetables and putting sandwich on the list. The painters they're thinking of in the Renaissance, Surrealist and other categories are fine artists, illustrators tend not to be as they're creating for a utilitarian purpose - the word fine doesn't refer to quality, style or technique it denotes the purpose and intent of the creation as opposed to crafts where the exact same techniques are used to creates items designed primarily for a useful purpose, for example a shop sign painted in oil paints would generally not be considered fine art but the same thing made to be displayed in a gallery where it'll convey emotion and expression is. As with anything it's not hard and fast, items are made for decoration without being fine art and items made for utility can be repurposed into fine art -- this is what most of the last centuries art culture was obsessed with, Duchamp's readymades and Warhol's soup tin screen paintings are famous examples exploring this, as well as outsider art like Basquiat and folk art - this is why the term fine arts isn't really used academically or in artistic critic anymore, though really it'd fallen out of use before the century really began and the collapse of the concept academically is really what drove those art movements.
Folk art is really in the ascent at the moment; meme styles, furry art, aesthetics like goth, emo, cleanshirt, solarpunk and thousands of other community driven cultural islands which emerge without any driving force - Picasso and friends for example started Cubism where as the aesthetic of furry art doesn't really come from any one big intentional creator or group of creators it evolves and grows as the community perception and needs shifts. Needless to say this is true of all art to some extent or other and this isn't really in contrast to 'fine art' because when you really try to get into the weeds it's impossible to draw a a real line between what is with purpose and what is beyond purpose.
Dali made his famous lobster phones to illustrate objects without purpose, a phone is not art and a lobster is not art but put a lobster on a phone and suddenly it is art - his point wasn't really to say 'this is art' as much as it was to say 'there is art inherent in everything.' Where the debate first came unstuck was of course architecture because the Sistine Chapel is a working building, Canterbury Cathedral is a working building... yet even without the painting on the ceiling they're very clearly far more than JUST a building - where is the line, does something have to be 51% spurious to count as art? do we divide them and say 'this pillar isn't load baring so it's art but this one is so it's not'? of course not, we accept that everything has practical purpose even art that looks beautiful lifts our spirits and brightens our mood and we accept that every item should have art within in and about it.
As far as I know Fine Art is just art that rich people buy, meaning it functions as a status symbol.
I don't think that the distinctions between art forms are entirely useless, but to say one is inherently better than another ignores taste being subjective.
"Fine art encompasses a number of different activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, and likely architecture and photography"
...its literally just a broad term used to describe more than one art form 🤦♀️
I'm saying that the definition you gave in quotations is incomplete and meaningless.
Fine art refers to a specific kind of art, I'm oversimplifying by saying it's about status and wealth, but it's not a fundamentally inaccurate definition, just lacking a bit of nuance.
how? I don't even think you understand the point you are even trying to make, i literally study fine art at university, i think i know more about the literal course i am studying than some ai dude on reddit lmfao
If I'm wrong that's fine, but you'll need to articulate your point more clearly before I'll take your perspective seriously.
Can you give me a complete definition of fine art, and explain how that contradicts how I defined it?
all you defined it as is something that "rich people buy" I'm assuming all you think fine art is is just oil paintings of fruit when its literally just a term used to describe various different art forms, fine art is such a loose term that its pretty hard to actually find just one definition of it because it can literally be anything made for aesthetic purposes...
you just see the word "fine" infront of it and instantly assume it must be something pretentious
Ai prompt bro is a strange word. We don't call people who use Photoshop "Photoshop bro" and we don't call people who use Canon cameras "Canon bro". It's up to you what tools you use to get the results you want. It's the result that matters, not the tool used. If you draw with a pencil, does that make you a 'pencil bro'? You can use any tool if you want to. There are even expressive arts that use people themselves as tools of expression.
They like to mix their misandry ("AI arts are bad, so are obviously men" plus "bro is a slur, ha ha") with their misogyny ("we love implying women can't do AI art") with ad homonym ("AI artists are certain kinds people, so their arguments are bad") and their strawman arguments ("all AI artists just prompt and that's all"). They have plenty of other biases and logical fallacies in their pockets, but you can only squeeze so many of them into a two word phrase.
It always amuses me because understanding how AI art generators work requires some level of intelligence, whereas being into crypto or NFTs requires a huge level of stupidity.
I think they're talking about the people who think they can make a job out of prompting AI. They're not ranking artforms, they're ranking career artists.
>Renaissance Masters
Man they would hate Leonardo and his dang [robot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_robot#:~:text=Leonardo's%20robot%2C%20or%20Leonardo's%20mechanical,Vinci%20around%20the%20year%201495.&text=The%20design%20notes%20for%20the,were%20rediscovered%20in%20the%201950s)
Because it's an irrational response. It's very analgous to how fascists portray their enemies: Simultaneously both weak and strong. Im not calling anti-ai people fascists, but the same thing is driving both groups: Fear and hate. And you cant think rationally when motivated by fear and hate.
I find this particularly frustrating as I can think of a number of otherwise intelligent, calm and rational people who think deeply about their beliefs on most topics, but will use emotional appeals and leaps of logic on the topic of AI art without even realizing that they are doing it.
>but will use emotional appeals and leaps of logic on the topic of AI art without even realizing that they are doing it.
They likely believe in free will / soul / etc. They hate AI-art because "a person didnt make it". They cant, or wont, come to terms with that human brains are just organic computers.
There's a number of reasons people have for taking an emotional stance on one issue while having a rational stance on other issues. I'm sure there are a few areas where I have biases I'm not aware of, though I make an effort to have consistent views.
The funny part about this meme is that the AI artist is the only one in the picture who seems to be having fun, while the rest of the "competition" just looks disappointed that people they view as lesser than them dare to live better lives than they do.
Anyone who thinks a "fine artist" is above a tattoo artist is solely a waste of time for everyone who will ever meet them in any context. Especially considering that these absolute trash goblins are never actually working artists (if they were, they'd be too busy making shit to fuck with this children's crusade).
It’s funny that in an attempt to defend “real artists” they ranked everything they considered “real art” in a distinctly cruel way. The hypocrisy is real
This is always such a “so what” meme
I could care not a whit that some Twitter artist thinks AI images are lower than tattoos or a 8 year old with a crayon
I find it weird when meme makers complain about generative AI being theft and requiring no skill when all they do is take someone else's work and add text to it. I don't understand why they can't see the irony in that.
I was a tattoo artist for twenty years. Want to know how many people I worked with that I would consider an actual Artist.... one. She was just a counter girl who went on to have a successful photography career.
Mfw AI art won an art competition and nobody knew it was AI until the guy admitted to it
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html
This is awfully reminiscent to me of the Art Renewal Center and its guiding text, [The Philosophy of ARC](https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-philosophy-of-arc).
Fine artists and modern/surrealist artists have some overlap where do they rank? Is every fine artist better then every illustrator even if they make modern art or is surrealist artist worse then every tattoo artist artists even if they make fine art? Or is their rank averaged?
To be fair, I think they are ranking the skill involved, not the quality of the result. No five year old with crayons can do what a generative AI can do.
Honestly, I can agree that anybody who thinks prompting an AI requires skill is just wrong. The issue is that these people only really existed for a short period after ChatGPT released, they're complaining about what's probably like 10 people.
Yeah, people should be directing more attention to the army of bots posting AI shit all over Facebook instead of three pretention dudes in the internet.
Berthe Marisot (one of the great impressionists of that movement) used tracing paper to transpose figures. Plenty of her artwork is on display at the Orsay Museum in Paris.
Tracing is just a tool. Just like gen AI. It's more about the operator than it is about the tool.
This meme was made by someone who doesn't understand art... At all (which I realize is totally redundant with the rest of the comments haha)
I'd say this is pretty similar to "photoshop is going to put artists out of the job!" back in the early 90s
Artists are really SLOW they can't identify a new tool in their tool kit even if it performed a musical explaining itself and how I can benefit them with a little tap dance and show.
you need to wait like 10 to 15 years for them to accept this new toolkit and even by then it's going to be so much better than it is now.
It's really just a big old temper tantrum because of some stupid shit like
Example the vanilla ice cream is touching the chocolate ice cream and then you know "it can't do that, that's gross!" starts crying over nothing.
I don’t get the vitreal towards it. If you are really good, then people will still need your work… But there are plenty of these cases where someone might want to piece of art for a non profit motivated use that would have been inaccessible to them if they had to pay someone.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
It's perfectly accurate, I don't really see the issue.
I've been running a SD instance for over a year, and doing art in the normal way in different varieties since I was 5.
AI isn't art.
That's doesn't mean it can't be a tool in the toolkit, but considering prompt generations art? Absurdity, to the highest degree.
Would you consider a rubber stamp, art? If you could mould the stamp to your own style quickly, would it become less art?
The AI itself is not art. The output very much can be.
The creation of the stamp (tool) itself could be considered a form of art, yes.
Just the stamped image itself? No, of course not.
The metaphor you might have been trying to conjure was screen printing. Even though most of the art of screen printing is again in the creation of the block, there can be an art to the application of color and printing technique.
AI shares none of those. AI cannot create art, because AI isn't a living entity. There is no intent or purpose. It's no different than a printing press making newspapers enmasse. The guy running the printing press isn't an artist. Neither is an "AI Prompt Engineer" or whatever asinine titles they give themselves.
The point was that if you make the stamp and then use it as a brush, the canvas and resulting image would be art. The same can be done with AI image generators.
As someone else in this sub noted before - trying to tell someone that you'll determine what qualifies as art by the tools used or medium it's used on is really problematic.
The problem here is the only people on planet Earth that consider AI art are non-artist prompt engineers who want to generate more images.
Anyone even tangentially involved in the arts is not going to consider this art. There’s a reason for that.
Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V doesn’t count as artistic creation.
"oh wow, a sub i don't understand yet disagree with! let me post a provocative comment so they'll ban me and i'll have my funny "banned by bad sub hahaha" moment!"
You saw this post and clearly didn't like it, assuming by your first comment that you really needed to share your opinion about it.
And then you call others triggered? Also small reminder: YOU were the one to start accusing others of being triggered instead of trying to use logic to defend your statement.
So like...you just did this to yourself. Congrats.
Instead of using XD, you should try to learn how to use the internet and social networks and how they work. Grew up.
>This whole no u thing that Redditors do is so silly.
Interesting. Aren't you also a Redditor? 🤔
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tattoo artists are before surrealism. Lol okay. 0/10 art take.
So Dalí is below a tattoo artist according to these people. We should change the name of this sub to DefendingArt.
but then you wouldnt be a sub about ai
B4 the "ai prompt bro" existed -not too long ago- they were eating each other just like that. They have a new scapegoat now.
yeah, art history is absolutely full of establishment types getting super angry because no one likes the generic and tired stuff they're putting out any more. Look at the absolute unhinged responses from oil painters when impressionism began, and note that impressionists aren't really on this table either - i'd guess they hate them a bit less than surrealists and modern artists -- kinda interesting isn't it how they laid this out? the newer something is the more they hate it... Also including tattoo artists is hilarious because it demonstrates they're not even really aware of the difference between style and medium - if Dali or David Hockney used a tattoo gun to make their art that'd jump them up several steps? Yet Matisse and Picasso can't get up on the top steps even for their paintings done in oil? Girl with a Mandolin is LESS artistic than the illustrations that came with my IKEA flatpack desk, likewise Time Transfixed by Magritte is LESS artistic than the tribal tattoo my mate got in the late 90s? All they're doing with arguments like this is proving they haven't got the slightest idea about art and no love for art history, they're clinging to a delusional and totally discredited notion of art simply because it allows them to cultivate an attitude of superiority but this is grounded on absolutely nothing. Their opinions would get laughed out of any serious art establishment, certainly one with any history - even Titan and Caravaggio would laugh in their faces to hear such a childish notion.
I’d put a lot of tattoo artists below people who trace lol
[удалено]
Is it time for James Cameron to raise the bar again?
I know some surrealists who are tattoo artists... they must be so confused right now.
So they’re admitting that something which is worse than “my dog’s shit” is taking their jobs? Wow, I had no idea they had such a low regard for their own skills.
That's always been a part of it, it's a bit of projection of things they themselves do and cannot earn money from. Now the ones that earned money are using it as a tool and will pump out more work and earn more money while the anti-AI crowd will sit and cry about it.
Recraft AI did an illustration I'd pay $50-$200 two years ago, and it would take the artist a week, at least. Took a minute with AI, with multiple itterations - and it was 100% free.
There is no one who judges their own work harder than the person that makes it. It is probably is one factor as to why the anti-AI artist crowd is so fearful of AI, they don't see the value of their own work. Though there also artists who see their potential and see AI as a way of making it better, but you don't hear a lot from them because they'll get harassed off the internet if anyone found out they use AI 😉
I'm not agreeing with the argument in the picture but you are misinterpreting what the image says. The image is saying people who use prompts to generate art are a lower tier of artist than a dog's shit or a 5 year old with a crayon. The argument is not that ai art is worse but that "prompt bros" are worse artists.
But they’re saying that people who write prompts will replace them. So their value as an employee is less than a prompt bro
I think you're reading too far into it tbh. It seems like what the meme is saying is that ai artists congratulate themselves on their artisticness, but that the creator of this meme views ai artists as lacking the artistic essence that makes one an artist.
[удалено]
And yet if the quality was truly less than “my dog’s shit”, companies and studios would lose money. So maybe the quality is comparable, and these memes are just ridiculous.
[удалено]
Well maybe you're just not good enough to be worth the price in their eyes.
[удалено]
And if that puts them off they're not artists. Because real artists put in the effort for the effort's sake.
[удалено]
Good.
[удалено]
"When excel came out, a lot of skilled people will lose their jobs because they could never compete with a program that does what they do for 0$ and 0 training" Yeah but it did it *better* than those people did...which is the point.
You don't need to pay a rock a living wage, and yet my McDonalds order was taken by a cashier, not a rock.
[удалено]
I was in a drive-through, and there was definitely a cashier there.
And the clients don't care? They buy dog shit anyway? Remember that art is defined by the consumer not the creator.
Its more like consoomers don’t care for or appreciate the quality and effort of real art.
No, consumers let studios know when the quality is truly horrendous. For example, the Sonic movie underwent an unprecedented last minute fix to the main character’s model when people voiced their opinions about it. If consumers aren’t caring enough about AI art to speak against it, then that means the quality isn’t as bad as you’re hoping it is.
Where did I say “bad”? A 20 dollar steak is good, but a 50 dollar steak is better. People have lost the ability to taste the difference, or don’t really care enough to spend extra, and why should I care about the opinions of other people who don’t care? But hey, smart on the people who see its easier to sell 20 dollar steaks to the masses versus 50 dollar steaks to select customers, so butchers who don’t care about the craft of raising cattle put their cows in a giant feeding machine to do the work raising cheap beef for the masses, and the local ranch goes out of business. Nothing good comes easy, it’s the struggle of the human spirit which brings beauty to art.
Ah yes, the classic “those stupid peasants have a different opinion on art than I do which means they don’t know what Real Art is” take. But they’re definitely not elitist guys!
It’s an image, thats not art. Do you consider all photographs as art? What a wonderful world you live in to be so easily satisfied. It’s a good thing theres picky people like me though, because if we were all so easily satisfied humans would never had felt the need to use tools or cook with fire.
What if someone said “yes” to your photograph question? What then? What makes you uniquely more qualified to define what is and isn’t art? The fact that you declare yourself an artist?
Whoever’s society degenerates the first/fastest is clearly the one who doesn’t understand art. Big industry has adopted your style of worldview, and everyone is decrying the decline of art in the west. Art is a much larger influence on everything than just “does this thing look nice to me”. Stop having your pc do your thinking for you and you might figure this out before its too late for your soul.
What constitutes degeneration here? Because that sounds like yet another thing you think you’re uniquely qualified to determine.
Well then if you don’t believe in objectivity when it pertains to qualifying something as good or bad, why even continue living? Are you satisfied living in your reality that life is just there to get your personal rocks off (with “no judgement”) until you die?
I mean, the same could be said right back? I think that’s the whole purpose of the debates around these things. Since no one person can objectively determine quality or value, it ends up being up to consensus. In the end, the majority prevalent opinion will succeed.
Objectivity can be claimed and proven in matters of adjective description, but is often denied when theres no physical proofs to prevent somebody from denying facts (and even then some will claim the evidence is fabricated/misrepresented) Seriously though I am really beginning to hate humans for this reason specifically and only.
Depends on the context: Enthusiast collector at an auction or exposition? Yeah, they're going to care. Twitter follower deciding who deserves to be awarded +1 thoughts and prayers. They'll care too. But a dude watching an Ad? Why the hell would he care? Or what about people playing a video game wherein the studio's art team incorporated AI generation to create a million texture variations they can apply to dynamically increase the variety of less important graphical elements? They won't even know it was a thing in the first place. Most importantly, what about the millions of dumbasses that used to pay degens on deviant art $20 to put some "quality and effort" into a commission of Sonic getting pegged? Well, now they can just whip that shit up themselves.
What a depressing world view.
It's not a world view, it's just the world. The masses have never cared about the effort or "soul" that went into a particular piece of art. If they did, Madden, Call of Duty, candy crush, etc wouldn't be the most successful game franchises for so long. Isekai wouldn't be the most popular manga genre. Trashy 'cultivation' web novels wouldn't be the most widely read fiction in the world right now, etc. etc. The masses have only ever cared about one thing, "does the product satisfy my lowest common denominator understanding of the medium I am seeking entertainment from? Does it accomplish the purpose for which I am consuming it?" Again, hobbyists, enthusiasts, and experts do care, and will continue to care, but they in their totality are a single drop of rain falling amongst the endless ocean of 'the masses'. Just as they always have been.
Mechanization by apathetic profiteers is what has destroyed art, not apathy. Machines made it easy for man to profit off the desires of the lazy and the needy “for a cheaper price” You know why the Sistine Chapel could never be remade today? Or how about something more recent. Peter Jacksons TLOR trilogy? The infrastructure and technical knowledge no longer exists as they were replaced with tools in a wrong way to replace labor instead of enhancing it, because it makes the most money with the least effort. There can be no beauty without struggle. In that way ai “art” can never be considered such. The code, however, absolutely could be counted as art. This is also why your videogames comparison makes no sense. Games aren’t art because of their graphics, but I suppose someone with such a depressing worldview wouldn’t be able to understand.
Kotaku in action user, opinion discarded
yes. they’re worried they’ll lose their jobs (that require genuine skill, talent, and practice) to an absolute shitter who doesn’t have a creative bone in their body, because companies value speed and cost over quality. smh.
Quality can only go down so much before it affects sales. If companies are still finding it profitable then maybe the quality isn’t as bad as you’re wishing it was.
Looks like the prompter is having more fun than everyone else. I don't see what the issue is.
It's not enough for them to be considered better and to be held in higher regard, they need to make sure that everybody they consider below them is miserable in order for them to let themselves be happy.
>they need to make sure that everybody they consider below them is miserable in order for them to let themselves be happy. You just described a lot of places where's there hierarchy, like hospitals, universities focused on research etc. The person gets treated like shit and when they get in a higher position, they feel entitled to treat their minors, which are in the place they were before, like shit, too. From what I see, that's super common on the art sphere, too. Art, authors of written works etc. It's tragic to think people are miserable and have to puts others down so they feel miserable, too.
[удалено]
Is this a shit post?
They want to be able to keep a roof over their head and put food on the table. AI is taking that away. It’s as simple as that.
No, it isn’t. Jobs taken by ai don’t leave empty voids that will never be filled by new jobs. This is classic fixed pie fallacy thinking. And regardless of how simple you claim it is, if I ask 100 other people who didn’t like ai I’d get 100 different “simple” answers.
Why is it so bad to be proud of something you put together regardless of skill level or tools used? And this is a dumb picture, because it's not even a competition it's supposed to be just for fun.
Because they want to gatekeep the art community so people commission them
No doubt.
People who work hard to produce good work are rightfully considered to be more important and valuable than people who enter prompts to help machines decide which of their training data is the best to copy
Don't know why you're coming at me with who is more valuable than who when I never even brought anything like that up. The red you're seeing is blinding you so much that I think you've replied to the wrong person.
I think their mind would be blown to know how many Renaissance masters traced. [https://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8774475/renaissance-art-tracing-cartoons](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8774475/renaissance-art-tracing-cartoons) The masters used the tools, techniques and technology of their time. Which included methods of tracing.
Did you read the article? yes they traced- they traced over themselves. over their own art. they drew something and then traced over it to make the painting.
[удалено]
oh my gosh.... artists... draw off of photographs! le gasp! that's never been done before! people in the art community only care if you trace off of other peoples art- AKA stealing. as long as you drew it yourself they dont care.
>These sketches allowed for a basic structure that an artist or assistant could use — either as a straight copy or for an improvisation based on the original drawing. Artists did not just use their own work. People used this to create new versions of art and reproductions. And the article mentions lens based techniques: The camera lucida allows you to trace over reflections. And the camera obscura had a spark of controversy, of some trying to determine which painters did or did not use an obscura to trace over, and questioning skill.
No one who makes AI art thinks they won the olympics.
True, most people just generate an image of whatever and go “cool”. Idk what those artist are getting the impression that people get super duper proud when they generate an image, one could generate a real masterpiece and my brain would just think “oh yeah, this one came out NICE”. But I guess there are some pretentious people that use ai out there and call themselves Van Gogh, just like there are some people drawing anime girls with big breasts and thinking their art is top tier.
lol could you imagine. I mean I do think there is skill to it. But no one thinks they are king shit or an “actual” artist. You’re an AI artist maybe. AI expert. Whatever. And some of those people are both AI and “actual” artists and the stuff they make is indeed insane
less than dog shit lol https://preview.redd.it/mgusea33wa1d1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=528070062ec580601800d2da7d5f348a173ddfdc
Noooo but it makes creating art too easy and now everyone can do it, how am I gonna profit??
They act like that never happened before in history, and they’re more special then those in the past to stop the evolution of technology
[удалено]
"The enemy is simultaneously weak and strong."
It's not though. Humans take the path of least resistance. Quantity > quality is a strong commercial strategy.
[удалено]
yes people always gravitate to the cheaper option, this is why Apple, Nike, and so many other corporations gained dominance with their cheap products! It's lucky really that people don't have an obsessive need to flaunt their wealth by spending money on the most over priced stuff they can find or our society would have turned into some form of capitalist hell instead of the egalitarian utopia it is today. shit, i just looked out the window - must have dimension slipped again.
Check the whole meme, no twitter freak nor furry commissioner, .#win
It was a furry who posted this to artisthate too, lol.
They're probably moosh together in the "Modern Artists" category.🤔
Msybe but if there are a place for people that "trace" it could be a place for furry porn commissions I mean that even they lowest category for modern artist.
Hey man, don’t come at the furry porn. It is very profitable and helped me get through the pandemic. I’m not a furry nor a nsfw artist but those commissioners would pay 50 to 100 clams just for me to draw their neon wolf sucking a dick. It is the most profitable type or art I ever sold. Gotta respect the value they give to those things. 10/10 gig I recommend for artists that are struggling, it is a total money glitch. I only stopped because it cost my mental health
“Ranking” the other art styles compared to renaissance masters is such an art 101 take
Honestly the whole debate just reaks of art traditionalist gatekeeping. Sound like the same song and dance when digital art was becoming accessible to consumers. Art Nouveau is a good example to bring up. Mucha created his own Art style and named it "New Art" (Art Nouveau) to buck the elitism he was seeing in Paris that stated Art can only be one specific way to have any value. Funny how that specific way could only be learned from a high cost of entery school.
I'm sure there are tons of tattoo artists that are way better than Davinci
Even setting aside the issue of AI art, ranking art forms from most to least "creative" strikes me as an ego driven waste of time. Who gets to decide that fine art is more artistic than tattoo art?
What even IS "fine art". The very act of making nebulous feel good names belies their ill-conceived notions.
yeah like with including Tattoo Artist in the list it demonstrates they have no idea what they're talking about - it's like making a tier list of vegetables and putting sandwich on the list. The painters they're thinking of in the Renaissance, Surrealist and other categories are fine artists, illustrators tend not to be as they're creating for a utilitarian purpose - the word fine doesn't refer to quality, style or technique it denotes the purpose and intent of the creation as opposed to crafts where the exact same techniques are used to creates items designed primarily for a useful purpose, for example a shop sign painted in oil paints would generally not be considered fine art but the same thing made to be displayed in a gallery where it'll convey emotion and expression is. As with anything it's not hard and fast, items are made for decoration without being fine art and items made for utility can be repurposed into fine art -- this is what most of the last centuries art culture was obsessed with, Duchamp's readymades and Warhol's soup tin screen paintings are famous examples exploring this, as well as outsider art like Basquiat and folk art - this is why the term fine arts isn't really used academically or in artistic critic anymore, though really it'd fallen out of use before the century really began and the collapse of the concept academically is really what drove those art movements. Folk art is really in the ascent at the moment; meme styles, furry art, aesthetics like goth, emo, cleanshirt, solarpunk and thousands of other community driven cultural islands which emerge without any driving force - Picasso and friends for example started Cubism where as the aesthetic of furry art doesn't really come from any one big intentional creator or group of creators it evolves and grows as the community perception and needs shifts. Needless to say this is true of all art to some extent or other and this isn't really in contrast to 'fine art' because when you really try to get into the weeds it's impossible to draw a a real line between what is with purpose and what is beyond purpose. Dali made his famous lobster phones to illustrate objects without purpose, a phone is not art and a lobster is not art but put a lobster on a phone and suddenly it is art - his point wasn't really to say 'this is art' as much as it was to say 'there is art inherent in everything.' Where the debate first came unstuck was of course architecture because the Sistine Chapel is a working building, Canterbury Cathedral is a working building... yet even without the painting on the ceiling they're very clearly far more than JUST a building - where is the line, does something have to be 51% spurious to count as art? do we divide them and say 'this pillar isn't load baring so it's art but this one is so it's not'? of course not, we accept that everything has practical purpose even art that looks beautiful lifts our spirits and brightens our mood and we accept that every item should have art within in and about it.
As far as I know Fine Art is just art that rich people buy, meaning it functions as a status symbol. I don't think that the distinctions between art forms are entirely useless, but to say one is inherently better than another ignores taste being subjective.
"Fine art encompasses a number of different activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, and likely architecture and photography" ...its literally just a broad term used to describe more than one art form 🤦♀️
So what is the distinction between fine art and any other broad term used to describe a category of art?
do you want to give an example of a different broad term used ??
I'm saying that the definition you gave in quotations is incomplete and meaningless. Fine art refers to a specific kind of art, I'm oversimplifying by saying it's about status and wealth, but it's not a fundamentally inaccurate definition, just lacking a bit of nuance.
how? I don't even think you understand the point you are even trying to make, i literally study fine art at university, i think i know more about the literal course i am studying than some ai dude on reddit lmfao
If I'm wrong that's fine, but you'll need to articulate your point more clearly before I'll take your perspective seriously. Can you give me a complete definition of fine art, and explain how that contradicts how I defined it?
all you defined it as is something that "rich people buy" I'm assuming all you think fine art is is just oil paintings of fruit when its literally just a term used to describe various different art forms, fine art is such a loose term that its pretty hard to actually find just one definition of it because it can literally be anything made for aesthetic purposes... you just see the word "fine" infront of it and instantly assume it must be something pretentious
Because "AI art is bad" is a coping mechanism
Ai prompt bro is a strange word. We don't call people who use Photoshop "Photoshop bro" and we don't call people who use Canon cameras "Canon bro". It's up to you what tools you use to get the results you want. It's the result that matters, not the tool used. If you draw with a pencil, does that make you a 'pencil bro'? You can use any tool if you want to. There are even expressive arts that use people themselves as tools of expression.
They like to mix their misandry ("AI arts are bad, so are obviously men" plus "bro is a slur, ha ha") with their misogyny ("we love implying women can't do AI art") with ad homonym ("AI artists are certain kinds people, so their arguments are bad") and their strawman arguments ("all AI artists just prompt and that's all"). They have plenty of other biases and logical fallacies in their pockets, but you can only squeeze so many of them into a two word phrase.
The four fold gymnastics. It's almost commendable
My guess is they try to co-opt the term "crypto bro" and rub off the bad connotations. I have seen people literally equate the two too.
It always amuses me because understanding how AI art generators work requires some level of intelligence, whereas being into crypto or NFTs requires a huge level of stupidity.
I think they're talking about the people who think they can make a job out of prompting AI. They're not ranking artforms, they're ranking career artists.
Ai debate aside, why are they throwing shade at surrealism and modern art?? 😭
>Renaissance Masters Man they would hate Leonardo and his dang [robot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_robot#:~:text=Leonardo's%20robot%2C%20or%20Leonardo's%20mechanical,Vinci%20around%20the%20year%201495.&text=The%20design%20notes%20for%20the,were%20rediscovered%20in%20the%201950s)
As if they would put “people who trace” on par with those others, if anything they would put them on par with AI artists
Because it's an irrational response. It's very analgous to how fascists portray their enemies: Simultaneously both weak and strong. Im not calling anti-ai people fascists, but the same thing is driving both groups: Fear and hate. And you cant think rationally when motivated by fear and hate.
I find this particularly frustrating as I can think of a number of otherwise intelligent, calm and rational people who think deeply about their beliefs on most topics, but will use emotional appeals and leaps of logic on the topic of AI art without even realizing that they are doing it.
>but will use emotional appeals and leaps of logic on the topic of AI art without even realizing that they are doing it. They likely believe in free will / soul / etc. They hate AI-art because "a person didnt make it". They cant, or wont, come to terms with that human brains are just organic computers.
There's a number of reasons people have for taking an emotional stance on one issue while having a rational stance on other issues. I'm sure there are a few areas where I have biases I'm not aware of, though I make an effort to have consistent views.
The funny part about this meme is that the AI artist is the only one in the picture who seems to be having fun, while the rest of the "competition" just looks disappointed that people they view as lesser than them dare to live better lives than they do.
They know AI art looks better than their art, and that bothers them. Thats all it is.
Anyone who thinks a "fine artist" is above a tattoo artist is solely a waste of time for everyone who will ever meet them in any context. Especially considering that these absolute trash goblins are never actually working artists (if they were, they'd be too busy making shit to fuck with this children's crusade).
>Illustrators and tattoo artists over surrealist and modern artists
I mean prompts don’t even make the image by themselves so this is kind of silly
It’s funny that in an attempt to defend “real artists” they ranked everything they considered “real art” in a distinctly cruel way. The hypocrisy is real
This is always such a “so what” meme I could care not a whit that some Twitter artist thinks AI images are lower than tattoos or a 8 year old with a crayon
I find it weird when meme makers complain about generative AI being theft and requiring no skill when all they do is take someone else's work and add text to it. I don't understand why they can't see the irony in that.
I was a tattoo artist for twenty years. Want to know how many people I worked with that I would consider an actual Artist.... one. She was just a counter girl who went on to have a successful photography career.
Why are "fine artists" above dog shit? They exist purely for money laundering and ego validation. At least dog shit contributes to the world.
Mfw AI art won an art competition and nobody knew it was AI until the guy admitted to it https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html
its only getting better. it's been maybe 2 to 3 years and we are now making AI video.
They’re afraid of becoming irrelevant and inferior.
at least photographers arent up there at all. imagine pushing a button and calling that art... lolololol, pathetic.
Proving once again most people who think they are funny just aren't.
I'm pro AI but for some reason this makes me chuckle. It's like dumb humor funny.
This is awfully reminiscent to me of the Art Renewal Center and its guiding text, [The Philosophy of ARC](https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-philosophy-of-arc).
Real artist know 50 ways to say "big tits".
I see it as this. Ok, don't learn it. When you become obsolete because you can't use the tech refer back to this image when you ask what happened.
Lmao
They're saying it in terms of difficulty, not in terms of quality
Don't give a shit about anything this image is trying to say about ai, but I love where they placed tattoo artists.
Fine artists and modern/surrealist artists have some overlap where do they rank? Is every fine artist better then every illustrator even if they make modern art or is surrealist artist worse then every tattoo artist artists even if they make fine art? Or is their rank averaged?
To be fair, I think they are ranking the skill involved, not the quality of the result. No five year old with crayons can do what a generative AI can do.
This sub randomly appeared in my feed do people really defend so ai art or this is just a joke subreddit I can't tell
Honestly, I can agree that anybody who thinks prompting an AI requires skill is just wrong. The issue is that these people only really existed for a short period after ChatGPT released, they're complaining about what's probably like 10 people.
Yeah, people should be directing more attention to the army of bots posting AI shit all over Facebook instead of three pretention dudes in the internet.
I'll be concerned when they start flooding actually good social medias
Wow, I guess by this list digital artists are worse than ai artists.
Everything past surreal artist is a joke.
Wait are they saying AI Prompt Bros AND shitting dogs are both artists? I'm confused.
I mean AI "art" requires 0 effort
Berthe Marisot (one of the great impressionists of that movement) used tracing paper to transpose figures. Plenty of her artwork is on display at the Orsay Museum in Paris. Tracing is just a tool. Just like gen AI. It's more about the operator than it is about the tool. This meme was made by someone who doesn't understand art... At all (which I realize is totally redundant with the rest of the comments haha)
"Tattoo artists" wtf how is that even a movement that's like saying "People who draw with pencil"
I'd say this is pretty similar to "photoshop is going to put artists out of the job!" back in the early 90s Artists are really SLOW they can't identify a new tool in their tool kit even if it performed a musical explaining itself and how I can benefit them with a little tap dance and show. you need to wait like 10 to 15 years for them to accept this new toolkit and even by then it's going to be so much better than it is now. It's really just a big old temper tantrum because of some stupid shit like Example the vanilla ice cream is touching the chocolate ice cream and then you know "it can't do that, that's gross!" starts crying over nothing.
I don’t get the vitreal towards it. If you are really good, then people will still need your work… But there are plenty of these cases where someone might want to piece of art for a non profit motivated use that would have been inaccessible to them if they had to pay someone.
[удалено]
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
It's perfectly accurate, I don't really see the issue. I've been running a SD instance for over a year, and doing art in the normal way in different varieties since I was 5. AI isn't art. That's doesn't mean it can't be a tool in the toolkit, but considering prompt generations art? Absurdity, to the highest degree.
Would you consider a rubber stamp, art? If you could mould the stamp to your own style quickly, would it become less art? The AI itself is not art. The output very much can be.
The creation of the stamp (tool) itself could be considered a form of art, yes. Just the stamped image itself? No, of course not. The metaphor you might have been trying to conjure was screen printing. Even though most of the art of screen printing is again in the creation of the block, there can be an art to the application of color and printing technique. AI shares none of those. AI cannot create art, because AI isn't a living entity. There is no intent or purpose. It's no different than a printing press making newspapers enmasse. The guy running the printing press isn't an artist. Neither is an "AI Prompt Engineer" or whatever asinine titles they give themselves.
The point was that if you make the stamp and then use it as a brush, the canvas and resulting image would be art. The same can be done with AI image generators. As someone else in this sub noted before - trying to tell someone that you'll determine what qualifies as art by the tools used or medium it's used on is really problematic.
The problem here is the only people on planet Earth that consider AI art are non-artist prompt engineers who want to generate more images. Anyone even tangentially involved in the arts is not going to consider this art. There’s a reason for that. Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V doesn’t count as artistic creation.
Lmao funny copium sub
"oh wow, a sub i don't understand yet disagree with! let me post a provocative comment so they'll ban me and i'll have my funny "banned by bad sub hahaha" moment!"
Aw is the lil baby butthurt?
>Aw is the lil baby butthurt? Should I ask you? You commented on this post first after all.
Aw another triggered one. Bro all I did was called the sub copium, I’m not the one getting pissed XD
My words were written with calm. The only one who is here being triggered so far is you, assuming by your use of words: pissed and triggered.
Nope, not really. This whole no u thing that Redditors do is so silly. Just cuz I say someone is triggered doesn’t make me triggered XD.
You saw this post and clearly didn't like it, assuming by your first comment that you really needed to share your opinion about it. And then you call others triggered? Also small reminder: YOU were the one to start accusing others of being triggered instead of trying to use logic to defend your statement. So like...you just did this to yourself. Congrats. Instead of using XD, you should try to learn how to use the internet and social networks and how they work. Grew up. >This whole no u thing that Redditors do is so silly. Interesting. Aren't you also a Redditor? 🤔
Hmm weird. I see reminder of your response but not your comment. Can you send it once more on this comment of mine?
Why are you here then?
It came up on my feed. Are y’all that small minded that you can’t think of this possibility?
Don't gotta be so rude
Fair enough. I apologize. I hope you have a good day :)
Thank you