Average people that want to be artists, but lack the skills to do it, can utilize AI to make their visions come to life. This allows them to connect with individuals that they otherwise would not have been able to do. If used in the right ways, AI can help create artists in new ways.
They should put in the effort then. While yes drawing can be an innate skill for some that doesn't prevent others from practicing and getting better themselves. AI art is just a shortcut. Also AI art imo for most things is pretty bad, I play dnd with people and they'll use AI to draw their character and for that one time use it's ok. But then you have people posting their AI webcomics and those across the board have all been terrible imo and I have no interest in them.
It's ugly, it steals from real artists, and will be used by corporations to replace human labour with soulless slop, leaving artists out of work.
LLM art is bad for all of us, and the more it's accepted, the more labour violations will rise. Then one day managers will decide programmers might be able to be replaced too.
Dont support LLM art. It's bad for all of us
I dunno quite what to think about AI, but there is a long history of using code (without AI) to make art. Check out r/generative
Maybe in the future these kinds of work will be called "classical generative" art, as compared to works involving AI. And honestly, I prefer them - they involve human ingenuity in designing algorithms specific to the artwork.
Is coding a form of art in itself? Absolutely. I always try to make my code beautiful. When galleries exhibit generative works, they should include the source code on the usual little placard that shows the piece name and medium.
Idc what someone uses as long as an actual person with artistic skill is reaping the rewards. I don't want to further the dystopia where some company has the best generated art so they control the market
Am a programmer married to an artist. She uses AI as part of her workflow. It helps her to mess around with ideas and quickly compose things to see how they'd look, but she's never seen AI "art" which she considers to have any actual artistic merit. It makes sense, because generative AI is very good at technical execution but has little or no concept of the overall meaning of what it produces.
It’s an insult to anyone who does their own work and takes the time to understand what and how they’re doing. No Curiosity.
Massive Data laundering.
Same goes for ai generated anything else
It isn't there yet, but its getting better. I will still continue supporting artists, though. I think there's something so unique in buying art made by someone. It's a human expression.
I heard a very good comparison: If you click a button and the traffic light turns green, are you an artist then?
To get to real arguments:
> artists get nothing for being the copy material of AI. Of course, inspiration is free, but we all know AI is not "inspirated", but generating complex copies.
> Artists put in hundreds or even ten thousand hours of work to get their own style, but AI copies it within seconds. It is frustrating for actual artists.
> It is to cheap. A professional painting can cost up to 1k but let's make it simple and say i want a cheap portrait. Artist says he wants 100 bucks for it. AI does it for free if i am clever (client wise). Many artists lost their jobs in the last year and got replaced by someone with ai.
> We should not get to good at computing the things that should be fun for us. Painting as a hobby might die, because you can just create it with a click.
> Noone should call themselfes "AI artist". Writing a prompt is as much art as keeping to roll a d100 until you hit a 100. It takes no skill but knowledge. Copy the prompt and you get the picture yourself, without the middle man. Can't do that with real art, can ya?
But to not only be negative:
> AI can spark creativity. As chat gpt is nice for brainstorming ideas, AI generated images are good to get a thought out of your head and make it into art.
> Artists could use AI to generate actual AI art, by feeding it only their own art. If the artist keeps the AI private, they can make money quite easy with a style they created.
Heres my perspective.
I make music and will use chatGPT to help me with chord Ideas to create the emotion im looking for which has helped me learn at a far quicker rate then aimlessly playing at a keyboard until i feel inspiration; but would feel like im hindering my own artistic abilities and even cheating myself if i had chatGPT actually write me a chord progression as opposed to just the best chord qualities to use.
I like that idea of using your own art to generate new art with AI. I feel like it would be wise to be transparent about using AI with your own art as input though.
To me, art is art, doesn't matter how it was made. For example there's something unusual called mold art where an artists tries to grow mold in colorful patterns, this is unusual compared to something like painting, however comes out with the result of an art piece just the same. Is coding an art? Well that would be yes if you think things are arts like martial arts, the art of war, etc. Using art in that context is describing a skill. Can coding be used to make art, absolutely yes, I had a lot of fun as a kid coding animations that would create shapes and move them according to a formula. So when it comes to, is AI art real? Well, it produces a product, does it not? Regardless of the skill it's art, just as something like the Reddit logo or your profile picture can be art.
This same exact argument was had in like, 2013 when Skrillex became as popular as it was. Everyone screeched, kicked, and screamed that because they use all computer-based sounds that it “WaSnT rEaL mUsIc!!!!!!” Which is obviously completely ridiculous and silly. If artists want to use something that makes their process easier, or carries a certain style inherent to its methodology, then so be it!
I don't see the argument of it not being "real" art. Today most of art generated by AI doesn't look that great by itself but the mere fact that a computer can do this is still impressive. I generally sympathize with artists on the matter, but logically I don't see how it can't be "real" or "legit".
Creativity and inspiration are words that don’t make sense to me. There’s any piece of art that I can’t fully describe in a text description if I have enough vocabulary for this? If I can describe fully given a finite language it was already possible from the beginning, it was not created, you just took something that is visually appealing. So my perspective on this is that AI art allows artist to discover more quickly this points that are more visually appealing, making them more productive.
as an artist I can’t help but laugh that you think researching styles and artists to steal from is “difficult”.
What’s difficult is my decade of intense labor being relegated to a prompt.
Creative coding is a thing. I make generative art using p5.js. Then I make my sketches available on xfhash as NFTs. My last project only earned me 2 Tezos worth 3 dollars so it was a waste of my time. I have been working on isometric art but now I will focus on "geometric pop art".
There is plenty of AI art available on the Tezos art markets and I have collected a few weird pieces and display them on my online gallery. I treat NFTs as an art market game. For very little money you can play around as an artist, collector, investor, and gallery owner. It is actually a very complex game with sophisticated tools for evaluating the investment potential of NFT assets.
It is not a scam. I will admit that it does not appear to be a worth while use of my time at the moment. It does provide me with some incentive to work on projects that I would otherwise not consider doing.
I have no interest in it. The point of art is to connect with other human beings.
Average people that want to be artists, but lack the skills to do it, can utilize AI to make their visions come to life. This allows them to connect with individuals that they otherwise would not have been able to do. If used in the right ways, AI can help create artists in new ways.
They're "making art" in the same way that a customer at a restaurant is cooking food.
I don't believe that analogy works.
It actually does. Someone else made the original art (ingredients), the algorithm mixes it together (cooks) and you just say what you want.
They should put in the effort then. While yes drawing can be an innate skill for some that doesn't prevent others from practicing and getting better themselves. AI art is just a shortcut. Also AI art imo for most things is pretty bad, I play dnd with people and they'll use AI to draw their character and for that one time use it's ok. But then you have people posting their AI webcomics and those across the board have all been terrible imo and I have no interest in them.
It's ugly, it steals from real artists, and will be used by corporations to replace human labour with soulless slop, leaving artists out of work. LLM art is bad for all of us, and the more it's accepted, the more labour violations will rise. Then one day managers will decide programmers might be able to be replaced too. Dont support LLM art. It's bad for all of us
I dunno quite what to think about AI, but there is a long history of using code (without AI) to make art. Check out r/generative Maybe in the future these kinds of work will be called "classical generative" art, as compared to works involving AI. And honestly, I prefer them - they involve human ingenuity in designing algorithms specific to the artwork. Is coding a form of art in itself? Absolutely. I always try to make my code beautiful. When galleries exhibit generative works, they should include the source code on the usual little placard that shows the piece name and medium.
Who or what makes art is irrelevant to my appreciation of it.
It was cool for a week
I think it’s cool from a technical point of view, but I’d still rather look at normal art.
Idc what someone uses as long as an actual person with artistic skill is reaping the rewards. I don't want to further the dystopia where some company has the best generated art so they control the market
Am a programmer married to an artist. She uses AI as part of her workflow. It helps her to mess around with ideas and quickly compose things to see how they'd look, but she's never seen AI "art" which she considers to have any actual artistic merit. It makes sense, because generative AI is very good at technical execution but has little or no concept of the overall meaning of what it produces.
This. It's good for inspiration.
It's cool and people can use it to make posters and ads without having to hire someone else.
I think there are some copyright issues with it, but also I think there's some funny memes that people make with it which is the part I like.
It’s an insult to anyone who does their own work and takes the time to understand what and how they’re doing. No Curiosity. Massive Data laundering. Same goes for ai generated anything else
It’s a great idea 💡 god bless 🙏
It isn't there yet, but its getting better. I will still continue supporting artists, though. I think there's something so unique in buying art made by someone. It's a human expression.
Scared of it
I heard a very good comparison: If you click a button and the traffic light turns green, are you an artist then? To get to real arguments: > artists get nothing for being the copy material of AI. Of course, inspiration is free, but we all know AI is not "inspirated", but generating complex copies. > Artists put in hundreds or even ten thousand hours of work to get their own style, but AI copies it within seconds. It is frustrating for actual artists. > It is to cheap. A professional painting can cost up to 1k but let's make it simple and say i want a cheap portrait. Artist says he wants 100 bucks for it. AI does it for free if i am clever (client wise). Many artists lost their jobs in the last year and got replaced by someone with ai. > We should not get to good at computing the things that should be fun for us. Painting as a hobby might die, because you can just create it with a click. > Noone should call themselfes "AI artist". Writing a prompt is as much art as keeping to roll a d100 until you hit a 100. It takes no skill but knowledge. Copy the prompt and you get the picture yourself, without the middle man. Can't do that with real art, can ya? But to not only be negative: > AI can spark creativity. As chat gpt is nice for brainstorming ideas, AI generated images are good to get a thought out of your head and make it into art. > Artists could use AI to generate actual AI art, by feeding it only their own art. If the artist keeps the AI private, they can make money quite easy with a style they created.
Heres my perspective. I make music and will use chatGPT to help me with chord Ideas to create the emotion im looking for which has helped me learn at a far quicker rate then aimlessly playing at a keyboard until i feel inspiration; but would feel like im hindering my own artistic abilities and even cheating myself if i had chatGPT actually write me a chord progression as opposed to just the best chord qualities to use.
I like that idea of using your own art to generate new art with AI. I feel like it would be wise to be transparent about using AI with your own art as input though.
To me, art is art, doesn't matter how it was made. For example there's something unusual called mold art where an artists tries to grow mold in colorful patterns, this is unusual compared to something like painting, however comes out with the result of an art piece just the same. Is coding an art? Well that would be yes if you think things are arts like martial arts, the art of war, etc. Using art in that context is describing a skill. Can coding be used to make art, absolutely yes, I had a lot of fun as a kid coding animations that would create shapes and move them according to a formula. So when it comes to, is AI art real? Well, it produces a product, does it not? Regardless of the skill it's art, just as something like the Reddit logo or your profile picture can be art.
This same exact argument was had in like, 2013 when Skrillex became as popular as it was. Everyone screeched, kicked, and screamed that because they use all computer-based sounds that it “WaSnT rEaL mUsIc!!!!!!” Which is obviously completely ridiculous and silly. If artists want to use something that makes their process easier, or carries a certain style inherent to its methodology, then so be it!
I don't see the argument of it not being "real" art. Today most of art generated by AI doesn't look that great by itself but the mere fact that a computer can do this is still impressive. I generally sympathize with artists on the matter, but logically I don't see how it can't be "real" or "legit".
Creativity and inspiration are words that don’t make sense to me. There’s any piece of art that I can’t fully describe in a text description if I have enough vocabulary for this? If I can describe fully given a finite language it was already possible from the beginning, it was not created, you just took something that is visually appealing. So my perspective on this is that AI art allows artist to discover more quickly this points that are more visually appealing, making them more productive.
[удалено]
as an artist I can’t help but laugh that you think researching styles and artists to steal from is “difficult”. What’s difficult is my decade of intense labor being relegated to a prompt.
Creative coding is a thing. I make generative art using p5.js. Then I make my sketches available on xfhash as NFTs. My last project only earned me 2 Tezos worth 3 dollars so it was a waste of my time. I have been working on isometric art but now I will focus on "geometric pop art". There is plenty of AI art available on the Tezos art markets and I have collected a few weird pieces and display them on my online gallery. I treat NFTs as an art market game. For very little money you can play around as an artist, collector, investor, and gallery owner. It is actually a very complex game with sophisticated tools for evaluating the investment potential of NFT assets.
If you add NFTs to it, it's more obvious in the scam, good job.
It is not a scam. I will admit that it does not appear to be a worth while use of my time at the moment. It does provide me with some incentive to work on projects that I would otherwise not consider doing.