• Gigasser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I often hear AI enthusiasts say that AI democratized art. As if art weren’t already democratized. Most anyone can pick up a pen, draw, write, type, move a mouse, etc. What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill. Which is why when you find out a piece of art was made by inputting some short prompt into a generator, you become disappointed. Because it would be cool, if the person actually had the skill to draw that. Pushing a few buttons to get that, not so much.

    Edit:spelling and spacing

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      yeah that’s like saying chatgpt democratized writing. no, you could always write. what’s changed is now you can pretend you write, without writing.

    • bcgm3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill.

      I was a professional artist for many years, and often noted a strong preference for photo-realistic art among non-artists, often to the exclusion of any other style or aesthetic. The people around me who tried to draw or paint or sculpt, even just one time, often had an appreciation for a more diverse array of approaches and media.

      To me, most AI ‘art’ feels like the product of ‘artists’ who don’t even really like art.

    • alternategait@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I have always felt that I’m not good at art (the practice I did got me not very far), and I’ve recently had reason to make little collages. One thing that I’ve done is uploaded pictures to Canva and traced them so I had something resembling recognizable images (my dog, me in a kayak). I don’t think tracing is making an art, AI is definitely not making an art.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        What makes you want to do art? I’m just curious, because I am also someone who has bounced off of attempting to learn to do art a bunch of times, and found tracing unfulfilling (I am abstaining from the question of whether tracing is art, but I do know it didn’t scratch the itch for me).

        For my part, I ended up finding that crafts like embroidery or clothing making was the best way to channel my creative inclinations, but that’s mostly because I have the heart of a ruthless pragmatist and I like making useful things. What was it that caused you to attempt to learn?

        • alternategait@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          I like and admire visual arts. I wanted to try to be able to do the thing. I have a strong imagination and extremely good visualization skills, so I wanted to be able to take things from my minds eye to reality.

          I have found much of my art/creative outlet in dancing and crafting.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      And people forget how many forms of art there are. If you can speak any language which if youre reading this you can then you can create art. Putting your feelings into words is art. The point of art is not to be good at it or to earn money with it. Its to express your feelings. Of course enabling people who express their feelings in a way that others like to earn money with it is a good thing but even that can be very restrictive. Look at all the twitter porn artists who really just want to create something else but need some sort of revenue stream.

  • Hoimo@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I think this is completely missing the point when it’s talking about “the minutiae of art”. It’s making two claims at the same time: art is better when you suffer for it and the art is good whether or not you suffered. But none of that is relevant.

    When Wyeth made Christina’s World, I don’t know if he suffered or not when painting that grass. What I do know is that he was a human with limited time and the fact that he spent so much of his time detailing every blade of grass means that he’s saying something. That The Oatmeal doesn’t draw backgrounds might be because he’s lazy, but he also doesn’t need them. These are choices we make to put effort in one part and ignore some other part.

    AI doesn’t make choices. It doesn’t need to. A detailed background is exactly the same amount of work as a plain one. And so a generated picture has this evenly distributed level of detail, no focus at all. You don’t really know where to look, what’s important, what the picture is trying to say. Because it’s not saying anything. It isn’t a rat with a big butt, it’s just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.

      • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Visitor to your grave: “…I need more context.”
        Your ghost: “It’s about AI art.”
        Visitor: “…I still don’t get it.”
        Ghost: “That’s because you’re a robot. Everybody’s just robots now. Us ghosts are all that’s left of humanity. All that you know is based on what we suffered to learn and create.”
        Robot visitor: “…but why a rat with a big butt?”
        Ghost: “Draw one, and reflect on the cloud of noise that you produce instead.”
        Robot: *draws a rat with a big butt
        Ghost: “…AI wasn’t as good back then. Fuck you.” *whisps away

  • angrox@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    What a beautiful read. I feel the same about AI art and I remember a longer talk I had with my tattoo artist: ‘I need the money so I will do AI based tattoos my clients bring to me. But they have no soul, no story, no individuality. They are not a part of you.’

    I feel the same.

    Also I like Oatmeal’s reference to Wabi Sabi: The perfection of imperfection in every piece of art.

    • sthetic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      At least by redrawing it, the tattoo artist is injecting (pun intended) some of the human skill and decision-making into it?

      But, ugh! Who would get an AI tattoo?

      And what’s the point? Let’s say I have an idea of a tattoo I want (Jack Sparrow, dressed in a McDonald’s uniform, fighting off a rabid poodle, in the style of Baroque painting), but I cannot draw. So I use AI to render it, how clever!

      But wait - a tattoo artist will be physically drawing it anyway. They know how to develop concepts into sketches, don’t they?

      Just get them to do it! Skip the pointless AI step!

  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 days ago

    As a passable quality 3D artist who does it for a living I’ve found AI art (which can do 3D now to some degree) has kind of narrowed the scope for me. If you want generic Unreal style pseudo-realism or disney toon then AI can do that for you* I’ve had to focus much more on creating a unique style and also optimizing my work in ways that AI just doesn’t have the ability to do because they require longer chains of actual reasoning.

    For AI in general I think this pattern holds, it can quickly create something generic and increasingly do it without extranious fingers but no matter how much you tweak a prompt its damn near impossible to get a specific idea into image form. Its like a hero shooter with skins VS actually creating your own character.

    *Right now AI models use more tris to re-create the default blender cube than my entire lifetime portfolio but I’m assuming that can be resolved since we already have partially automated re-topology tools.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    I was kinda against their argument at first, then I was with them and continued reading. But then they went into all sorts of detail, weighing pros and cons etc., and after reading more than half I evtl. gave up.

    It seems all “why AI is bad” articles seem to go this way.

    It seems all “why AI is bad” articles unwillingly even support the hype.

    Fuck AI “art”, it’s not art you morons, it’s automation, which takes away real people’s jobs. The current implementations made by greedy companies also very obviously steal. 'nuff said.

    • Johanno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      I know that art is an art of it’s own and a way to express human creativity.

      However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs.

      The job argument is usually a stupid one.

      The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        The job argument is usually a stupid one.

        The what? It’s the only one that objectively makes sense.

        • Johanno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Ok imagine this:

          You are an construction worker. The job is hard but the pay is okay.

          Now robots replace your job slowly. They are cheaper and more accurate.

          You can now:

          1. Complain about the robots stealing your job

          2. Be happy that you don’t have to do the hard work anymore.

          Many people will go for 1. But the actual issue is that the social security net isn’t existent or so weak that no job means no food.

          That is not the fault of technology though.

          Remember that when you vote and when politicians want to cut costs by reducing payments for the unemployed.

          • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            Option 2 is soulless.

            Option 3. Destroy the capitalists owned robots and bring the robots under the control of the working class.

            • FishFace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Option 3 still ends up with robots and no-one doing the jobs that the robots replaced.

            • Johanno@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Option 3 would be a weird way of communism. Which still enforces my point. The reason why you fear for job safety is not the fault of technology.

              • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                Option 3 is also what the historical Luddites wanted. They liked technology when it benefitted them, not when it was used to exploit them.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I liked it, personally. I’ve read plenty of AI bad articles, and I too am burnt out on them. However, what I really appreciated about this was that it felt less like a tirade against AI art and more like a love letter to art and the humans that create it. As I was approaching the ending of the comic, for example, when the argument had been made, and the artist was just making their closing words, I was struck by the simple beauty of the art. It was less the shapes and the colours themselves that I found beautiful, but the sense that I could practically feel the artist straining against the pixels in his desperation to make something that he found beautiful — after all, what would be the point if he couldn’t live up to his own argument?

      I don’t know how far you got through, but I’d encourage you to consider taking another look at it. It’s not going to make any arguments you’ve not heard before, but if you’re anything like me, you might appreciate it from the angle of a passionate artist striving to make something meaningful in defiance of AI. I always find my spirits bolstered by work like this because whilst we’re not going to be able to draw our way out of this AI-slop hellscape, it does feel important to keep reminding ourselves of what we’re fighting for.

  • k0e3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I watched a short saying you might be an art director, at best, but not really an artist. Because you have the vision but you’re only telling someone (something) to materialize it. I was kind of happy with that.

  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    I forgot how loooong Oatmeal cartoons are. I don’t think I have made it to the end of one in years.

  • From_D4rkness@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    It was an ok read for me, but mostly because I enjoyed the art rather than relating to the entirety of the sentiment.

    I’m an artist and I find AI art evocative and illustrating things in a way that I wish that I could illustrate, but feel that is only because it comes from real human artists. I agree that it is a void in terms of difficulty to process, but there is still skill involved in both using search engines and describing something to an llm. A minute amount of skill, but still a skill.

    I hate AI art because it is stealing from artists, not because it doesn’t feel right. It can have a million iterations and only needs to get it right once to count as feeling right to me. The relationship between the content and their artists to the ultimate product is removed, this to me is the wrongfulness of claiming new art from it. It is just stealing in a more wind-about manor. This isn’t like generating fractal art or something.

    After all these years of corporations fucking up the literal social fabric and and how we communicate over IP law, for them to turn around and steal everything and just get a pass is an extra slap in face. Stealing only gets allowed2 one way in our society, and AI is just another example of that.

    I’m honestly surprised to not see this take more from others and felt like i needed to mention it.

    edit: emphasized that by making AI art taking skill, I only mean just a minute amount.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    It was a good read until he started with the art is a skill and anyone can do it. He’s kind of in his bubble there making assumptions about people. People have various levels of aphantasia, it’s not binary. Those that are good at visual imagination do art, people without can’t draw a fucking apple from memory reasonable art is beyond many, even if they had the time to dedicate to it.

    Everything else he said was on point. well eventually on point, that was a long ride.

    Edit: Man, look at all these talented people telling me I could be talented too if I just tried. Some of you might find a shocking revelation in thevfact that not everyone has the ability to perform the skill you perform. Some people, like me, have put several thousand hours into trying to improve my ability to draw, and while it has improved slightly, I am still not capable of drying anything above rudimentary. Talented people find it easy to project their skill onto other people but that’s not how it works. It’s not just a feeling that you can’t do it, it’s trying for years and not being able to do anything appreciable with it. My seven-year-old had more skill out of the gate than I had after scoring around with it for 30 years. So keep on telling me that I could just do it if I’d just invest the time and make yourself feel better that you invest at the time. That’s truly helpful to me.

    • Twiglet@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      I know a few seriously good artists that have aphantasia, being able to see things in your head is not necessary for making art.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Uh, lots of really great painters have aphantasia. It’s very prominent in the population and 100% not a medical disability. Art is a skill. There’s people without arms that paint. Deaf people who make music. There’s blind people drawing. There’s this cool japanese girl without an arm that plays the violin. There’s all sorts of people who make art, because humans can’t not make art.

      Are you going to win prices and sell work for millions of dollars, or feature at the MOMA, or play at the Superbowl half time show? Or achieve any of the inane arbitrary goalpost that people like to set for calling stuff real art. Most assuredly you won’t. Because less than 0.1% of all the people in the planet will achieve any of that. But every single child has and will be born an artist. Every child draws, sings, dances and plays spontaneously. All that is art.

      If you think only people born artists can make art, congratulations, you were born an artists, every human is, go do your art. If you think only specific people with extraordinary characteristics get to make art. I’m sorry you were hurt so bad to develop such bleak worldview and poor self image.

      If you do art, you’ll get good at art. If you don’t do art and instead make the slop machine manufacture expensive Styrofoam for you to chew on, then you’ll never get good at art. Regardless of your biological makeup. Being shit at doing something is the first and mandatory step for becoming good at doing something. Do it poorly until you can do it decently, then do it some more. Art is the experience of doing art. Even bad art is superior to mass consumption generated pixels.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      One of the things I find most awesome about art is seeing how so many people with different capacities find ways to make art.

      I likely have aphantasia, and whilst I call myself an artist, there are times where I see a particular shape or form within the world and think “damn, that’s beautiful”. I find myself taking a mental note of it, because whilst I don’t make art, I do enjoy making clothes. Aphantasia does make it hard to take those experiences and make cool stuff out of them, because without a mental image to work from, it may take me many attempts to correctly mark out the shape, where my only guiding sense is whether a particular attempt looks right though. It hasn’t stopped me from making things I’m truly proud of though, and a key thing that drives me to keep creating is that sense of fulfillment I get from taking something beautiful from the world and reusing it in a manner that allows me to share that slice of wonder with other people.

      I feel like I’ve only been half decent at that in recent years though; before that, I tended to focus on the more technical aspects of the craft, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t creative. I made a chainmail hauberk for myself once, because the base technique didn’t seem hard and it seemed like it would be fun (turns out the hard part is sticking with it long enough to make a whole item). Part of my quest was that I knew that wearing a sturdy belt over a chainmail hauberk is essential for the weight to be properly distributed, and I thought it might be cool to use an underbust corset in place of a belt. The creative part of that required little, if any, visual imagination — I mostly just enjoyed the juxtaposition of the traditionally masculine armour with the femininity of the corset.

      Beyond my own personal experiences, I’ve been awed by seeing so many examples of creative people working with what limitations they have, and honing their skills in whatever way they can. A close friend has such poor vision that they legally count as blind, but their paintings have such incredible colours — they have a beautiful diffuseness to them, which is apparently how they see the world. Seeing their art makes me feel closer to them. Unfortunately, they’ve recently suffered injury to their hands, so they can’t paint like they used to — so they have found new ways to paint that don’t rely on their hands so much. And there’s even more examples of this kind of persistence if we consider music to be art too.

      I don’t really give a fuck about art — not really. I care about the people who make it. I get that it’s frustrating to try something creative when your skill can’t match up to your figurative creative vision, but that’s also a problem that even experienced artists struggle with. If you made something that required little to no skill, but it was something that you had cared about, then that’s enough to make me care. That might sound silly given that you’re just a random person on the internet to me, but that’s precisely why I care; art makes me feel connected to people I’ve never even met.

      People who make the point that you’re making are often people who have within them the desire to make art, but they feel that it’s inaccessible to them. I know, because I was one of them (years before AI hit the zeitgeist). I realise that this may not apply to you, and you might be speaking in a more general sense, but if it does, then I would hope that you would someday feel able to give things a go. I think it’d be a shame if someone with a desire to create never got the chance to see where that could go. I’m not saying “maybe you could start a career as an artist”, because even highly proficient artists often struggle to make a career out of art that doesn’t kill their soul (most working artists I know use their paid work to support work that’s more artistically fulfilling to them). Just know that if you make things that you care about, there will always be people who will care about what you make.

      I say this as someone who has just written out a veritable essay full of care in reply to someone I’m probably never going to speak about. And hey, if you’ve gotten this far, then that is surely evidence towards my point about how making stuff you care about causes people to care about what you’ve made — either that, or you’ve jumped to the bottom in search of a TL;DR. Regardless, people like me care so much about art because human connection helps us to survive this pretty grim world, and art is our most reliable way of doing that. I’d love to have you here with us, if you’d like to be.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      But… It is a skill… And anyone can develop that skill. That’s how skills work. Nobody is born good at anything. It takes practice and education.

      And aphantasia does not stop one from being able to draw. There are a lot of artists, authors and other creatives that have aphantasia.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        While I appreciate the pep talk, I truly think your heart is in the right place. You just claim that my artwork is better without having any view of my artwork or knowledge of my skill.

        This is a very common thing that people do. You can’t conceive that someone can’t do something, so you blame them on their persistence, or their ID or their ego. I don’t know what your skills are, but it feels an awful lot like projection.

        It’s not like I’m useless at art, I can sculpt 3D objects from 3D objects. I can even, with limited success, use Zbrush.

        • Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          It was none of those things actually. It’s impossible to objectively judge our own artworks. We can analyze it, tell others what we think are the strong and weak points, but it’s extremely common for most people, especially when it comes to art, to judge it with a much higher degree of scrutiny that we do not reserve for others.

          It’s something I’ve had to work through myself, both with my art and myself as a person. And with that comes an inherent distrust of others opinions of themselves and their work, especially when it’s excessively dismissive or pessimistic.

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think AI art serves a different purpose from the art we talk about when we say “real art has heart” or “the process of creating the art affected me when I looked at it”.

    I think about how I feel when I’m scrolling through pictures in some app on my phone - some will be memes, some will be cats, but then some will be there for artistic purposes. As I’m scrolling through, such a picture will spark a brief glimmer of emotion - “huh, that looks neat” for example. I’m not looking close and examining the brush strokes, not thinking about what troubles the artist went through, and not thinking about the process of its creation at all.

    In that context I don’t think it makes much difference that it’s AI-generated. I’d kind of like to know, and I don’t want to see a dozen different outputs of the same prompt because whoever hit the button couldn’t even apply the modicum of effort require to pick their favourite, but AI-generated images are just as able to instigate that glimmer of “hey that looks cool” that any image can.

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        There’s zero need to throw insults around; I made the context absolutely clear in my comment and it has nothing to do with what I do when at an art gallery or something.

        Maybe some people are having an experience like they are looking at a Rembrandt when they scroll through /c/pics or something, but I’m not. Do you also shit on people for being unable to appreciate music because they put something on in the background? Is it only OK to go to concerts and immerse yourself in it? If you’re in a shop and a tune you like comes on, do you park your cart to really appreciate the depths of emotion it’s inspiring in you?

        Of course you don’t.

        • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          If you think that it was an insult then that shows what shame you have for your lack of skill, not an intention on my part.

            • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Well I’m not going to slap you on the back and praise you for saying the equivalent of “I just eat potato chips anyway I don’t care if the new chips are made of styrofoam they still got flavor blasted”.

              Also, I totally disagree with you. If I see a neat picture someone took from getting dropped onto earth from low orbit, I’m gonna think that’s way cooler than an ai image trying to emulate the same thing, even if I’m only looking at it for a second. I’m going to think a crudely drawn parody of a meme is funnier than an ai generated imitation of a meme, even if all I’m doing is making that little exhale with the nose instead of laughing.

              There’s a difference. You can tell. If you’re so Internet addled you genuinely are saying you don’t think there’s a difference, then you’ve got like, negative skills in art appreciation.

  • Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    Note: If you’re just going to come in and engage with me in an uncivil manner with your dick behavior, you’ll be auto blocked.

    One part that gets me is when they stated that they took art classes. Just, what is the point of taking art classes today? There have been artists whose stories I’ve read about and heard of, who spent years practicing their craft to get to where they are. The idea of taking an art class for an otherwise approachable hobby just always feels odd to me and always will. There are countless ways to improve one’s art and craft, not by AI though.

    And then right after, they mention about practicing. So again - what’s the point of taking art classes?

    I stopped reading about half way through, because my mind went “yeah yeah yeah…” since nothing this comic artist was saying anything new that I hadn’t heard of in regards to anti-AI.

    Here’s my stance on AI Art and it’s going to rub people the wrong way but I don’t care. I was told by an artist friend whom I’ve known and has done pictures for me before. They started raising their prices a smidge for their commissions and this artist was and is on their way of being recognized as a good artist in their community (they’re furry). We got into a conversation about how I brought up that prices could be hard to achieve because of the economy and blah blah.

    They told me in response that ‘Art is a luxury’. And you know what? It kinda is. It is a luxury and sets a baseline as to what one can and can’t afford. If someone is frustrated enough that they can’t afford some $300 commission piece (yes those people do exist), they’re going to go to AI because they know they can do it at home. Now it doesn’t excuse the fact that they could’ve just picked up art as a hobby and actually practice, there is that argument. However, not everyone is an artist and not everyone is going to practice it.

    And if someone isn’t going to practice art and isn’t able to afford high prices asked of the artists who have open commissions - what do you honestly expect them to do?

    As far as things regarding like studios function and how this all relates to them, that’s a whole can of worms of its own. How many times have we heard animation studios or other studios get shut down because the funding dried up? “Oh we planned 2 seasons in advance - oh wait - we can only do one season now” and then that’s a wrap of that series.

    I don’t know where I want to go with that and this has been lengthy anyways so I’ll just summarize it as this. I don’t have a big problem with AI Art because Art and Creativity in of itself, is a luxury. It’s an expensive luxury at that, that has its limits. That is why people have turned to AI in droves. I don’t agree with a lot of the reasons behind what people do with AI Art and proclaiming themselves as ‘artists’ when they’re not (I prefer to call them envisonists because you are still inputting and projecting the imaginations of your mind into an input that can visualize it for you).

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Art classes can introduce you to new techniques that you wouldn’t have otherwise pursued and elevate your art to greater heights. Depending on the school, it also helps with networking. Lotsa famous animators at places like CalArts, Sheridan, Gobelins, etc.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      what’s the point of taking art classes?

      The point is the same as taking classes for any other skill, from baseball to carpentry: you have to learn technique before you can engrain the skill through practice. Some people can pick it up on their own if they’re motivated enough, by studying other people’s art, watching artists working, reading books, etc., but it’s more difficult and time-consuming without an instructor’s feedback. Sometimes they even figure it out wrong, and develop a very difficult and time-consuming method of doing something when a much simpler one exists.

      So it’s optimal to both have the classes and do extensive practice outside of them. One is not a substitute for the other.

    • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I was going to read this but stopped halfway through because my mind went “yeah that yeah another person who never bothered trying to draw having a hot take that’s just sucking off a tech bro”

  • Ech@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people’s art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.

    All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it’s hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.

    • dustycups@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
      I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’ve been practicing at being a better writer, and one of the ways I’ve been doing that is by studying the writing that I personally really like. Often I can’t explain why I click so much with a particular style of writing, but by studying and attempting to learn how to copy the styles that I like, it feels like a step towards developing my own “voice” in writing.

      A common adage around art (and other skilled endeavours) is that you need to know how to follow the rules before you can break them, after all. Copying is a useful stepping stone to something more. It’s always going to be tough to learn when your ambition is greater than your skill level, but there’s a quote from Ira Glass that I’ve found quite helpful:

      “Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know it’s normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take a while. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

    • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art.

      I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have been before them. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai

        • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.

          • Ech@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            the how is really quite irrelevant

            That’s our point. The how is entirely relevant. It’s what makes art interesting and meaningful. Without the how and why, it’s just colors and noise.

            • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              it’s just colors and noise.

              But that’s exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye…might as well just get it auto-generated.

              • Ech@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 days ago

                That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.

                • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I would honestly argue that the way an artist makes art is also completely irrelevant. The art is only meaningful in the way it’s perceived, how the artist physically makes it is of very little importance. The tools and materials are just a means to an end, it’s the finished product that inspires feelings and thoughts, not the process of how it came to be.

            • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Not really. It’s the equivalent of ordering a “build it yourself” sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn’t actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.

              I’m not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I’m arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial “art” work.

              • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Your example is shit. It would be more appropriate for when you commission a piece of work from someone, where they are using their skills and choices and you’re telling them what you want and don’t want on the sandwich.

                AI doesn’t make choices when creating an image. It generates an image based off of other images and you hope that it gets something that follows some aesthetic principles that it’s lifting from other images. Just because you reroll the die doesn’t mean you’re choosing shit.

                That “menial” process when you’re making art is literally the best part. When you’re painting a sky for the background of something you don’t want that just filled in, that’s where you can experiment and maybe even add an element that you weren’t thinking of before when you started the piece. AI can’t do that for you.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                and having someone else make it.

                No, having a soulless machine make it.

                Then claiming that you made it yourself even though all you did was select a few things on a menu.

                • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Oh my fucking god people…I didn’t say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)

      • laxu@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’d argue that logos are a hugely expressive form. It’s just that 90% of them are basic ass shit tier stuff.

        AI has basically raised the level of “shit tier” pretty high. I sometimes go check out Hotone Audio’s Facebook page to see if there are new firmware updates for my device, but they mainly peddle pointless AI slop marketing images. I’m sure there are tons of companies like this.

        It’s the literal example of the marketing person being able to churn out pictures without an artist being involved, and thus the output is a pile of crap even more vapid than stock photos.

      • Ech@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        The impact on livelihoods is important, but it’s ultimately unrelated to defining what art is. My consideration of art is not one born of fear of losing money, but purely out of appreciation for the craft. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest all the criticisms against generated art is solely borne of self-preservation.

        In regards to corporate “art”, all the things you listed, even stock images, are certainly not the purest form of artistry, but they still have (or, at least had) intent suffusing their creation. I suppose the question then is - is there a noticeable difference between the two for corporations? Will a generated logo have the same impact as a purposefully crafted on does? In my experience, the generated products I’ve noticed feel distinctly hollow. While past corporate assets are typically hollow shells of real art, generated assets are even less. They’re a pure concentration of corporate greed and demand, without the “bothersome” human element. Maybe that won’t matter in their course of business, but I think it might. Time will tell.