What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 9 of 10)
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Say more. Talk out what it is you’re trying to convince me of. Just asking for specifics. Using mass market entertainment as your example is not helping and is a bad foundation for a persuasive argument. Edit: BTW I am not looking for a “gotcha” here, just a good discussion. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By macman37: CGI is a tool for humans to use for animating the feature. AI is more the equivalent of directing an animation studio in your analogy. See the difference? And it's computer, driven with a stylus and graphics pad rather than pencils or brushes. So, is animation, such as The Roadrunner cartoons, art? What about Fantasia?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCuL-K39eQSay more. Talk out what it is you’re trying to convince me of. Just asking for specifics. Using mass market entertainment as your example is not helping and is a bad foundation for a persuasive argument. Edit: BTW I am not looking for a “gotcha” here, just a good discussion. That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human.  Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: That's a great analogy. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AzSteven: Personally, I feel like AI Art is still art. Where it differs from what most people probably consider 'real' or 'normal' art is:
To me, that first item is really saying 'the painter didnt paint so its not really a painting', but really it just means the medium is different; descriptive rather than brushstrokes. The second item ignores that artists often (maybe always) are inspired by the work of others, and include elements of their style. AI Art may be a little more directly adoptive than an artist's inspiration but this is a difference of degrees I think. The one criticism I would lend more credence to is the 'sameness' of much AI art. The creator chooses or identifies a style, and then describes the desired content, but the end results within that particular chosen style often look very much like any other creation where that style was chosen; far more so than a human artist's work within a certain style in a more traditional medium or approach. Michelangelo is not the “artist” who created the Sistine Ceiling -it was the Catholic Church who described what they wanted? That's a great analogy. If we expand on that, can we say that Michelangelo was the "AI tool" that the Church used to materialize the ideas on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling? I am not discussing whether Michelangelo is an artist or not. That's out of question. I'm discussing the analogy. If the pope or any other priest or cardinal could paint like Michelangelo, would have they commissioned him? Also on the analogy, would the fact he was painting the Sistine Chapel's ceiling could had been a "prompt"? If he was painting a government building or noble's castle's ceiling wouldn't he had painted something else? He created many different stuff. So, just imagining the AI's potential. Give it a few more years and it might even create something just based on the situation, location, who the customer is, etc. Just to throw a monkey wrench (pun intended), remember all the discussions when a monkey stole a camera from a photographer and took many pictures, and everyone was debating who owned the photos' copyright? If my memory does not fail, didn't the courts decide that the photographer owned them? |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? |
|
these dumb arguments almost mirror the old photography debate. "just a push of a button" "just a prompt" "no soul" "I don't feel anything" "no effort" "not human" both under estimate the complexity and skill involved in obtaining good specific results. they also ignore that photography which was eventually accepted as an art never eliminated drawing, oil on canvas etc, either. |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". |
Purge the Commie, Abhor the Vegan
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
18856
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. You do realize that your definition strikes the Sistine Chapel from being considered fine art, right? It meets every definition you just gave. In fact, we know that Michelangelo tried to decline the commission and later wrote about how much he hated painting it. I've already grown a goiter from this torture, hunched up here like a cat in Lombardy (or anywhere else where the stagnant water's poison). My stomach's squashed under my chin, my beard's pointing at heaven, my brain's crushed in a casket, my breast twists like a harpy's. My brush, above me all the time, dribbles paint so my face makes a fine floor for droppings! My haunches are grinding into my guts, my poor ass strains to work as a counterweight, every gesture I make is blind and aimless. My skin hangs loose below me, my spine's all knotted from folding over itself. I'm bent taut as a Syrian bow. Because I'm stuck like this, my thoughts are crazy, perfidious tripe: anyone shoots badly through a crooked blowpipe. My painting is dead. Defend it for me, Giovanni, protect my honour. I am not in the right place - I am not a painter. —Michelangelo |
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By 3Trip: these dumb arguments almost mirror the old photography debate. "just a push of a button" "just a prompt" "no soul" "I don't feel anything" "no effort" "not human" both under estimate the complexity and skill involved in obtaining good specific results. they also ignore that photography which was eventually accepted as an art never eliminated drawing, oil on canvas etc, either. Not all photography is art. What separates art photography from non-art? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not all photography is art. What separates art photography from non-art? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By 3Trip: these dumb arguments almost mirror the old photography debate. "just a push of a button" "just a prompt" "no soul" "I don't feel anything" "no effort" "not human" both under estimate the complexity and skill involved in obtaining good specific results. they also ignore that photography which was eventually accepted as an art never eliminated drawing, oil on canvas etc, either. Not all photography is art. What separates art photography from non-art? It has nothing to do with tools or commercial value. It's entirely the quality of the expression of a man's mind. |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. If so, in your view, what makes an artist? When can a person be called an artist? About the illustrator and illustrator tools, what is a pencil, a pen, a brush, a chisel, a laser-engraving CNC machine, a chainsaw, the list goes... |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: If so, in your view, what makes an artist? When can a person be called an artist? About the illustrator and illustrator tools, what is a pencil, a pen, a brush, a chisel, a laser-engraving CNC machine, a chainsaw, the list goes... Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. If so, in your view, what makes an artist? When can a person be called an artist? About the illustrator and illustrator tools, what is a pencil, a pen, a brush, a chisel, a laser-engraving CNC machine, a chainsaw, the list goes... Step one, be Human. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By macman37: The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. I believe there's a misunderstanding. I never said that AI is art. AI is a tool to create art. As the brush you mentioned. The product a person creates using AI is art. The same way the one someone using a brush is art. Isn't this what we are discussing? The AI cannot do anything by itself, the same way a brush also cannot. Both are devoid of the creativity, imagination, let alone emotions, that go through an artist's mind when painting, writing, composing, etc. If you look at that thread I linked in a previous post, you will see that writing a prompt is a lot more than just telling an AI to "paint a duck". Similar as if you give a brush to three people they will give you three different paintings, an AI will also give three different results to three persons' prompts. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Step one, be Human. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. If so, in your view, what makes an artist? When can a person be called an artist? About the illustrator and illustrator tools, what is a pencil, a pen, a brush, a chisel, a laser-engraving CNC machine, a chainsaw, the list goes... Step one, be Human. It is a human who writes the prompts, the same way it is a human who makes the brush strokes. The same way as a brush, an AI does not do anything by itself. What's the next necessary requirement? |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: It is a human who writes the prompts, the same way it is a human who makes the brush strokes. The same way as a brush, an AI does not do anything by itself. What's the next necessary requirement? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Still not art. Just stuff that fools people into thinking it’s art. No one involved is actually an artist. It’s illustration and illustrator tools.. Exactly like using AI to write an essay. No problem if it’s for an ad campaign or a policy paper. It’s fraud if you are passing off as though you are an author or a writer. If so, in your view, what makes an artist? When can a person be called an artist? About the illustrator and illustrator tools, what is a pencil, a pen, a brush, a chisel, a laser-engraving CNC machine, a chainsaw, the list goes... Step one, be Human. It is a human who writes the prompts, the same way it is a human who makes the brush strokes. The same way as a brush, an AI does not do anything by itself. What's the next necessary requirement? Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: I believe there's a misunderstanding. I never said that AI is art. AI is a tool to create art. As the brush you mentioned. The product a person creates using AI is art. The same way the one someone using a brush is art. Isn't this what we are discussing? The AI cannot do anything by itself, the same way a brush also cannot. Both are devoid of the creativity, imagination, let alone emotions, that go through an artist's mind when painting, writing, composing, etc. If you look at that thread I linked in a previous post, you will see that writing a prompt is a lot more than just telling an AI to "paint a duck". Similar as if you give a brush to three people they will give you three different paintings, an AI will also give three different results to three persons' prompts. Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. I believe there's a misunderstanding. I never said that AI is art. AI is a tool to create art. As the brush you mentioned. The product a person creates using AI is art. The same way the one someone using a brush is art. Isn't this what we are discussing? The AI cannot do anything by itself, the same way a brush also cannot. Both are devoid of the creativity, imagination, let alone emotions, that go through an artist's mind when painting, writing, composing, etc. If you look at that thread I linked in a previous post, you will see that writing a prompt is a lot more than just telling an AI to "paint a duck". Similar as if you give a brush to three people they will give you three different paintings, an AI will also give three different results to three persons' prompts. When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. I believe there's a misunderstanding. I never said that AI is art. AI is a tool to create art. As the brush you mentioned. The product a person creates using AI is art. The same way the one someone using a brush is art. Isn't this what we are discussing? The AI cannot do anything by itself, the same way a brush also cannot. Both are devoid of the creativity, imagination, let alone emotions, that go through an artist's mind when painting, writing, composing, etc. If you look at that thread I linked in a previous post, you will see that writing a prompt is a lot more than just telling an AI to "paint a duck". Similar as if you give a brush to three people they will give you three different paintings, an AI will also give three different results to three persons' prompts. When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. …and AI is incapable of making art. Only Humans make art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Another twist… Legally speaking, text-prompted outputs automatically fall into the public domain. Legally, a prompt alone does not constitute authorship; a human must add substantial creative modification, editing, or composition to own any part of the final work. You don’t own it, because it isn’t your creation. It’s all derivative mimicry. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. What Is Fine Art? Definitions To begin with, let’s take a brief glance at several definitions of fine art, as this is the best way to understand this concept. “drawings, paintings, and sculptures that are admired for their beauty and have no practical use” – Cambridge Dictionary (2024) “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” – Dictionary.com (2021) “an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting, printmaking, and sculpture.” – Visual Arts Cork (n.d.) This brief overview provides us with clear information on what fine art is: any art created just for its beauty not for practical uses. This is why high art is often contrasted with commercial art or applied art – pieces created to serve a certain practical purpose, for instance, to convince the viewer to purchase a product. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. Please check my answer to Cincinnatus above. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: …and AI is incapable of making art. Only Humans make art. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: That's a good analogy. Imagine that the "animation studio" costs a fortune (just look at a typical movie's production costs) and how many cannot afford it, thus their ideas never see the light of day. Add on top the agendas (mostly political) that "cancel" and leave many out. AI opens the possibility to many to materialize their creations and expose them to millions. Just to give an idea of market possibility, I recently read that in China a whole industry revolving around AI is booming. Over 400,000 mini-dramas (usually consisting of short and few episodes) now has more than 60% done using AI. The local movie industry is pressuring the government to "do something". Pretty much like Hollyweird, they are controlled by the local moguls and political officials. Also like Hollyweird, the local actors undergo massive plastic surgeries, require voice over because they don't know or cannot speak properly, are affiliated or prostitutes to the local pimps, also rely on heavy makeups and CGI to improve their appearances, etc. Ah, some are handsomely paid, which even made the local government interfere putting a limit to it, compared to the other ones in the same productions. In the end of the day same as Hollyweird. Now, considering, like in Hollyweird, much what we see on the movies is artificial, what makes them much better than an AI production? Yes, a typical live action movie still looks better than a typical AI production, which still looks like a good quality animation. However, I believe that in a couple years it will be very difficult to tell the difference. By the way, all the concern about "marking what is AI production" shows that we are really almost there. Now put that a lot of the content coming out of Hollyweird has been a pile of trash, I am open to see what people can do with this new tool, which does not impose limits to their creation. I have been watching some short stories on YouTube that look very good. Of course, there's the trash also, but I believe that the good ones will thrive and we will soon hear more from them. Pretty much like in China, where the good ones are taking a bite out of the cookie-cutter average productions, let alone the trash. It makes one a storyteller, not an animator. If a director, writer, producer, create a storyboard and gives to an animator to design the final product, who is the artist creating it? The person who came up with the ideas or the one who converted those ideas in the animation? You’re conflating two things that are similar on the surface level, but are in fact different things here. You need to acknowledge that Commercial art is not the same as fine art before we can dive further in to this. AI is capable of commercial art. It is not capable of fine art. I understood we were discussing art in general. Please define fine art. What makes a creation (e.g. paint, sculpture, photography?, movie?) a fine art? Fine art solves the artist’s problem (“problem” not used pejoratively here - the artist feels the need to create, and does it, regardless of whether someone will buy it). It is created for the sake of creating it. Commercial art is commission work and is created for solving someone else’s problem. Commercial purposes. Commercial art can actually use the same mediums as fine art. The fact that it’s created at someone else’s behest is what changes the definition. As such, People who commission commercial art are not artists. People who ask AI to create something for them are similarly not artists. In that sense, Michelangelo wasn't an artist when paining the Sistine, since he was commissioned by the Church to paint it. A person writing a prompt is akin to a poet or another writer when envisioning a scene or a story and describing it in words on a poem or romance. That writer's readers imagine the scene in their minds whereas an AI "imagine" it in its algorithms. Expanding a bit. I understand fine art as something that usually does not have a functional application other than to be appreciated by others, even though some people might interpret a painter's vision in different ways, picture a book scene differently than others, have different reactions to a music, etc. Things get a bit more complicated when Applied (Commercial) art started getting mixed with Fine Art. A good example is Industrial Design, where form and function constantly mix. A coffee maker does not have to be beautiful to make coffee, yet manufacturers spend a bit on their design to make them attractive. A building's façade does not have to have an intricate design for the building to do its job, a car does not have to have the lines of a Ferrari or Maseratti to take people from point A to point B, tools do not have to have many of the shapes they do to do their jobs. Based on your definition, most of those would be just applied art, yet, they integrate fine art to make them more attractive. Is a photo that a photographer makes a limited number of copies and sell no longer a fine art? If that photo goes in a book, is it no longer a fine art? If an artist writes a CNC code for a laser cutter to engrave a picture he imagined on a wooden panel later used to decorate a room, isn't that a fine art? Or is Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling no longer a fine art because it was was commissioned to decorate a building? If someone makes a movie out of a book, it's not a fine art? In a similar way, AI adds the visual appealing effects to otherwise plain texts that just describe a scene. AI requires a human soul to intend it, shape it, and put it into a context to be appreciated. It does not pop-up out of nowhere. There's a person behind conceptualizing, envisioning and materializing it, just using a different tool, in the case, AI. Again, AI is just a new tool among a plethora available for different artists express themselves, or, as you say "solve their problem". The Sistine Chapel was a commission - I covered this. Review as necessary. Bring yourself up to speed on the old days of artists having a guild, then patrons, then being freed from the patron system to sell their wares on their own (side fun fact: this is where/when the term “starving artist” got coined)AI cannot create art on it’s own, so it is not art. I can’t tell a paintbrush to paint me a painting. It requires me to pick the brush up and make it happen. The paintbrush is not making art on it’s own for commercial or fine art purposes. Nor is the charcoal stump, the colored pencil, the watercolor or the camera. Or the artificial intelligence we are talking about here. There could be AI art experiments in the future; I’m sure some enterprising artist has set an AI off to create art we can debate on, but asking ChatGPT or whatever AI to create an image for me is not art. FYI I say this as a commercial artist who dabbles in the fine art area at times but I make my living on graphic design and illustration with a side of photography. I’m not just engaging in sophistry, I live this. I believe there's a misunderstanding. I never said that AI is art. AI is a tool to create art. As the brush you mentioned. The product a person creates using AI is art. The same way the one someone using a brush is art. Isn't this what we are discussing? The AI cannot do anything by itself, the same way a brush also cannot. Both are devoid of the creativity, imagination, let alone emotions, that go through an artist's mind when painting, writing, composing, etc. If you look at that thread I linked in a previous post, you will see that writing a prompt is a lot more than just telling an AI to "paint a duck". Similar as if you give a brush to three people they will give you three different paintings, an AI will also give three different results to three persons' prompts. When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. …and AI is incapable of making art. Only Humans make art. No argument from me… I’m allowing for a far-flung future where a truly self-aware AI could be creating artistic things for its own pleasure that could be considered art, but that will likely not be in any of our lifetimes if at all, ever. For the time being, and the forseeable future, art (fine art) is the provence of humans and humans alone. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. What Is Fine Art? Definitions To begin with, let’s take a brief glance at several definitions of fine art, as this is the best way to understand this concept. “drawings, paintings, and sculptures that are admired for their beauty and have no practical use” – Cambridge Dictionary (2024) “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” – Dictionary.com (2021) “an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting, printmaking, and sculpture.” – Visual Arts Cork (n.d.) This brief overview provides us with clear information on what fine art is: any art created just for its beauty not for practical uses. This is why high art is often contrasted with commercial art or applied art – pieces created to serve a certain practical purpose, for instance, to convince the viewer to purchase a product. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? The definitions are crap. AI does not make art. Neither the prompt typer nor the machine is an artist.  This has been settled by the Supreme Court |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Another twist… Legally speaking, text-prompted outputs automatically fall into the public domain. Legally, a prompt alone does not constitute authorship; a human must add substantial creative modification, editing, or composition to own any part of the final work. You don’t own it, because it isn’t your creation. It’s all derivative mimicry. You are talking about two different things. Art and copyright. One is an image created using AI art? - let's focus on this one first Does that image belong to who wrote the prompts or is it public domain? - there will be a lot of water going under this bridge. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The definitions are crap. AI does not make art. Neither the prompt typer nor the machine is an artist. This has been settled by the Supreme Court Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. What Is Fine Art? Definitions To begin with, let’s take a brief glance at several definitions of fine art, as this is the best way to understand this concept. “drawings, paintings, and sculptures that are admired for their beauty and have no practical use” – Cambridge Dictionary (2024) “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” – Dictionary.com (2021) “an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting, printmaking, and sculpture.” – Visual Arts Cork (n.d.) This brief overview provides us with clear information on what fine art is: any art created just for its beauty not for practical uses. This is why high art is often contrasted with commercial art or applied art – pieces created to serve a certain practical purpose, for instance, to convince the viewer to purchase a product. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? The definitions are crap. AI does not make art. Neither the prompt typer nor the machine is an artist. This has been settled by the Supreme Court OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Not long ago, photography wasn't recognized as art also. And about SCOTUS, no comments. We all know how the wind blows there and how much their opinions and judgements are worth. |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: Please check my answer to Cincinnatus above. Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: When you commission a work, it becomes a commercial work of art. This is what you do when you ask an AI to make something for you. You cannot ask a paint brush (or pencil or camera or whatever) to make you something. You have to ask someone with the talent, to pick it up and make it for you. And pay for it most likely. The difference is everything. You don’t possess the talent, you employ someone who does. Now if you’re asking if it’s fine or commercial art, I covered that. It’s commercial art. Not fine art. It’s an illustration. There’s no evidence of a creator’s need to express themselves. Please check my answer to Cincinnatus above. You are deliberately mudding the waters and it isn’t gonna work, my friend. In fact you kinda shot yourself in the foot with one example  You said “ghost writer” above. It’s a perfect proof of what I am talking about… So using your very own example, James Patterson puts his name to a book he commissioned a ghost writer to write for him, that’s not him being an author, it’s him commissioning a work. At one point he was a writer, but now he’s a commissioner. See the point? Same exact thing we’re talking about with art. Typing a prompt is not creating a work. It’s requesting a work. The AI is not a paintbrush, it’s all the art in history mashed up into one place (as well as all human knowledge available). It’s a whole new thing; it’s fascinating and engaging. I use it at work as well as on my own. It’s excellent for research and doing scut work I would rather not do. But it isn’t an artist and what it creates at someone’s behest does not make them an artist, either. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Klee: Not me. I created these with ComfyUI on my RTX 3090 Ti. Yes I created it, the AI model didn't do shit until I told it what to do. It is just a tool and depending on who is using it makes a huge difference, some no talent random person using AI yea it will be slop but someone with a little talent can create really good stuff with AI. https://i.imgur.com/2IZj4He.png https://i.imgur.com/TI3HuA3.png https://i.imgur.com/qayKvUb.png https://i.imgur.com/lJG1khU.png https://i.imgur.com/q7KnrLI.png https://i.imgur.com/dGUvYpZ.png https://i.imgur.com/vB77BjN.png https://i.imgur.com/euvODHA.png https://i.imgur.com/n0Vrkjl.png I also created GD's perfect woman. https://i.imgur.com/HJfagDx.png Since when do perfect women have cankles? |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Not long ago, photography wasn't recognized as art also. And about SCOTUS, no comments. We all know how the wind blows there and how much their opinions and judgements are worth. Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. What Is Fine Art? Definitions To begin with, let’s take a brief glance at several definitions of fine art, as this is the best way to understand this concept. “drawings, paintings, and sculptures that are admired for their beauty and have no practical use” – Cambridge Dictionary (2024) “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” – Dictionary.com (2021) “an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting, printmaking, and sculpture.” – Visual Arts Cork (n.d.) This brief overview provides us with clear information on what fine art is: any art created just for its beauty not for practical uses. This is why high art is often contrasted with commercial art or applied art – pieces created to serve a certain practical purpose, for instance, to convince the viewer to purchase a product. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? The definitions are crap. AI does not make art. Neither the prompt typer nor the machine is an artist. This has been settled by the Supreme Court OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Not long ago, photography wasn't recognized as art also. And about SCOTUS, no comments. We all know how the wind blows there and how much their opinions and judgements are worth. I used to consider photography a mechanical art since it was a simple shutter click, right? When I was back in college I took a history of photography class and had my whole opinion of photography updated - sure, sometimes photos are just happy snaps… other times they’re art in and of themselves. And don’t get me started on Henri Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments. I thought that would be a throw-away class I’d do nothing with, and I am humbly glad to be so wrong. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Rossi:I beg to disagree. Just take a look at the big thread going on about Microsoft's AI tool for graphics that expanded to other tools and how properly wording the prompts that make the AI create the images, and how much big of a difference they make in the final image. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bing-AI-generator-lets-you-create-any-kind-of-image-you-want-EDIT-Video-AI-generator-here/5-2676299/ That is definitely akin to also properly using a pencil, brush, charcoal, chisel, etc. And it is that still requires the artist within every human. Some people may have poor motor skills that might make almost impossible for them to draw, paint or sculpt. However, they are very good at wording their ideas, well enough to guide a new tool put at their disposal by AI. Typing out a prompt and calling yourself an artist is like the person describing the perp to the sketch artist claiming they drew the final image. |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: So, just imagining the AI's potential. Give it a few more years and it might even create something just based on the situation, location, who the customer is, etc. There is your answer, in your own words, "it might even create something". The AI is creating something FOR you, not BY you. Claiming anything AI does as your own creation is just wishful thinking. Do you also pat yourself on the back when you order food at a restaurant? |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: You are deliberately mudding the waters and it isn’t gonna work, my friend. In fact you kinda shot yourself in the foot with one example You said “ghost writer” above. It’s a perfect proof of what I am talking about… So using your very own example, James Patterson puts his name to a book he commissioned a ghost writer to write for him, that’s not him being an author, it’s him commissioning a work. At one point he was a writer, but now he’s a commissioner. See the point? Same exact thing we’re talking about with art. Typing a prompt is not creating a work. It’s requesting a work. The AI is not a paintbrush, it’s all the art in history mashed up into one place (as well as all human knowledge available). It’s a whole new thing; it’s fascinating and engaging. I use it at work as well as on my own. It’s excellent for research and doing scut work I would rather not do. But it isn’t an artist and what it creates at someone’s behest does not make them an artist, either. A ghost writer still has to follow what the person or subject he is writing about defines. The ghost writer could be a close analogy of an AI. Yet, they are accepted and the book's author is the guy giving him the general info and guidelines. The ghost writer wrote the book but it was the guy with the name on the book giving him the pointers. What's a ghost writer other than someone who can tell stories very well but needs what to write about. An AI can have all the history of painting in its memory. However, what about a painter who studied several other painters' work as well as different techniques to create his painting? An AI is just a tool that enables more people to create new stuff. It does nothing by itself. Browse that thread I linked and see all the variations, styles and ideas that the same tool enable. You will also see how many posters there experimented with different prompts where just changing a few words and punctuations, thus the meaning, led to different results. If you have been following companies experimenting with AI, some careers that they have been considering to hire are historians, psychologists and related, since those have better writing training and convey communications and feelings better. Why is that? AI depends on humans. Paintrushes have hundreds of years of technology behind them and the same for inks. In that sense, and using your definition of AI, they should also be invalid. Again, AI isn't the artist. It's the tool. Beethoven and Mozart wrote magnificent music but needed an orchestra and a conductor to materialize them. Are they not artists? Walt Disney created many characters and whole worlds. However, he needed illustrators, animators, directors, etc. to materialize his ideas. Wasn't he an artist? |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: I used to consider photography a mechanical art since it was a simple shutter click, right? When I was back in college I took a history of photography class and had my whole opinion of photography updated - sure, sometimes photos are just happy snaps… other times they’re art in and of themselves. And don’t get me started on Henri Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments. I thought that would be a throw-away class I’d do nothing with, and I am humbly glad to be so wrong. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not every person who creates an illustration is an artist. Illustration is Illustration. The word is different from art for a reason. What makes a prompt typer an artist compared to a non-artist prompt typer? Prompt-typing is not art-making. When Andy Warhol painted the soup labels, was he creating art or an illustration? When a writer writes a book that goes though a ghost writer, revision, editors, etc. is he an artist? Was Walt Disney an artist? How about Beethoven or Mozart? They created the characters, wrote the music, but did not create the final products themselves. There were always other people helping with the final products (illustrators, animators, orchestras, conductors, etc.). I saw that a building was posted as an example of art. By your definition, that's wrong, isn't it? It wasn't the person who drew the façade who built it, let alone the many machines used to build it. I found these definitions of fine art that sum some things up very well. What Is Fine Art? Definitions To begin with, let’s take a brief glance at several definitions of fine art, as this is the best way to understand this concept. “drawings, paintings, and sculptures that are admired for their beauty and have no practical use” – Cambridge Dictionary (2024) “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” – Dictionary.com (2021) “an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting, printmaking, and sculpture.” – Visual Arts Cork (n.d.) This brief overview provides us with clear information on what fine art is: any art created just for its beauty not for practical uses. This is why high art is often contrasted with commercial art or applied art – pieces created to serve a certain practical purpose, for instance, to convince the viewer to purchase a product. https://www.robertlangestudios.com/blogs/news/what-is-fine-art-definition-examples Do you see the restrictions you listed anywhere in the definitions? The definitions are crap. AI does not make art. Neither the prompt typer nor the machine is an artist. This has been settled by the Supreme Court OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Not long ago, photography wasn't recognized as art also. And about SCOTUS, no comments. We all know how the wind blows there and how much their opinions and judgements are worth. I used to consider photography a mechanical art since it was a simple shutter click, right? When I was back in college I took a history of photography class and had my whole opinion of photography updated - sure, sometimes photos are just happy snaps… other times they’re art in and of themselves. And don’t get me started on Henri Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments. I thought that would be a throw-away class I’d do nothing with, and I am humbly glad to be so wrong. Pretty much. There is a lot that a camera enables. The same camera and lens, same spot and conditions; give them to three people and you will get three different results that can be wildly different from each other. And things get even more different if you give them post-production tools to let their imagination run. Aren't these three persons artists? |
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: You are talking about two different things. Art and copyright. One is an image created using AI art? - let's focus on this one first Does that image belong to who wrote the prompts or is it public domain? - there will be a lot of water going under this bridge. Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Another twist… Legally speaking, text-prompted outputs automatically fall into the public domain. Legally, a prompt alone does not constitute authorship; a human must add substantial creative modification, editing, or composition to own any part of the final work. You don’t own it, because it isn’t your creation. It’s all derivative mimicry. You are talking about two different things. Art and copyright. One is an image created using AI art? - let's focus on this one first Does that image belong to who wrote the prompts or is it public domain? - there will be a lot of water going under this bridge. It’s public domain. Prompt writers have no ownership over the resulting image, because THEY did not create it. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: A ghost writer still has to follow what the person or subject he is writing about defines. The ghost writer could be a close analogy of an AI. Yet, they are accepted and the book's author is the guy giving him the general info and guidelines. The ghost writer wrote the book but it was the guy with the name on the book giving him the pointers. What's a ghost writer other than someone who can tell stories very well but needs what to write about. An AI can have all the history of painting in its memory. However, what about a painter who studied several other painters' work as well as different techniques to create his painting? An AI is just a tool that enables more people to create new stuff. It does nothing by itself. Browse that thread I linked and see all the variations, styles and ideas that the same tool enable. You will also see how many posters there experimented with different prompts where just changing a few words and punctuations, thus the meaning, led to different results. If you have been following companies experimenting with AI, some careers that they have been considering to hire are historians, psychologists and related, since those have better writing training and convey communications and feelings better. Why is that? AI depends on humans. Paintrushes have hundreds of years of technology behind them and the same for inks. In that sense, and using your definition of AI, they should also be invalid. Again, AI isn't the artist. It's the tool. Beethoven and Mozart wrote magnificent music but needed an orchestra and a conductor to materialize them. Are they not artists? Walt Disney created many characters and whole worlds. However, he needed illustrators, animators, directors, etc. to materialize his ideas. Wasn't he an artist? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: You are deliberately mudding the waters and it isn’t gonna work, my friend. In fact you kinda shot yourself in the foot with one example You said “ghost writer” above. It’s a perfect proof of what I am talking about… So using your very own example, James Patterson puts his name to a book he commissioned a ghost writer to write for him, that’s not him being an author, it’s him commissioning a work. At one point he was a writer, but now he’s a commissioner. See the point? Same exact thing we’re talking about with art. Typing a prompt is not creating a work. It’s requesting a work. The AI is not a paintbrush, it’s all the art in history mashed up into one place (as well as all human knowledge available). It’s a whole new thing; it’s fascinating and engaging. I use it at work as well as on my own. It’s excellent for research and doing scut work I would rather not do. But it isn’t an artist and what it creates at someone’s behest does not make them an artist, either. A ghost writer still has to follow what the person or subject he is writing about defines. The ghost writer could be a close analogy of an AI. Yet, they are accepted and the book's author is the guy giving him the general info and guidelines. The ghost writer wrote the book but it was the guy with the name on the book giving him the pointers. What's a ghost writer other than someone who can tell stories very well but needs what to write about. An AI can have all the history of painting in its memory. However, what about a painter who studied several other painters' work as well as different techniques to create his painting? An AI is just a tool that enables more people to create new stuff. It does nothing by itself. Browse that thread I linked and see all the variations, styles and ideas that the same tool enable. You will also see how many posters there experimented with different prompts where just changing a few words and punctuations, thus the meaning, led to different results. If you have been following companies experimenting with AI, some careers that they have been considering to hire are historians, psychologists and related, since those have better writing training and convey communications and feelings better. Why is that? AI depends on humans. Paintrushes have hundreds of years of technology behind them and the same for inks. In that sense, and using your definition of AI, they should also be invalid. Again, AI isn't the artist. It's the tool. Beethoven and Mozart wrote magnificent music but needed an orchestra and a conductor to materialize them. Are they not artists? Walt Disney created many characters and whole worlds. However, he needed illustrators, animators, directors, etc. to materialize his ideas. Wasn't he an artist? Beethoven and Mozart made art in writing the music. The performance is not the art. AI prompt writers are not artists. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Rossi: A ghost writer still has to follow what the person or subject he is writing about defines. The ghost writer could be a close analogy of an AI. Yet, they are accepted and the book's author is the guy giving him the general info and guidelines. The ghost writer wrote the book but it was the guy with the name on the book giving him the pointers. What's a ghost writer other than someone who can tell stories very well but needs what to write about. An AI can have all the history of painting in its memory. However, what about a painter who studied several other painters' work as well as different techniques to create his painting? An AI is just a tool that enables more people to create new stuff. It does nothing by itself. Browse that thread I linked and see all the variations, styles and ideas that the same tool enable. You will also see how many posters there experimented with different prompts where just changing a few words and punctuations, thus the meaning, led to different results. If you have been following companies experimenting with AI, some careers that they have been considering to hire are historians, psychologists and related, since those have better writing training and convey communications and feelings better. Why is that? AI depends on humans. Paintrushes have hundreds of years of technology behind them and the same for inks. In that sense, and using your definition of AI, they should also be invalid. Again, AI isn't the artist. It's the tool. Beethoven and Mozart wrote magnificent music but needed an orchestra and a conductor to materialize them. Are they not artists? Walt Disney created many characters and whole worlds. However, he needed illustrators, animators, directors, etc. to materialize his ideas. Wasn't he an artist? Originally Posted By Rossi: Originally Posted By macman37: You are deliberately mudding the waters and it isn’t gonna work, my friend. In fact you kinda shot yourself in the foot with one example You said “ghost writer” above. It’s a perfect proof of what I am talking about… So using your very own example, James Patterson puts his name to a book he commissioned a ghost writer to write for him, that’s not him being an author, it’s him commissioning a work. At one point he was a writer, but now he’s a commissioner. See the point? Same exact thing we’re talking about with art. Typing a prompt is not creating a work. It’s requesting a work. The AI is not a paintbrush, it’s all the art in history mashed up into one place (as well as all human knowledge available). It’s a whole new thing; it’s fascinating and engaging. I use it at work as well as on my own. It’s excellent for research and doing scut work I would rather not do. But it isn’t an artist and what it creates at someone’s behest does not make them an artist, either. A ghost writer still has to follow what the person or subject he is writing about defines. The ghost writer could be a close analogy of an AI. Yet, they are accepted and the book's author is the guy giving him the general info and guidelines. The ghost writer wrote the book but it was the guy with the name on the book giving him the pointers. What's a ghost writer other than someone who can tell stories very well but needs what to write about. An AI can have all the history of painting in its memory. However, what about a painter who studied several other painters' work as well as different techniques to create his painting? An AI is just a tool that enables more people to create new stuff. It does nothing by itself. Browse that thread I linked and see all the variations, styles and ideas that the same tool enable. You will also see how many posters there experimented with different prompts where just changing a few words and punctuations, thus the meaning, led to different results. If you have been following companies experimenting with AI, some careers that they have been considering to hire are historians, psychologists and related, since those have better writing training and convey communications and feelings better. Why is that? AI depends on humans. Paintrushes have hundreds of years of technology behind them and the same for inks. In that sense, and using your definition of AI, they should also be invalid. Again, AI isn't the artist. It's the tool. Beethoven and Mozart wrote magnificent music but needed an orchestra and a conductor to materialize them. Are they not artists? Walt Disney created many characters and whole worlds. However, he needed illustrators, animators, directors, etc. to materialize his ideas. Wasn't he an artist? You are talking in circles to rationalize your point. The answer is no, and I have explained why several times now. Commercial art is not fine art, and you are - intentionally or not - blurring the lines between them. I am not a poet if I commission a real poet to write a book of poetry for me and put my name on it. I’m not feeling the feelings required to write them. Feeling the need to express myself for its own sake. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
I’m starting to wonder if the disconnect is that some do not understand the drive to create; there are no shortcuts to it. AI is a shortcut. Jackson Pollock or (pick your favorite) or our very own Cincinnatus would not use shortcuts to create their work. When I am sketching, I don’t use shortcuts or trace, I want the emotion and flow of the moment evident in the strokes I build a drawing with. AI can only copy that, it can’t originate those notions. There are lots of different kind of art, and an infinite way to create it. But it has to come from a human, at least until it becomes self aware and wishes to create for it’s own sake. That may or may not ever happen, I am simply allowing for the possibility. There are a lot of blurred lines in the art world and many reasons for it. The end of the Patronage system was a huge turning point for art. The Armory Show and the controversy surrounding it was another… pre- and post-modernism is another … One of my heroes Marcel Duchamp would be in the middle of this debate if he was still alive now. We’re still debating the nature of art and what it can be thanks to his actions. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
I have no problem with AI being used as a tool that assists an artist. As long as it does not produce the overall work. As stated earlier, I google searched for an image of an elephant. That image was then used as a source for an element of my painting. I also used AI to create alternate views (side, 3/4, rear) of the only available image of Pope Celestine V’s silver death mask. I then painted interpretations of those images onto poured silver paint blobs. I created the art. The fact that AI created a source of one element within the overall piece is no more a problem than the Beastie Boys sampling a loop of When the Levee Breaks in Rhyming and Stealing. The use of AI crosses a line, when it creates the content. If an author asks AI to search for grammar mistakes and spelling errors, that’s fine. When an “author” asks AI to make his paragraph better, that is not fine. That’s fraud. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
One more example: AI cannot describe chocolate melting in your mouth. It cannot describe the feeling of love you have when walking down a Key West beach with your SO’s hand in yours and you are filled with emotion. It cannot describe the miracle of holding a new born baby in your hands. But it can rewrite what others who have experienced those things have written… That’s the maximum capability AI can bring. And no prompt you give it can help. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Since it wasn't answered and I'm curious: So what if someone uses AI to generate 6 second video clips, dialogue, and a song? They come up with the visual prompts, the dialogue, and the lyrics for the song. Then takes those clips and puts them in a video editor and manually edits those clips, adds SFX, the Dialogue, and the song? How many hours does the person have to spend editing the video to make it human touched enough? Or is it all fruit of the poisonous tree since they're using AI at all? @Cincinnatus |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
This is about “art.” It’s a philosophical discussion that goes back thousands of years. Throughout History there have always been those who seek to diminish the importance of Art and erode the concept and value of Individual Creation. The enemies of Western Civilization have been at the forefront of these attacks. Sometimes the attacks are based on a concerted, ideological effort to undermine the idea of the Creative Individual. Those ideologues then harness the suspicious ignorant masses. Fine Art is an intellectual, elitist pursuit. This has always been the case. That’s why the Communists sought to undermine individualism reflected in Art. The Communists of the last would love AI “art.” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Since it wasn't answered and I'm curious: So what if someone uses AI to generate 6 second video clips, dialogue, and a song? They come up with the visual prompts, the dialogue, and the lyrics for the song. Then takes those clips and puts them in a video editor and manually edits those clips, adds SFX, the Dialogue, and the song? How many hours does the person have to spend editing the video to make it human touched enough? Or is it all fruit of the poisonous tree since they're using AI at all? @Cincinnatus I don’t think there’s a formula. But if you ask the individual, they will know (if they admit it) People know when they aren’t the ones doing the creating. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I don’t think there’s a formula. But if you ask the individual, they will know (if they admit it) People know when they aren’t the ones doing the creating. If they're making something from nothing...isn't that creating? If they're bringing characters and stories that literally 100K+ people have seen and enjoyed on various platforms, doesn't that count for anything? Or since those characters and stories were brought to life via AI they should never have existed? |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: If they're making something from nothing...isn't that creating? If they're bringing characters and stories that literally 100K+ people have seen and enjoyed on various platforms, doesn't that count for anything? Or since those characters and stories were brought to life via AI they should never have existed? Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I don’t think there’s a formula. But if you ask the individual, they will know (if they admit it) People know when they aren’t the ones doing the creating. If they're making something from nothing...isn't that creating? If they're bringing characters and stories that literally 100K+ people have seen and enjoyed on various platforms, doesn't that count for anything? Or since those characters and stories were brought to life via AI they should never have existed? How many people enjoy something is completely irrelevant. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: How many people enjoy something is completely irrelevant. Correct — 100k views doesn’t mean it’s high art. It does mean the “it shouldn’t exist” argument already lost. People used their time on it. That’s the only vote that isn’t a forum hypothetical. If your test is “I personally don’t count AI,” say that. Don’t pretend popularity is irrelevant when the original complaint was that this stuff has no audience and no author. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Correct — 100k views doesn’t mean it’s high art. It does mean the “it shouldn’t exist” argument already lost. People used their time on it. That’s the only vote that isn’t a forum hypothetical. If your test is “I personally don’t count AI,” say that. Don’t pretend popularity is irrelevant when the original complaint was that this stuff has no audience and no author. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: How many people enjoy something is completely irrelevant. Correct — 100k views doesn’t mean it’s high art. It does mean the “it shouldn’t exist” argument already lost. People used their time on it. That’s the only vote that isn’t a forum hypothetical. If your test is “I personally don’t count AI,” say that. Don’t pretend popularity is irrelevant when the original complaint was that this stuff has no audience and no author. No. The question, and the title of the thread refers to “AI Art.” It’s not Art. It’s illustration and it isn’t created by Man. It may be visually satisfying, but that does not make something Art. There is no debate about whether the Masses can be titillated by vacuous content. This has been a known truth for a thousand years. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 9 of 10)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter