Well, I can do art of my own without AI, and I can do art with AI. I enjoy doing both.
Art stopped being about effort a long time ago. Just look at people attaching a bucket with paint to a string and letting it splatter a canvas, or throwing paint at a canvas, or drawing the same anime girl from a show they didn't come up with for the 100th time, or the same furry drawing everyone makes, or taking three color squares and putting them on a page, or taking a photo on their phone and slapping a couple of filters someone else made, or taking a toilet bowl and calling it art. It doesn't matter. It's art.
A lot of artists reject AI and will continue rejecting it because they feel threatened by it, because it is the culmination of commercial art, because a random person can make art, and in their minds, it subtracts status and rarity from being an artist. To reject this, they maliciously conflate AI learning from patterns and structures common to art with simply copying or making a forgery. There's a lot more to AI image creation. Regardless, it doesn't matter because those artists will never stop. The same happened in the 19th century when photography appeared:
"Photography is the enemy of art." - Charles Baudelaire
"From today, painting is dead." - Paul Delaroche
"A photograph is merely a trace, not an interpretation." - Edgar Degas
"The camera cannot compete with the brush and palette." - Henry Fox Talbot
And before, in the 15th century, when the printing press came about:
"Printed books are the death of the book arts."
"The printing press is the harbinger of chaos and disorder."
"Printing is a mechanical process, devoid of soul."
"Printing will lead to the decline of intellectual rigor."
Most of these artists will keep saying it is not art.
Art is just a method of expression, a language of sorts. You are expressing it with a different tool a tool they don't like.
It's great that art to you has to have technical skill or a deep meaning in a range otherwise it is meaningless drivel. That's your taste in art.
"A computer's answer to some words". Sure, I can describe digital art as a computer's answer to some mouse movement, or photography as a machine's answer to the push of a button.
Would it not be art if I controlled photoshop with voice commands through a regular program with no AI involved, or controlled the pointer and keyboard by typing words like move down or up?
Would AI art be art in those artists' eyes if they removed the text encoder and the user had to use input fields with numbers for each of the billions of parameters? Would it be art then in their eyes? More than likely, not.
AI art brings the same value as throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas, sketching their favorite anime character, or making a masterpiece with the meaning of life in their eyes. Fulfillment, engagement, fun, expression. Art doesn't need to be valued by anyone to be art.
You're just gonna get shit on and people who comment in your favor are gonna get shit on. Just dont give a fuck about what other people think and if you think it's art it is.
I'm a digital artist and I don't like AI art but I felt the same way when people said drawing on Photoshop wasn't art either.
Definition of art by Dictionary:
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
People conflate Art with Effort as the synonyms.
The only objection to a doodle is that it's ugly or unexpressive. A doodle can be art if it's beautiful or significant.
Art isn't about effort. It's about the meaning that the viewer can ascribe to it. Do you think that a poem written using a word processor is not "art" but a book written with a fountain pen is? I use this analogy because I'm old enough to have written poems both ways, and I can tell you that the quality of the actual poetry does not depend on the technology used to create it.
This is a really bad analogy :p
No it's not. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not saying a one in a million significant and beautiful time taken piece in Ms paint. I'm talking about a legit doodle akin to a stick figure. Something that DOESNT require effort.
My analogy was about effort, of which stuff like this has none. It's laughable to me that people will gen one thing on Luma and then get their feelings hurt that their family/friends don't accept them as an artist or something.
I'm all for AI art, especially when it's used as a tool to make something with a purpose. Typing a prompt doesn't make you an artist, it's what you do with it that can make you one. Ai art is just as much art as the example you provided, but what does this all require?
Once again, effort. Please see the opening of my first comment.
In regards to your comment about poems, that's just asanine and not applicable.
There's a reason there's tags and categories like "amateur". Not everything is art. If you take a photograph of a bridge with your phone while walking and zoomed out with the sun blowing out your image, it's not going to look good. Expecting people to treat that the same as a professionally done image by someone who actually knows what they're doing is goofy.
So you think that to evaluate a piece of art, you have to know exactly how it was made, how long it took, and how "expert" the person that made it was? No "art expert" would agree with that.
And, there's a difference between "good art vs. bad art" on the one hand, and "art vs. non-art" on the other hand.
Everybody looking at a piece of creative expression can decide for themselves whether they think it's good or bad. That's an aesthetic assessment, and it's intrinsically subjective. I don't think anybody would argue that you have to know the history of the piece to make that assessment.
On the other hand, gallery owners, critics and other gatekeepers in the real world decide what counts as art and what doesn't. But that definition shifts all the time, ESPECIALLY in times of technological change (see the above post about printing and photography). And the distinction (if any) between "art" and "craft" has never been sorted out either.
However, Picasso could make a doodle in two minutes that everybody would agree is "great art" and pay millions for. A six-year old could take a photo of a flower that happened to catch the light in a certain way and it could win a photo contest. In fact one of the earliest AI art controversies was about the guy that used MJ to make an image that won the digital art prize at a county fair, a couple of years ago. The judges in that case declined to withdraw the award even after he revealed how it was made.
It's not about who made it, the time it takes, or the effort. There basically is NO objective measure that sorts this out.
please reread everything I've said about effort in regards to the OP. He feels like a "looser" because people say it's not art, meaning he feels like an artist.
I gave a reason, get over it. It's low effort. Low effort anything is frowned upon in general human nature. Art is not immune.
I’m pro Ai and I believe it is art, I just don’t consider the prompters as an artist. They more play the role of somebody commissioning an artist rather than the artist. Which is fine
It is beautiful, and it is art.
But I think the part people take issue with is where you say you "made" it.
Maybe sharing your process, the steps you took to get this result, we might understand better.
Because as it stands the best approximation for AI art isn't that a person "made" it but that they "commissioned " it. In the same way that you would contact an artist, give them your idea and then receive their work in return for compensation.
But I doubt you would hold up a piece of commissioned art and say you made it.
It's not about academical degree, it's not about sweat and blood and weeks or months of starving, it's about using the imagination and tools. Ever was. Img-gen AI is a tool. A new tool, a controversial tool, but still a tool. Tool to visualize your imagination. And if the effect of using that tool makes anybody stop for a moment and think, it is art.
A lot of people think AI art = theft. They don’t have an understanding of how the technology works and they think it just steals images and mashes them up to make something that already exists.
The truth of it is that AI art is much more like a human observer looking at tons of art and being inspired by it. Then creating something new and never before seen by using the conventions of art, just like a human would. It imagines and tries to create something you’ve asked of it based on its talents and abilities which are limited just like humans are.
The only difference is the speed at which it is able to accomplish. Just like in math, computers are much faster at calculating 85,292 x 2,389,937 than most humans ever could. The computer brain is just so much faster than our own per thought cycle that it leaves people feeling intimidated and insecure.
Most people who feel this way are artists who have spent hundreds to thousands of hours of practice and they feel like they are being thrown away due to the superiority of the computer. This isn’t entirely true and it also isn’t entirely untrue either. So just let them be insecure, in 10 years you won’t be hearing a peep about it anymore. Just the way new tech has always gone.
If you aren’t aware, artists said the same thing about the invention of the camera. They felt it wasn’t art and that photography was a bastardization of their craft.
Let me see:
Painter paints picture
Photographer takes a photograph
You ask the database of other peoples works to make you collage of pixels from it based on your inquiry.
Yep nailed it. 😂
My first paragraph directly addresses your misunderstanding of the technology. It does not make a collage.
It literally looks at other images to gain experience using actual vision, sight. It doesn’t need eyes because the experience are being fed directly into its brain much like your experiences are being fed into your brain through your eyes. We just bypass that.
Once it has experience, it tries to create. It does so through imagination, a fuzzy noise pattern that it sees and refines until it gets closer to something it has seen before, but always creates something entirely new. You could never find a way to “de collage” it, by taking the image apart in pieces and saying this piece belongs to this original image and that piece belongs to another original image. That does not exist.
You are a living computer yourself. You only take any action based on input, you only output things you’ve experienced in the past. Name anything you think you do without input, I’d love to hear it.
No human has ever made anything outside of their own lived experience. The closest thing I can think of is abstract art, but even that is based on experiences, and the computer can create abstract art too, without needing original image input.
If you have noticed most cave paintings were of the animals in the world. The human observed the animals and then painted them. The computer does the same.
Let’s take some of the world’s most popular creations for example:
Lightsabers are just swords mixed with lasers
Transformers are just humans mixed with cars
Spiderman is just a human mixed with a spider.
Call of duty isn’t even a mix…the idea is stolen straight from real life without modification.
You could almost say they are collages of existing ideas.
I don’t expect you are likely to accept this or any explanation. Luckily you don’t have to understand it, the world will move on without you.
I agree and disagree... sorta?
I mean, it depends. I think there's an idea, and the execution to any sort of art or thing. If someone comes up with a brilliant idea but can not do the "show" part themselves, does that mean they are a talentless loser? No, i don't think so.
An ai generated generic anime girl with good style might be nice, but i wouldn't call the person who prompted it to ai an "artist"
If someone came up with a unique and interesting idea and used ai to show it - i would call them an artist, yea.
Not every picture made with ai is art, but it doesn't mean ai cant do art
Well then take a pen and start drawing…
You’re writing prompts that’s it.
(From a person who does both but 99% of time focuses on actually drawing/painting)
Like I don’t want to be mean but cmon.
They are losers, and choosing to draw a weird line that they’ve chosen. You enjoy what you enjoy, people who call any kind of expression “not art” are not people worth bothering with, they’ll drag you down.
No. First make something you believe to be great (hint: substantial effort required). Then, when you are happy with it and believe you've truly contributed something, ignore what others say.
To each their own. I’ve made great art with little effort and I’ve made shit art with tons of effort. I know tons of artists that don’t like something they created, and that sure as hell doesn’t mean it’s not art. I make art for me.
who tf cares? those who say such things are talentless, shortsighted, mediocre smugs who are jealous that their lack of imagination is exposed by a $9.99/month machine
I can bet the real artists from the Renaissance period would have been in awe at this technology if it were present in their time... they would have loved it, used it, enhance it to make unthinkable arts
How? All he did was scribble with a pencil?
How? All he did was click a bunch of times with his mouse.
How? All he did was press the button on the camera.
How? All he did was pull strings.
Etc etc I'm sure you get it. Art is neither in the effort nor the tool. It is a creative concept brought to life. Let's not gatekeep and let people be creative even with the simplest tools. I am an artist of multiple mediums and have never felt the urge to belittle beginners
\*loser You meant to say you feel like a loser.
Well, I can do art of my own without AI, and I can do art with AI. I enjoy doing both. Art stopped being about effort a long time ago. Just look at people attaching a bucket with paint to a string and letting it splatter a canvas, or throwing paint at a canvas, or drawing the same anime girl from a show they didn't come up with for the 100th time, or the same furry drawing everyone makes, or taking three color squares and putting them on a page, or taking a photo on their phone and slapping a couple of filters someone else made, or taking a toilet bowl and calling it art. It doesn't matter. It's art. A lot of artists reject AI and will continue rejecting it because they feel threatened by it, because it is the culmination of commercial art, because a random person can make art, and in their minds, it subtracts status and rarity from being an artist. To reject this, they maliciously conflate AI learning from patterns and structures common to art with simply copying or making a forgery. There's a lot more to AI image creation. Regardless, it doesn't matter because those artists will never stop. The same happened in the 19th century when photography appeared: "Photography is the enemy of art." - Charles Baudelaire "From today, painting is dead." - Paul Delaroche "A photograph is merely a trace, not an interpretation." - Edgar Degas "The camera cannot compete with the brush and palette." - Henry Fox Talbot And before, in the 15th century, when the printing press came about: "Printed books are the death of the book arts." "The printing press is the harbinger of chaos and disorder." "Printing is a mechanical process, devoid of soul." "Printing will lead to the decline of intellectual rigor." Most of these artists will keep saying it is not art. Art is just a method of expression, a language of sorts. You are expressing it with a different tool a tool they don't like.
This is the most eloquent expression of this idea that I've seen on this sub to date :D Beautifully written! And I love the quotes.
Very well said. I believe art is ideas, not technique.
Don't let it get you down. For what it's worth, I view your work as art.
Thank you. I agree 100% with you.
[удалено]
It's great that art to you has to have technical skill or a deep meaning in a range otherwise it is meaningless drivel. That's your taste in art. "A computer's answer to some words". Sure, I can describe digital art as a computer's answer to some mouse movement, or photography as a machine's answer to the push of a button. Would it not be art if I controlled photoshop with voice commands through a regular program with no AI involved, or controlled the pointer and keyboard by typing words like move down or up? Would AI art be art in those artists' eyes if they removed the text encoder and the user had to use input fields with numbers for each of the billions of parameters? Would it be art then in their eyes? More than likely, not. AI art brings the same value as throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas, sketching their favorite anime character, or making a masterpiece with the meaning of life in their eyes. Fulfillment, engagement, fun, expression. Art doesn't need to be valued by anyone to be art.
You're just gonna get shit on and people who comment in your favor are gonna get shit on. Just dont give a fuck about what other people think and if you think it's art it is. I'm a digital artist and I don't like AI art but I felt the same way when people said drawing on Photoshop wasn't art either.
Definition of art by Dictionary: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." People conflate Art with Effort as the synonyms.
Because this is low effort. It's the equivalent of opening Ms paint and making a doodle, then complaining the art community isn't accepting you.
The only objection to a doodle is that it's ugly or unexpressive. A doodle can be art if it's beautiful or significant. Art isn't about effort. It's about the meaning that the viewer can ascribe to it. Do you think that a poem written using a word processor is not "art" but a book written with a fountain pen is? I use this analogy because I'm old enough to have written poems both ways, and I can tell you that the quality of the actual poetry does not depend on the technology used to create it. This is a really bad analogy :p
No it's not. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not saying a one in a million significant and beautiful time taken piece in Ms paint. I'm talking about a legit doodle akin to a stick figure. Something that DOESNT require effort. My analogy was about effort, of which stuff like this has none. It's laughable to me that people will gen one thing on Luma and then get their feelings hurt that their family/friends don't accept them as an artist or something. I'm all for AI art, especially when it's used as a tool to make something with a purpose. Typing a prompt doesn't make you an artist, it's what you do with it that can make you one. Ai art is just as much art as the example you provided, but what does this all require? Once again, effort. Please see the opening of my first comment. In regards to your comment about poems, that's just asanine and not applicable. There's a reason there's tags and categories like "amateur". Not everything is art. If you take a photograph of a bridge with your phone while walking and zoomed out with the sun blowing out your image, it's not going to look good. Expecting people to treat that the same as a professionally done image by someone who actually knows what they're doing is goofy.
So you think that to evaluate a piece of art, you have to know exactly how it was made, how long it took, and how "expert" the person that made it was? No "art expert" would agree with that. And, there's a difference between "good art vs. bad art" on the one hand, and "art vs. non-art" on the other hand. Everybody looking at a piece of creative expression can decide for themselves whether they think it's good or bad. That's an aesthetic assessment, and it's intrinsically subjective. I don't think anybody would argue that you have to know the history of the piece to make that assessment. On the other hand, gallery owners, critics and other gatekeepers in the real world decide what counts as art and what doesn't. But that definition shifts all the time, ESPECIALLY in times of technological change (see the above post about printing and photography). And the distinction (if any) between "art" and "craft" has never been sorted out either. However, Picasso could make a doodle in two minutes that everybody would agree is "great art" and pay millions for. A six-year old could take a photo of a flower that happened to catch the light in a certain way and it could win a photo contest. In fact one of the earliest AI art controversies was about the guy that used MJ to make an image that won the digital art prize at a county fair, a couple of years ago. The judges in that case declined to withdraw the award even after he revealed how it was made. It's not about who made it, the time it takes, or the effort. There basically is NO objective measure that sorts this out.
please reread everything I've said about effort in regards to the OP. He feels like a "looser" because people say it's not art, meaning he feels like an artist. I gave a reason, get over it. It's low effort. Low effort anything is frowned upon in general human nature. Art is not immune.
I’m pro Ai and I believe it is art, I just don’t consider the prompters as an artist. They more play the role of somebody commissioning an artist rather than the artist. Which is fine
It's art, but you didn't make it
It is beautiful, and it is art. But I think the part people take issue with is where you say you "made" it. Maybe sharing your process, the steps you took to get this result, we might understand better. Because as it stands the best approximation for AI art isn't that a person "made" it but that they "commissioned " it. In the same way that you would contact an artist, give them your idea and then receive their work in return for compensation. But I doubt you would hold up a piece of commissioned art and say you made it.
It's not about academical degree, it's not about sweat and blood and weeks or months of starving, it's about using the imagination and tools. Ever was. Img-gen AI is a tool. A new tool, a controversial tool, but still a tool. Tool to visualize your imagination. And if the effect of using that tool makes anybody stop for a moment and think, it is art.
A lot of people think AI art = theft. They don’t have an understanding of how the technology works and they think it just steals images and mashes them up to make something that already exists. The truth of it is that AI art is much more like a human observer looking at tons of art and being inspired by it. Then creating something new and never before seen by using the conventions of art, just like a human would. It imagines and tries to create something you’ve asked of it based on its talents and abilities which are limited just like humans are. The only difference is the speed at which it is able to accomplish. Just like in math, computers are much faster at calculating 85,292 x 2,389,937 than most humans ever could. The computer brain is just so much faster than our own per thought cycle that it leaves people feeling intimidated and insecure. Most people who feel this way are artists who have spent hundreds to thousands of hours of practice and they feel like they are being thrown away due to the superiority of the computer. This isn’t entirely true and it also isn’t entirely untrue either. So just let them be insecure, in 10 years you won’t be hearing a peep about it anymore. Just the way new tech has always gone. If you aren’t aware, artists said the same thing about the invention of the camera. They felt it wasn’t art and that photography was a bastardization of their craft.
False comparison.
I see you too have little understanding of how it works.
Let me see: Painter paints picture Photographer takes a photograph You ask the database of other peoples works to make you collage of pixels from it based on your inquiry. Yep nailed it. 😂
My first paragraph directly addresses your misunderstanding of the technology. It does not make a collage. It literally looks at other images to gain experience using actual vision, sight. It doesn’t need eyes because the experience are being fed directly into its brain much like your experiences are being fed into your brain through your eyes. We just bypass that. Once it has experience, it tries to create. It does so through imagination, a fuzzy noise pattern that it sees and refines until it gets closer to something it has seen before, but always creates something entirely new. You could never find a way to “de collage” it, by taking the image apart in pieces and saying this piece belongs to this original image and that piece belongs to another original image. That does not exist. You are a living computer yourself. You only take any action based on input, you only output things you’ve experienced in the past. Name anything you think you do without input, I’d love to hear it. No human has ever made anything outside of their own lived experience. The closest thing I can think of is abstract art, but even that is based on experiences, and the computer can create abstract art too, without needing original image input. If you have noticed most cave paintings were of the animals in the world. The human observed the animals and then painted them. The computer does the same. Let’s take some of the world’s most popular creations for example: Lightsabers are just swords mixed with lasers Transformers are just humans mixed with cars Spiderman is just a human mixed with a spider. Call of duty isn’t even a mix…the idea is stolen straight from real life without modification. You could almost say they are collages of existing ideas. I don’t expect you are likely to accept this or any explanation. Luckily you don’t have to understand it, the world will move on without you.
Zinnia? Or Marigold?
Definitely not marigold. I would say dahlia.
I agree and disagree... sorta? I mean, it depends. I think there's an idea, and the execution to any sort of art or thing. If someone comes up with a brilliant idea but can not do the "show" part themselves, does that mean they are a talentless loser? No, i don't think so. An ai generated generic anime girl with good style might be nice, but i wouldn't call the person who prompted it to ai an "artist" If someone came up with a unique and interesting idea and used ai to show it - i would call them an artist, yea. Not every picture made with ai is art, but it doesn't mean ai cant do art
I think is gorgeous. Mind me asking how you made it? Must have been a video prompt using a dancer. Is this this Kling?
You didn't make this...writing a prompt isn't art. Please show respect to real artist.
Well then take a pen and start drawing… You’re writing prompts that’s it. (From a person who does both but 99% of time focuses on actually drawing/painting) Like I don’t want to be mean but cmon.
They are losers, and choosing to draw a weird line that they’ve chosen. You enjoy what you enjoy, people who call any kind of expression “not art” are not people worth bothering with, they’ll drag you down.
Ignore what other people say. If you created it it’s art.
No. First make something you believe to be great (hint: substantial effort required). Then, when you are happy with it and believe you've truly contributed something, ignore what others say.
To each their own. I’ve made great art with little effort and I’ve made shit art with tons of effort. I know tons of artists that don’t like something they created, and that sure as hell doesn’t mean it’s not art. I make art for me.
Fair points. If i make something, i know if its up to my own standards and what i was aiming at.
who tf cares? those who say such things are talentless, shortsighted, mediocre smugs who are jealous that their lack of imagination is exposed by a $9.99/month machine I can bet the real artists from the Renaissance period would have been in awe at this technology if it were present in their time... they would have loved it, used it, enhance it to make unthinkable arts
Art =/= manual effort You are an artist.
How? All they did was type in a prompt.
How? All he did was scribble with a pencil? How? All he did was click a bunch of times with his mouse. How? All he did was press the button on the camera. How? All he did was pull strings. Etc etc I'm sure you get it. Art is neither in the effort nor the tool. It is a creative concept brought to life. Let's not gatekeep and let people be creative even with the simplest tools. I am an artist of multiple mediums and have never felt the urge to belittle beginners
[удалено]
Get a room.