- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people’s art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.
All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it’s hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.
There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.Is this the interview? https://files.catbox.moe/ddp6tp.mp4
Tim Minchin has always come across as a good egg to me. It’s nice to hear he’s of the same mind, and I particularly like the optimism he’s promoting in his predictions for artistry going forward.
It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art.
I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have been before them. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.
The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai
But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.
That’s like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.
Not really. It’s the equivalent of ordering a “build it yourself” sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn’t actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.
I’m not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I’m arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial “art” work.
and having someone else make it.
No, having a soulless machine make it.
Then claiming that you made it yourself even though all you did was select a few things on a menu.
Oh my fucking god people…I didn’t say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)
Your example is shit. It would be more appropriate for when you commission a piece of work from someone, where they are using their skills and choices and you’re telling them what you want and don’t want on the sandwich.
AI doesn’t make choices when creating an image. It generates an image based off of other images and you hope that it gets something that follows some aesthetic principles that it’s lifting from other images. Just because you reroll the die doesn’t mean you’re choosing shit.
That “menial” process when you’re making art is literally the best part. When you’re painting a sky for the background of something you don’t want that just filled in, that’s where you can experiment and maybe even add an element that you weren’t thinking of before when you started the piece. AI can’t do that for you.
I think this is completely missing the point when it’s talking about “the minutiae of art”. It’s making two claims at the same time: art is better when you suffer for it and the art is good whether or not you suffered. But none of that is relevant.
When Wyeth made Christina’s World, I don’t know if he suffered or not when painting that grass. What I do know is that he was a human with limited time and the fact that he spent so much of his time detailing every blade of grass means that he’s saying something. That The Oatmeal doesn’t draw backgrounds might be because he’s lazy, but he also doesn’t need them. These are choices we make to put effort in one part and ignore some other part.
AI doesn’t make choices. It doesn’t need to. A detailed background is exactly the same amount of work as a plain one. And so a generated picture has this evenly distributed level of detail, no focus at all. You don’t really know where to look, what’s important, what the picture is trying to say. Because it’s not saying anything. It isn’t a rat with a big butt, it’s just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.
“Yes, but I’ll be quick, I promise.”
Isn’t quick.
It was a good read until he started with the art is a skill and anyone can do it. He’s kind of in his bubble there making assumptions about people. People have various levels of aphantasia, it’s not binary. Those that are good at visual imagination do art, people without can’t draw a fucking apple from memory reasonable art is beyond many, even if they had the time to dedicate to it.
Everything else he said was on point. well eventually on point, that was a long ride.
Edit: Man, look at all these talented people telling me I could be talented too if I just tried. Some of you might find a shocking revelation in thevfact that not everyone has the ability to perform the skill you perform. Some people, like me, have put several thousand hours into trying to improve my ability to draw, and while it has improved slightly, I am still not capable of drying anything above rudimentary. Talented people find it easy to project their skill onto other people but that’s not how it works. It’s not just a feeling that you can’t do it, it’s trying for years and not being able to do anything appreciable with it. My seven-year-old had more skill out of the gate than I had after scoring around with it for 30 years. So keep on telling me that I could just do it if I’d just invest the time and make yourself feel better that you invest at the time. That’s truly helpful to me.
Uh, lots of really great painters have aphantasia. It’s very prominent in the population and 100% not a medical disability. Art is a skill. There’s people without arms that paint. Deaf people who make music. There’s blind people drawing. There’s this cool japanese girl without an arm that plays the violin. There’s all sorts of people who make art, because humans can’t not make art.
Are you going to win prices and sell work for millions of dollars, or feature at the MOMA, or play at the Superbowl half time show? Or achieve any of the inane arbitrary goalpost that people like to set for calling stuff real art. Most assuredly you won’t. Because less than 0.1% of all the people in the planet will achieve any of that. But every single child has and will be born an artist. Every child draws, sings, dances and plays spontaneously. All that is art.
If you think only people born artists can make art, congratulations, you were born an artists, every human is, go do your art. If you think only specific people with extraordinary characteristics get to make art. I’m sorry you were hurt so bad to develop such bleak worldview and poor self image.
If you do art, you’ll get good at art. If you don’t do art and instead make the slop machine manufacture expensive Styrofoam for you to chew on, then you’ll never get good at art. Regardless of your biological makeup. Being shit at doing something is the first and mandatory step for becoming good at doing something. Do it poorly until you can do it decently, then do it some more. Art is the experience of doing art. Even bad art is superior to mass consumption generated pixels.
I know a few seriously good artists that have aphantasia, being able to see things in your head is not necessary for making art.
I think your art is probably better than you think. We’re all our worst critics.
While I appreciate the pep talk, I truly think your heart is in the right place. You just claim that my artwork is better without having any view of my artwork or knowledge of my skill.
This is a very common thing that people do. You can’t conceive that someone can’t do something, so you blame them on their persistence, or their ID or their ego. I don’t know what your skills are, but it feels an awful lot like projection.
It’s not like I’m useless at art, I can sculpt 3D objects from 3D objects. I can even, with limited success, use Zbrush.
It was none of those things actually. It’s impossible to objectively judge our own artworks. We can analyze it, tell others what we think are the strong and weak points, but it’s extremely common for most people, especially when it comes to art, to judge it with a much higher degree of scrutiny that we do not reserve for others.
It’s something I’ve had to work through myself, both with my art and myself as a person. And with that comes an inherent distrust of others opinions of themselves and their work, especially when it’s excessively dismissive or pessimistic.
I often hear AI enthusiasts say that AI democratized art. As if art weren’t already democratized. Most anyone can pick up a pen, draw, write, type, move a mouse, etc. What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill. Which is why when you find out a piece of art was made by inputting some short prompt into a generator, you become disappointed. Because it would be cool, if the person actually had the skill to draw that. Pushing a few buttons to get that, not so much.
Edit:spelling and spacing
deleted by creator
What makes you want to do art? I’m just curious, because I am also someone who has bounced off of attempting to learn to do art a bunch of times, and found tracing unfulfilling (I am abstaining from the question of whether tracing is art, but I do know it didn’t scratch the itch for me).
For my part, I ended up finding that crafts like embroidery or clothing making was the best way to channel my creative inclinations, but that’s mostly because I have the heart of a ruthless pragmatist and I like making useful things. What was it that caused you to attempt to learn?
deleted by creator
What a beautiful read. I feel the same about AI art and I remember a longer talk I had with my tattoo artist: ‘I need the money so I will do AI based tattoos my clients bring to me. But they have no soul, no story, no individuality. They are not a part of you.’
I feel the same.
Also I like Oatmeal’s reference to Wabi Sabi: The perfection of imperfection in every piece of art.
At least by redrawing it, the tattoo artist is injecting (pun intended) some of the human skill and decision-making into it?
But, ugh! Who would get an AI tattoo?
And what’s the point? Let’s say I have an idea of a tattoo I want (Jack Sparrow, dressed in a McDonald’s uniform, fighting off a rabid poodle, in the style of Baroque painting), but I cannot draw. So I use AI to render it, how clever!
But wait - a tattoo artist will be physically drawing it anyway. They know how to develop concepts into sketches, don’t they?
Just get them to do it! Skip the pointless AI step!
That was a beautiful read.
But do i find myself conflicted about dismissing it as a potential technical skill all together.
I have seen comfy-ui workflows that are build in a very complex way, some have the canvas devided in different zones, each having its own prompts. Some have no prompts and extract concepts like composition or color values from other files.
I compare these with collage-art which also exists from pre existing material to create something new.
Such tools take practice, there are choices to be made, there is a creative process but its mostly technological knowledge so if its about such it would be right to call it a technical skill.
The sad reality however, is how easy it is to remove parts of that complexity “because its to hard” and barebones it to simple prompt to output. At which point all technical skill fades and it becomes no different from the online generators you find.
All of that’s great and everything, but at the end of the day all of the commercial VLM art generators are trained on stolen art. That includes most of the VLMs that comfyui uses as a backend. They have their own cloud service now, that ties in with all the usual suspects.
So even if it has some potentially genuine artistic uses I have zero interest in using a commercial entity in any way to ‘generate’ art that they’ve taken elements for from artwork they stole from real artists. Its amoral.
If it’s all running locally on open source VLMs trained only on public data, then maybe - but that’s what… a tiny, tiny fraction of AI art? In the meantime I’m happy to dismiss it altogether as Ai slop.
How is that any different from “stealing” art in a collage, though? While courts have disagreed on the subject (in particular there’s a big difference between visual collage and music sampling with the latter being very restricted) there is a clear argument to be made that collage is a fair use of the original works, because the result is completely different.
Collage art retains the original components of the art, adding layers the viewer can explore and seek the source of, if desired.
VLMs on the other hand intentionally obscure the original works by sending them through filters and computer vision transformations to make the original work difficult to backtrace. This is no accident, its designed obfuscation.
The difference is intent - VLMs literally steal copies of art to generate their work for cynical tech bros. Classical collages take existing art and show it in a new light, with no intent to pass off the original source materials as their own creations.
The original developers of Stable Diffusion and similar models made absolutely no secret about the source data they used. Where are you getting this idea that they “intentionally obscure the original works… to make [them] difficult to backtrace.”? How would an image generation model even work in a way that made the original works obvious?
Literally steal
Copying digital art wasn’t “literally stealing” when the MPAA was suing Napster and it isn’t today.
For cynical tech bros
Stable Diffusion was originally developed by academics working at a University.
Your whole reply is pretending to know intent where none exists, so if that’s the only difference you can find between collage and AI art, it’s not good enough.
Stable Diffusion? The same Stable Diffusion sued by Getty Images which claims they used 12 million of their images without permission? Ah yes very non-secretive very moral. And what of industry titans DALL-E and Midjourney? Both have had multiple examples of artists original art being spat out by their models, simply by finessing the prompts - proving they used particular artists copyright art without those artists permission or knowledge.
Stable Diffusion also was from its inception in the hands of tech bros, funded and built with the help of a $3 billion dollar AI company (Runway AI), and itself owned by Stability AI, a made for profit company presently valued at $1 billion and now has James Cameron on its board. The students who worked on a prior model (Latent Diffusion) were hired for the Stable Diffusion project, that is all.
I don’t care to drag the discussion into your opinion of whether artists have any ownership of their art the second after they post it on the internet - for me it’s good enough that artists themselves assign licences for their work (CC, CC BY-SA, ©, etc) - and if a billion dollar company is taking their work without permission (as in the © example) to profit off it - that’s stealing according to the artists intent by their own statement.
If they’re taking CC BY-SA and failing to attribute it, then they are also breaking licencing and abusing content for their profit. An VLM could easily add attributes to images to assign source data used in the output - weird none of them want to.
In other words, I’ll continue to treat AI art as the amoral slop it is. You are of course welcome to have a different opinion, I don’t really care if mine is ‘good enough’ for you.
Stable Diffusion? The same Stable Diffusion sued by Getty Images which claims they used 12 million of their images without permission? Ah yes very non-secretive very moral. And what of industry titans DALL-E and Midjourney? Both have had multiple examples of artists original art being spat out by their models, simply by finessing the prompts - proving they used particular artists copyright art without those artists permission or knowledge.
Getting sued means Getty images disagrees that the use of the images was legal, not that it was secret, nor that it was moral. Getty images are included in the LAION-5b dataset that Stability AI publicly stated they used to create Stable Diffusion. So it’s not “intentionally obscuring” as you claimed.
I don’t care to drag the discussion into your opinion of whether artists have any ownership of their art the second after they post it on the internet - for me it’s good enough that artists themselves assign licences for their work (CC, CC BY-SA, ©, etc) - and if a billion dollar company is taking their work without permission (as in the © example) to profit off it - that’s stealing according to the artists intent by their own statement.
Copying is not theft, no matter how many words you want to write about it. You can steal a painting by taking it off the wall. You can’t steal a JPG by right-clicking it and selecting “Copy Image”. That’s fundamentally different.
An VLM could easily add attributes to images to assign source data used in the output
Oh yeah? Easily? What attribution should a model trained purely on LAION-5b add to an output image if prompted with “photograph of a cat”?
In other words, I’ll continue to treat AI art as the amoral slop it is. You are of course welcome to have a different opinion, I don’t really care if mine is ‘good enough’ for you.
You can do whatever you want (within usual rules) in your personal life, but you chose to enter into a discussion.
From that discussion it’s clear that your position is rooted in bias not knowledge. That’s why you can’t point out substantial differences between AI-generated images and other techniques which re-use existing imagery, why you make up intentions and can’t back them up, and why you prefer to dismiss academics as “tech bros” instead of engaging on facts.
I was kinda against their argument at first, then I was with them and continued reading. But then they went into all sorts of detail, weighing pros and cons etc., and after reading more than half I evtl. gave up.
It seems all “why AI is bad” articles seem to go this way.
It seems all “why AI is bad” articles unwillingly even support the hype.
Fuck AI “art”, it’s not art you morons, it’s automation, which takes away real people’s jobs. The current implementations made by greedy companies also very obviously steal. 'nuff said.
I know that art is an art of it’s own and a way to express human creativity.
However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs.
The job argument is usually a stupid one.
The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.
The job argument is usually a stupid one.
The what? It’s the only one that objectively makes sense.
Ok imagine this:
You are an construction worker. The job is hard but the pay is okay.
Now robots replace your job slowly. They are cheaper and more accurate.
You can now:
-
Complain about the robots stealing your job
-
Be happy that you don’t have to do the hard work anymore.
Many people will go for 1. But the actual issue is that the social security net isn’t existent or so weak that no job means no food.
That is not the fault of technology though.
Remember that when you vote and when politicians want to cut costs by reducing payments for the unemployed.
-
I think AI art serves a different purpose from the art we talk about when we say “real art has heart” or “the process of creating the art affected me when I looked at it”.
I think about how I feel when I’m scrolling through pictures in some app on my phone - some will be memes, some will be cats, but then some will be there for artistic purposes. As I’m scrolling through, such a picture will spark a brief glimmer of emotion - “huh, that looks neat” for example. I’m not looking close and examining the brush strokes, not thinking about what troubles the artist went through, and not thinking about the process of its creation at all.
In that context I don’t think it makes much difference that it’s AI-generated. I’d kind of like to know, and I don’t want to see a dozen different outputs of the same prompt because whoever hit the button couldn’t even apply the modicum of effort require to pick their favourite, but AI-generated images are just as able to instigate that glimmer of “hey that looks cool” that any image can.
Sounds like you’re not very skilled at art appreciation.
There’s zero need to throw insults around; I made the context absolutely clear in my comment and it has nothing to do with what I do when at an art gallery or something.
Maybe some people are having an experience like they are looking at a Rembrandt when they scroll through /c/pics or something, but I’m not. Do you also shit on people for being unable to appreciate music because they put something on in the background? Is it only OK to go to concerts and immerse yourself in it? If you’re in a shop and a tune you like comes on, do you park your cart to really appreciate the depths of emotion it’s inspiring in you?
Of course you don’t.
If you think that it was an insult then that shows what shame you have for your lack of skill, not an intention on my part.
Seems like you’re not very skilled at responding meaningfully.
Well I’m not going to slap you on the back and praise you for saying the equivalent of “I just eat potato chips anyway I don’t care if the new chips are made of styrofoam they still got flavor blasted”.
Also, I totally disagree with you. If I see a neat picture someone took from getting dropped onto earth from low orbit, I’m gonna think that’s way cooler than an ai image trying to emulate the same thing, even if I’m only looking at it for a second. I’m going to think a crudely drawn parody of a meme is funnier than an ai generated imitation of a meme, even if all I’m doing is making that little exhale with the nose instead of laughing.
There’s a difference. You can tell. If you’re so Internet addled you genuinely are saying you don’t think there’s a difference, then you’ve got like, negative skills in art appreciation.
Anyone who says ai at is easy has never tried it.
Uh oh guys, we’ve got a “prompt engineer” here
