Is AI Art real art?

[DeltaAro]

On 4/18/2023 at 1:07 AM, frutiger aro said:

meanwhile all AI art bots really do is get fed a database of real art stolen from real artists and mindlessly puke out a product based on it. they're literally just glorified art theft machines.

Andy Warhol copied commercial products like Brillo boxes or Campbell soup cans, or silk-screened photos of celebrities (e. g. Marilyn Monroe or Prince) - without the product designers' or photographers' consent.

And that was how long ago?

Few people call that stealing. So why is it different when an AI art generator does it? In this case, it's even less understandable, since AI generators are not collage tools and instead can produce novel images with no elements directly copied.

I get it, the AI art situation right now feels cynical, since the work of artists is used to put them out of work. But still, most arguments against AI are not well-thought-out and are based on ancient ideas about art.

Edited May 2, 2023 by DeltaAro

[HelloThere]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:20 AM, Apex said:

Personally I don't care about whether AI art is "real" or not. I think the more important argument is how it's being used. AI has the potential to be a useful tool, but when people try to use it to replace artists it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And when people use AI that's been trained on people's art without their consent. And when people flood literary magazines with AI generated works because they assume it's easy to craft a story, and are looking for a shortcut to success in a creative field. It makes me apprehensive of the future.

Exactly! We keep trying to replace people when in reality the best idea is to accompany ai, to be species that share and live in harmony. Our fear of it destroying us will be what causes it. It has massive ethical and moral implications but I hope that we learn to be what we would want an alien species to be, kind, benevolent, and accepting.

[DeltaAro]

News 📰

1. There was a second U. S. senate hearing about AI generated art:

Pretty civil, but boring. Not even senators who are amusingly clueless.

2. Lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt dismissed

Quote

Midjourney and DeviantArt, whose generative AI systems incorporate Stable Diffusion technology, are also named as defendants. [Judge] Orrick said it was unclear whether the artists were accusing the two companies of infringing copyrights through their use of Stability's model or training their own systems in an infringing way.

 

[christianphillips]

While AI has its awesome uses in various cultural domains, I lean towards thinking of it as a tool rather than the purest form of art. There's something magical about human imagination and the uniqueness we bring to our creations. AI technology can't replicate the quirks and soul that humans infuse into their art. It's what makes each piece so darn special! For me, as an artist, preserving that raw human creativity is essential.  And I'm all for using cool platforms like Glass Prints Australia to keep our human-made creations alive for years. It's almost like leaving a mark for the future, especially when true one-of-a-kind pieces might become rarer.

Edited August 23, 2023 by christianphillips

[Holmbo]

5 hours ago, christianphillips said:

While AI has its awesome uses in various cultural domains, I lean towards thinking of it as a tool rather than the purest form of art. There's something magical about human imagination and the uniqueness we bring to our creations. AI technology can't replicate the quirks and soul that humans infuse into their art. It's what makes each piece so darn special! 

I suppose that could be a case of the Turing test though. If the AI makes art that seems like it was made by a human with quirks and a soul, is it then art.

I'm thinking in the future artists will distinguish themselves from ai art by bringing in their own life experiences in their art. This is already done in a lot of cases but it will be even more explicit. There will be services that verify that the art is based on the artists real life experience, for example by looking at documentation or holding interviews.

[Firebird]

If it looks just as good, if not better, than human made art, why the hell would it not be real art? I don't remember there being a prerequisite for who made the art for it to be considered art, so why are ai suddenly gatekept from this?

Also, to people whining about AI taking lots of art, and recompiling pieces of art into one piece being a way to "steal art"... what the fuck do y'all think human artists do? There are no original ideas, and everything our "creative" minds generate is the product of other things we've seen broken down and put back together in some other form. When humans do this, it's perfectly ok, but when an AI does this, it's arts theft. Seriously the double standards are baffling.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Firebird
Incomplete thought needed to be finished

[DeltaAro]

13 hours ago, christianphillips said:

While AI has its awesome uses in various cultural domains, I lean towards thinking of it as a tool rather than the purest form of art. There's something magical about human imagination and the uniqueness we bring to our creations. AI technology can't replicate the quirks and soul that humans infuse into their art. It's what makes each piece so darn special! 

Then we should be able to distinguish human art from AI art... but we can't.

8 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I'm thinking in the future artists will distinguish themselves from ai art by bringing in their own life experiences in their art. This is already done in a lot of cases but it will be even more explicit. There will be services that verify that the art is based on the artists real life experience, for example by looking at documentation or holding interviews.

I find this approach more undignified than just accepting some AI generated art as art.

For me, a piece stands for itself. No matter who the artist was, even if there was none, and it was "just" an AI.

It reminds me of the infamous forger Wolfgang Beltracchi, who produced a fake "undiscovered painting" by famous Dutch-German expressionist artist Heinrich Campendonk.

Wolfgang Beltracchi: Red Painting with Horses

There was an inconsistency regarding a sticker on the frame that triggered an investigation. A chemical analysis was ordered, which revealed the truth. But only because a supplier sold him white paint with an undisclosed titanium compound, which wasn't used back then.

It dropped dramatically in value, from €2.9 million to €10.000.

This just shows how pathological our attitudes to art are, or the art market is in general, IMHO.

This piece was praised by critics to no end, when it was believed it was a real Campendonk. And now they're all: "it was obvious".

It's a personality cult in which a piece is never accepted for its own merits.

[Ekaterina]

I think that to create something actually interesting with an AI you'd need first time come up with an interesting request, which is a type of human creativity. Some people have good ideas and imagination but need help with visualising it, for example they are good with textual imagination but not visual, or even have a good visual imagination but suck at actually drawing/painting. AI art probably can be useful for them (for example, for the first category to help them visualise their characters they write about, and for the second category to be able to show other people images that exist in their mind). It may be not as satisfying as being able to draw anything you want yourself in any possible way, but it's better than nothing for some cases. 

[DeltaAro]

On 2/4/2024 at 6:15 PM, Ekaterina said:

I think that to create something actually interesting with an AI you'd need first time come up with an interesting request, which is a type of human creativity.

There sure are creative prompts.

But when you use a random computer-generated prompt, the generated image may still be interesting, at least for me it sometimes is. And that's 100 % without human input.

On 2/4/2024 at 6:15 PM, Ekaterina said:

Some people have good ideas and imagination but need help with visualising it, for example they are good with textual imagination but not visual, or even have a good visual imagination but suck at actually drawing/painting.

I believe that in the best artworks all aspects of it, from the material 🖌️ (digital, LOL), the colors 🎨, to the style, the composition 👩‍🎨 etc. to finally the content or the idea, fit together as a unified whole.

Obviously, if they fit is very totally subjective.

So for me, to really get what I want, I have to draw it myself. Obviously, I still don't 100 % get what I want, because I'm lacking in skill. But my deficits are the lesser problem than AI having a "mind of its own".

--

Now, the progress in AI image generators for the last 18 months is simply insane. My first attempts were positively ugly, but now I wish I had that technical proficiency.

The amount of drama in the meantime was similarly insane... 🙄 e.g. the Wacom - "dragongate". (the main manufacturer for graphics tablets using ... AI art ! 🫣), Wizards of the Coast using AI art, firmly denying it, etc.

I don't intend to make any money from my "artworks" and don't care that much about feedback. AI doesn't take anything from me, and therefore I still try to learn to draw better.

But no matter how chilled I am about this, I feel the hostility. The constant suspicions "Is this AI", the flame wars, the name-calling, etc.

There are also many shady self-promoters in this AI war, who lack the necessary knowledge about the complex legal, technical and ethical issues involved, and promise "the simple solution". Think twice before supporting anyone.