A good point about artists and their debate with AI
(twitter.com)
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Fuck em. These artist didn't give two shits when robots replaced factory workers, or manual laborers. Why should I care that some useless fuck taping a banana to the wall will get replaced by an app?
But… but art is different. It takes a human soul to make art. No I’m not religious and I don’t believe humans have a soul but it takes a soul!
Of course none of those silly menial jobs that are clearly beneath me take a soul so they don’t matter. Art is different because I’ve invested my entire life into it and fuck those Trump supporters anyways!
Both can be true. A bunch of human artists are retarded weirdos. Humans still make the best art and, while AI art is intriguing, I do think it takes some of the magic that makes "art" "art" out of it. Art is, in my opinion, intrinsically human.
It does bring up some interesting philosophical questions though, about art and humanity as a whole. What is the correct answer, when AI does do art "better" than the greatest human artists? And...what about when they do everything else better too? Are humans just obsolete?
I know we've struggled with the questions of automation for much longer than the recent AI discussion, but we're definitely getting closer and closer to "replacing" humans, and that does raise some hard questions.
Back to art...my Luddite take; AI art is interesting and cool, but isn't art in quite the same way as traditional art. Call me old fashioned, call me a human supremacist or protectionist, whatever, but that's how I feel. Humans make art*, computers don't...exactly.
* And pretentious trash they call art, to OP's point.
Eh, I view AI art as just another step in the advancement of technology personally.
Most artists these days use digital tools to make art, which very much automates a ton of the process anyways.
If an artist uses the shape, line, magic wand, mirror, pattern, filters, and fill tools in Photoshop or whatever, how much of the work are they actually doing themselves?
(not to mention modeling software and/or reference images, I know an artist who just makes her own 3D models based on reference images and traces over those so she's not technically tracing the reference images directly )
If AI is doing 98% of the work, and digital editing software does like, 60-80% of the work for a typical digital artist, is it really that much of a jump?
Another artist I've seen who is extremely skilled was (unsurprisingly) also capable of making some incredible stuff with AI too, far better than the usual slop to the point where you probably wouldn't know it was AI.
You still have to have a sense of taste and aesthetics and restraint to get something good out of AI art tools. If you don't, or you're Indian, you end up making the same ugly repetitive shit you see in the comments of every Civitai model page.
Those tools don't actually do the work for you.
That's like saying the different brushes (or any other tool in literal any job) you use does the work for you. Power tools aren't doing your job for you. They make it easier and quicker. Even a CNC machine isn't doing your job for you.
But that's precisely the point. AI is another tool. An extremely overhyped tool that only produces dogshit in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. It has it's uses but like always it can't actually replace human input.
The only artists who need to fear AI are those who are so shit at their job that shitty AI art can actually replace them. Because 'art' fully generated by AI is generally dogshit.
Art is stagnant, that's why you see things like banana on wall.
Wittgenstein did a number on them and Foucault solidified being a subversive retard as the evolution of art, artists (even pop artists) haven't recovered since, they think making trascendental art is useless and lowbrow
The art scene maybe. Art is art, though, and can be whatever people create.
It is sad though that, by and large, good/great art won't ever be popular in the current zeitgeist. So I agree with you on that; modern nonsense has ruined a bunch of the stuff surrounding art, which has diminished the art scene, and popular art.
Well that and fucking underage boys.
Banana on a wall is money laundering. Post modern dadaist "art" is tax evasion and money laundering.
A bunch of turned-off Dell Windows 95s aren't sitting in the corner of a storage closet spontaneously forming art. (If anything, that sounds like an "artist art" exhibit).
Someone picks up a paintbrush, balances an easel, puts hair to palette to canvas.
Someone picks up a digipen, powers their tablet, puts silicone to glass.
Someone picks up a 4090, accumulates loras and prompts, puts photoshop and inpaint.
When does "art" cease to become "art"? When does "artist" cease to become "artist". In all three cases, the "artist" has viewed thousands of works of art, studied their dimensions and what makes art popular/good or not, and applied those learnings to the result. They copy shortcuts and "secret techniques". They trace, sketch, record images to their minds for reference later.
If you're against AI art, you should also be against the standard idea of painting on canvas. Can you imagine not making your own paints? Not making your own paper? How is it even art if such processes are automated for you?
Some AI outputs are fundamentally still art because it's genuine human expression, but the automation of a vast portion of the art does limit its capacity for expression as well. Automated processes are great for efficiency, but limited in some aspects as creative options.
When I get the AI contest up and running, expressiveness will be weighted equal or greater to quality of detail.
I will say, I don't think art is supposed to be efficient. Part of art is that it is, to some extent, pointless. It's not about doing it the best way.
Good point, but if something is supposed to be pointless - because that produces materially different results - it is no longer actually pointless. Lol
Andy Warhol is a perfect example for efficiency. Not saying I am a fan but we've all seen some of his famous pieces, he made it all an efficient machine to produce works some people consider art. I could see AI be similar, different, easier and faster expression but an expression nonetheless.
I can't say I've noticed any art produced in the past 10 years, let alone 'the best art'.
Every single piece of fanart you’ve ever seen of a character from a show/game/movie/etc
well....to a point
agree with the overall sentiment, though, and certainly anime has maintained a relatively high standard of excellence.
Hey! I spotted the one guy who hasn't watched "Frieren: Beyond Journey's End" 😁
There's all sorts of great art made every year across every medium. Now finding it is not easy as there's endless mountains of dreck to climb over to get to it.
I find the most western influencers whether they are voice actors or artists to be melodramatic and narcissistic. These two in particular happen to be the most vocal against AI. And when AI takes their jobs, it seems like not a big loss.
I don't hate the sand one.
The bottom bucket sand are the men who Western society is built on. Disenfranchise a handful of those individual grains of sand and you get a collapse.
The top bucket is the people who support nothing but will fall the farthest and cry about it. But the bottom bucket doesn't tip over. It just stops holding up the others.
I feel I should have been smoking my pipe and having deep contemplation as I read your comment. Good take on it
Sometimes the "explanations" are even more artistic than the "art" itself!
Ages ago I saw a video of some "performance art" that was... interesting? But after it was done the artist explained a bunch of stuff and I was like "Oh? ok, that's better." (It was still nonsense, just not as bad as I thought)
I love that one. Also how he pauses for a few seconds then throws his hands up like, that all folks.
These are Michelangelos like refugees in Europe are doctors and engineers.
Like how “trans women are women”
Most modern art, especially performative art like this, is just a money laundering scheme with the added bonus of seeing how retarded they can take it for the laughs.
Artists ruined Art. Simple as.
Them starving is poetic justice.
It shouldn't be regarded as high art, but I like the idea of an old guy knocking over buckets of sand to polite applause. It has umarell vibes.
There are also real artists who are doing real shit. Don't minimalize it by showing people doing this sort of performance art bullshit. There are also graphic artists, animators, creators of actual stories whose jobs are at stake
The entire AI art debate is friend (right wing guys who want to generate attractive anime boobs) vs enemy (leftists who think they're entitled to make you pay $200/image for ugly gay crap).
There is good art and then there's this... horrible avant-garde form of it. The later should not be used it justify the destruction of the former. This strawman has downsyndrome. What really passes me off is AI is directly affecting the good artists and isn't going to even touch these asshats
I like this one
MAGA: Make Art Great Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC9LA66YyoE
Bet you a shiny penny the guy who shoved his hand into the charcoal bucket then started to smear the dust around did NOT intend for the paper to crumple
Likely.
Hey, I like the guy at the end with the buckets!
His name is Roman Signer and he's fairly well known and his art tends to be like this. He once crashed a kayak into a wall with elastic cords.
Lab experiments, and art day must not have made everyone's day growing up.
AI can't create art. It can digest existing art and poop out "new" derivative shit. Modern "AI" is just copyright whitewashing.