If you really understand what your tools do (not how tools do it), you are a true professional (in this case, an artist). You use some tools to achieve a certain effect and you know what it will be like. AI “artists” don’t know what AI will do for them in the next moment. At least something like that.
Relevant (Youtube)
5000 years later:
“And here we see a fertility figure, commonly worshipped in the late Microplastic era”.
Late microplastic era?
Once our society collapses we will produce way less plastic.
“And this one is the goddess of youthfulness in adults. According to remaining Tweets, while she looks like she’s a 10 year old, she’s actually a 9000 year old dragon, who chooses to have this form, and is actually able to give consent to sexual encounters, and is so promisculous she needs frequent corrections. This cult seems to be widely persecuted according to other tweets, in the form of what they called as “cancel culture”, since many outsiders thought it would encourage the harm of actual children, and some participants of this cult unfortunately had such occurences.”
This rocks
It’s the one rock actually
“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”
I think this is kinda an empty sentiment. Nobody is trying to stop artists from making art. They’re just trying to stop paying a lot of them for their art.
They didn’t claim anyone was trying to stop them from making art. In the context of the rest of the post, that is about how a lack of a specific tool or software won’t stop artists from creating art.
You’re spot on about them trying to stop paying people for art, though.
I’m a digital chef, I prompt the dish I want into doordash and it shows up in my home in 45 minutes.
Hey, you forgot to say “using AI”
If you aren’t using more water to process the transaction then you are to grow the food, then can you even call yourself a modern food delivery company?
By coincidence, a friend just posted this elsewhere:
This is the equivalent of “you should learn to do all types of complex math shit in your head because you won’t always have a calculator with you”. Except you can now whip out your phone.
Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve. It’s a bit like encouraging people to take apprenticeships in chimney sweeping or lessons on how to be a royal jester. Do what makes you happy, sure - but be prepared to do it as a hobby not as a job. Especially if the machines can outbid you.
Some jobs become obsolete as time passes. If artists are next to be this century’s town criers, that’s okay. We’ll all become obsolete sooner or later.
Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve.
You mean like they had to do for virtually all of human history? I can imagine it quite well.
If artists are next to be this century’s town criers, that’s okay.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. As if art was meaningless to humanity.
I suppose you would have an AI paint over the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
For virtually all of human history people brought their laundry to the riverside and beat it on rocks. This weird puritanism that “only humans should be allowed to draw pictures” is ridiculous.
If an artist can create something hand-made and unique then they’ll be able to continue doing so. Same for people who make art for the love of making art, no one’s going to stop them. But that 90% of “artists” who create corporate logos or generic furry porn may disappear, I’m not going to shed a tear.
That is in no way the same thing and I said nothing about being allowed to do anything.
If you do not look at a painting like A Starry Night and feel the human connection between you and Van Gogh’s awe at the night sky or look at the painting in the cave in Lascaux and understand that you are looking through the eyes of someone who lived thousands of years ago, I don’t know what to say. I feel sorry for you, I guess.
There is no connection like that with AI-generated art because there is no human or emotion or even eyes involved. It’s not the same and it never will be the same unless AI become as aware and able to understand the universe as we are. I won’t be holding my breath.
Over it? No. I’m not in the habit of destroying works of art. But if in a few hundred years it needs to be restored, I’d prefer an AI does it instead of a human.
Is your stance that art can only be done by humans?
No, my stance is that you are trivializing art and its significance and its connection to our humanity.
Ah, okay.
Being good at prompting AI to generate art is like being good at using a search engine to find a specific picture.
Search engineAI artists!It’s a lot like commissioning something from an artist. You have to describe what you want, with the style, details and mood you want to see, then maybe go back and forth a few times until it’s just right. Doing that well is a skill, so are things like art direction. But replacing the humans executing on the direction with a machine doesn’t suddenly make the directing human an artist.
You’re being facetious but searching is a skill too. A simple skill but still a skill.
Nobody said it wasn’t a skill, just that it isn’t the same thing as creating art. You know, the thing that artists do.
So you’re just bothered by the use of the term “artist” to describe it?
Subway calls their employees “sandwich artists”, but I don’t see anyone freaking out about how those people aren’t really creating art.
So you’re just bothered by the use of the term “artist” to describe it?
I’m not bothered, just pointing out that you are entirely missing the point of the meme.
Subway calls their employees “sandwich artists”, but I don’t see anyone freaking out about how those people aren’t really creating art.
Everyone mocks Subway for calling their employees ‘artists’.
Can confirm. I mock subway for calling their employees “artists”.
Also, if they can’t meet the legal Irish definition of bread, then they certainly shouldn’t be calling the whole thing a sandwich. That “ham” wasn’t sliced, it was extruded into that shape.
Unholy meat obelisk intensifies
They work to create an appealing looking and tasting sandwich and make a bit of a show out of the process. It might not be super impressive or extraordinary, but I suppose it can be considered somewhat of an art
And the best they could come up with was anthro shit?
Funni
“Art”
This is a true triumph of the human spirit.
As much as I like this post, it ain’t true for digital 3d artists. While you can lay down some objects and stuff, it’s still extremely limited.
I could be wrong but my impression has been a lot of 3D artists often have sculpting backgrounds or parallel interests because they carry a lot of the same general compositional principles.
Even a 3D artist who has never used clay before is going to be able to make something from it that looks good, just because so many of the same artistic principles and methods of thinking about how to modify what you’re working on to get the result you want still apply.
Give an AI ‘artist’ anything other than a plagiarism machine and suddenly they can’t do anything, because they don’t want to actually put in the time and effort to understand art beyond ‘this one looks good and this one doesn’t’.
What are the limitations? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering what’s on your mind that couldn’t be made in diorama form
True it could be made into diorama form, that would require a different set of skill to pull off, something you’ll need to learn more in depth than just picking up a pencil
Are 3d artists the same thing as AI bros?
No, they are not.
No of course. I’m just saying the post doesn’t cover all of the digital artists that aren’t shitty
It doesn’t need to, because the post is only about AI ‘artists’, not digital artists.
No no, it’s on point. All the digital artists should be covered. They could claim that if 3d artists can’t do art without a computer, then according to this post, they shouldn’t be called artists too.
Digital 3d artists can generally also do physical sculptures because one is just a digital version of the other. They still understand how shapes in a 3d environment work, and how sizes and proportions work. All they need is a little clay.
People who do colors and textures digitally also understand how they work in the real world. They might be better using digitsl topls, but artists understand the process and can work with multiple mediums just by applying the same processes.
AI ‘artists’ use word prompts, which does not translate into the real world.
Among other criticisms, “using technology” does not mean something is “digital”. The example on the rock seems to be analog from everything in the post above.
They weren’t saying that the rock art was digital art.
They’re saying that as an artist whose medium of choice is digital, they can still make art in other mediums and that any artist will be able to do the same, no matter their medium.
So as a digital artist I…
Sure sounds to me like they are claiming this is digital.
And it’s just gatekeeping art. I wouldn’t tell a painter they aren’t a real artist just because they can’t play guitar. And all art forms have long history of passing on information across generations. The saying “good artists borrow, great artists steal” is far older than any computer.
There’s a lot of problems with AI in general, but most of these complaints I see about AI art in particular are really misdirected complaints about how terrible copyright and other intellectual property laws are. For almost all of human history until about a century ago it was common and encouraged to take and build upon the ideas of others- it’s only because capitalists found a way to profit off of restricting ideas that we started to do so.
Did you see that there is a word that comes after digital?
A digital artist—that is, an artist whose medium of choice is digital—is still able to make art in other mediums without ceasing to be a digital artist. That doesn’t make the other art digital, and they didn’t claim that it did.
If typing in prompts to generate images from the stolen work of artists makes someone an artist, then so does commissioning art and giving feedback based on how you want it changed. If you’re not okay calling that person an artist, ask yourself why you’re fine with calling AI ‘artists’ that.
Once you take a digital photo of the art and upload it, it becomes digital art… If you like.
But really you’re either being intentionally obtuse or you’ve realised you misinterpreted the statement and are doubling down and trying to dig your way out of a hole.
“digital artist” is a term people use for someone that makes digital art as their primary form of art (using programs like Photoshop, krita, or Clip Studio Paint as an example).
Similarly, “digital art” is art made using those same tools as much as “traditional art” is art made without those tools. These are all just labels people give to be specific within a group.
Nobody is saying a digital artist isn’t an artist.
They used their digits to make it!
You could absolutely use AI to make art. Almost all AI content you find online isn’t that though
There was a neat video where a math youtuber alternated the goal prompt for an AI image generator between two different sentences, while rearranging the pieces of the image, to generate images that were jigsaw puzzles that could be put together one way to make the image for the first prompt and a different way to make the image for the second. I think it was on Numberphile
If you take away an artist’s brushes, they can’t make art without making new brushes.
All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.
I don’t like AI art, but I don’t think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.
Those “caveman” hand prints in caves aren’t ancient art?
Cave art artist are definitely real artists, for sure.
As I said I don’t see any need to police who counts as an artist.
In the OP their entire medium and tool set was taken away and they still made art. Not sure how that’s not demonstrating perfectly that an artist can make art no matter what they have on hand.
There are a ton of other types of art than those using brushes. Hell, the example is using something other than a brush.
As a digital artist his brush is a stylus pen, but he can put that down and use a whittled burnt charcoal pencil, because they’re both largely brush-like objects. A prompt-wrangler can’t go into their backyard and whip up a midjourney-like object to use in the same way.
But I don’t think complexity of tools makes a real artist.
If the argument is that digital artists have learnt the skill of drawing and therefore count as real artists, well some percentage of prompt-wranglers can draw, and some percentage of conceptual, ‘outsider’ and other artists can’t draw.
Almost all professionally trained artists can draw, but I hope we can agree that professionally trained doesn’t = real artist either.
I think “plagiarists aren’t real artists” is a much sounder argument than this, but mostly I don’t think there’s much sense in policing who or what is a real artist. Even about stuff I don’t like.
If the argument is that digital artists have learnt the skill of drawing and therefore count as real artists, well some percentage of prompt-wranglers can draw
If I’m a chef, and have the ability to make gourmet meals, but I doordash a burger from Applebees, I still haven’t cooked the burger. Similarly, if you can draw and you ask an AI to make an image for you, you haven’t drawn the image. You’ve commissioned the image. Your skill in drawing may allow you to prompt for more specific changes, but it does not mean you drew it.
Plenty of artists don’t make their art in that way. Most of the grand masters of the past had underlings who did most of the painting, and since Duchamp found objects have been considered valid art.
I wouldn’t consider someone who didn’t do the painting themselves to be the artist of a painting either. You could call them the art director or something, but they are at most a coauthor of the art. They are not making all of the artistic decisions. That’s pretty similar to AI art.
Found objects have about the same artistic value as well-made AI art too, yeah. You’re going through a selection process to find something that appears pleasing. I think AI art is more similar to directing, but found art isn’t far off.
piss in the snow
Finger paint in blood (your own ideally)
Talks about real art being unique and then goes and draws the most generic, cliched furry shit that looks exactly like a million others.
They didnt say it was unique. They said “AI artists” claim to be artists like digital artists because they both use technology, then went on to show that a real artist can make art with anything and that these “AI artists” need their prompts or they can’t do it.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who can both draw and type in prompts, just like there are plenty of people who can both draw and use Photoshop.
The more accurate comparison would be people who can both draw and pay other people to use photoshop for them based on what they tell them that they want. Outsourcing the art making process and giving feedback based on what you’re presented with has always been an option, AI ‘artists’ just don’t want to pay for it or admit that’s what they’re doing.
And yet, not being an artist, I couldn’t possibly draw that.
Ahem, that is scalie shit tyvm.
That. And the famous equation rendering == art. Like, raw art? not art! Naive art? Not art! Performance ?not art.
Is performing not rendering? Wtf is “raw art”? And being naive doesn’t stop you from rendering. None of your examples make any sense.
My bad, raw art was a crude translation from my language. Wikipedia tell me you call it outsider art. And naive art is pretty much define by a lack of rendering techniques.
