My first ai awareness was the film which broke my heart .(I sob every time at Pinocchio) I am hoping that all AI iterations find the humanity that they always seem to be seeking.
AI which is just cleaver algorithms, not Digital Intelligence, and that's directly from my dad who was one of the big programmers in his day responsible for such projects like SABER, all programed by him and his team in machine language, yup, that's 1s and 0s.. That's hard core ... BTW...
Any way this AI has no soul and never will... Art in all forms talks and comes directly from our soul... All those 'artist' that are worried about AI need to focus more on developing their skills and practicing their craft.
A good artist in any field will never be replaced, and an employer that just uses AI to cut Corners will get just that a product with cut corners
This art gatekeeping notion is absurd, because it implies that we artists are some kind of different subspecies of the human race. No. Nobody evolves with the Photoshop or Blender or Photography gene, these things are human inventions we all put the work in to become good at them. The only people I can see this argument working for is people who are GENUINELY disabled and maybe AI tools can help them get the images they have in their head out into the world more easily. I would not fault someone who does not have use of their hands/arms using generative tools to assist them. But I digress.
Another tangent this reminds me of is that we need to stop calling AI artists 'AI artists'. When my clients ask me to make a logo, they're not graphic designers, if I ask chat GPT to write haikus, I'm not a poet, so if I make AI content, I am not an artists. Perhaps 'AI producer' would be better - I make music using cello and drum software, but I wouldn't call myself a cellist or drummer, I'm a music producer. But even 'AI producer' feels off; there are many more creative decisions being made as a music producer than just writing prompts into a visual slot machine.
I would like to ask you though Kyle, how do you feel about AI being used as a resource for photobashing? By which I mean that you cut out bits out of AI renders, bash them together and paint over it; same as regular photobashing but using AI images instead of photos. It's the one example I can think of where using any AI result is ethical because it's transformative and there's no raw AI left at the end (if you do it right and ACTUALLY PAINT OVER IT with your own manual artistry, not by doing the infamous Shad Brooks way). The same way Warhol used other people's photos but manipulated them so much that they became new works of art.
I know you posed this question to Kyle but I hope you don't mind me jumping in ;0)
it's interesting you used Warhol as an example because he also is credited with saying
there is nothing new everything is borrowed taken or stolen from somewhere else
and then repurposed
to answer your query it's all fair game because in the end it's the human touch that gets put on it
again the interaction with our soul which is our spark from God interacts and by that interaction it changes the original into something else which is unique and created by us. :0)
I don't mind at all, thank you! I've been asking this question a lot because I've recently started photobashing and found AI as a great resource, so I'm interested in people's opinions. And I do mean as a resource, I rework the images so much there's barely a raw AI pixel left.
And yeah the counter-example to Warhol I like to use is Richard Prince who literally takes screenshots of Instagram posts and photos of other people's photos and sells them for absurd prices and contributes nothing of his own visually and practically nothing conceptually.
Never heard of Richard but what he is doing kind of reminds me of an artist in the mid-80s Mark Kostabi from New York
What this guy did is he would hire people at minimum wage to paint for him sometimes he provide a sketch for them to color in or to paint it in on canvas, sometimes nothing.
his shtick was he would show up to the gallery on opening night with the paintings hung up on the wall that he did not paint that he did not design that he did not really put anything into
he would then approach the buyer and point out, you see this piece of work... I've never seen it before in my life before tonight, I didn't even paint it, and it's not even signed...
you can buy it for $100,000 now before I sign it or you can pay $200,000 after I sign it
this whole concept at that time was showing the Ridiculousness of how art had devalued into just a money-making scheme with no soul or Direction and in his early 20s he made a fortune
it's interesting to read about him now and how he's revered as this great surreal artist of his time but his roots were basically giving the finger to the art world and in return he made a lot of money pointing out the very hypocrisy of the industry... LoL
AI Producer is accurate. If you know comfyUI that’s the thing people are doing. It’s like a synthesiser for pixels. If you all know just Midjourney of course, I know where the hate is coming from.
I do know comfyUI. When I use AI, it was Automatic1111 WebUI and ComfyUI, from what I can tell, is essentially that, but because it uses nodes it's more flexible. At the end of the day it's still a slot machine, but at that level of complexity I could see why you could be called an 'AI producer'. The more interesting question is what are people who use stuff like Krea and use img2img drawing to control the AI result? Or for example what if an artist trained an AI model using his own art, then used realtime img2img tech to make art using it. That might actually qualify as an 'AI artist'. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me personally so long as people are actually infusing their own creative decisions and style into the finished product and not letting a machine do the creative work for them.
Funny and good article, thank you Kyle. I am both an artist (the traditional kind that was initiated with the mystical paddle) and also use AI tools to generate art, as I work in marketing. I really believe AI tools and traditional art can exist side by side, and my practice as both an artist and a marketer has benefited from this combination. I've heard non-sense from both sides. On one hand you have people who generate abominations using AI that they call art (no, that portrait of a man with 2.5 legs, 7 fingers on each hand and goat shaped pupils does not constitute good art, unless of course you meant it that way, which here isn't the case 99% of the time). They (re)set the bar really low for what art should be. On the other hand, I've also seen deeply insecure artists going to such extremes that they call for the ban of all artistic AI tools, having tried none themselves, following the angry mob mentally blindly. Both extremes are problematic as they promote ignorance.
So thank you for being a voice of reason and moderation within the wilderness. We need more of that.
thanks for this post, glad to know you are still keeping the flame alive in the flood of all this AI "democracy"' urgh how i loathe the abuse of that term, it doesnt democratize art it just devalues artists and the creative process (largely by the use of AI by big business to further depress the working condtions and rights of those who are still human) I can accept that there will those whose creative spirit can transform AI art into something unique, but anything good even that they do, will just also be soon swallowed up by the flood and turned into derivative garbage that might look nice here and there but generally just blunts any effect art can have on the public imagination.
AI art is just another means for the status quo to steal our souls
you saw this with the analog synthesizers when they first came out everybody wanted one
then the digital synthesizers came out and everybody sold their analog gear to get digital ones
now everyone wants the analog gear and they're willing to pay 10 to 20 times more for the analog synthesizer
I also saw this with the introduction of digital CDs and then DAT, then Mp3s... Etc... and now the true audio files are going back to vinyl and tubes because of the warmth of the sound because of the Soul that they can hear in the music
I think in the end those that really appreciate art and are willing to pay a fair price for art WILL want the real thing
I guess it's similar to going to McDonald's for a hamburger OR going to a mom and pop restaurant and getting a real meal.
Using the above example reminds me when Eddie Murphy the comedian was talking about when he was a child he always wanted McDonald's and his mom would say we can't afford that
I can make you something better at home
she would then go to the store get some ground meat some white bread a ketchup, and mustard, Etc
Sge would proceed to make the hamburger at home. she would present it to Eddie this hamburger, which was made with white bread not even hamburger buns, and the ketchup was soaking through the bread so the bread was pink in color, and Eddie would cry and grudgingly eat his Burger
he then said once he became successful and he could afford McDonald's anytime he went through a phase where he ate McDonald's a lot and then one day it dawned on him...
they're not that tasty, and he ended up going to his mom's house and asking her to make him the hamburger of his childhood with ketchup soaked bread.
Thanks for sharing this Kyle. Also, considering this statement comes from someone arguably being a public face for Adobe as a company constitutes a powerful declaration of intentions on the company's part. AI may be the genie out of the magic lamp now, but the kind many professionals could certainly agree with is the kind that augments and empowers their existing capabilities, not the kind pretending to replace them at their jobs and competences. Now we need upper managements bedazzled by the AI siren songs of maximizing profits with a skeleton crew to come back to their senses...
Thank you so, SO much for sharing all these resources. I have recently picked up drawing again after so many years of self-doubt. I've been learning whatever I can from online resources, and your tutorials and newsletter have really helped me improve my skills. I'm so grateful I found you! I really can't thank you enough for sharing your insights, and of course all the freebies. You made my morning! :)
Once upon a time, not very long ago, I read something similar about digital artists. The main idea was that digital art is not art. Has everyone already forgotten about this?
There is only one rule - there are no rules. No one owes anything to anyone.
You can call a taxi, you can hire a driver, you can buy and drive a car, or you can get into a taxi driven by a robot. After all, your goal is to get from point A to point B - that is, to do your job and earn money. I haven’t heard cries of indignation about the lack of horse-drawn carriages on the roads for a long time :-)
We all want to earn money and live comfortably; no one wants to go the way of Van Gogh.
And if I say artist, I mean people like them: van Gogh, Morandi, Klee, Cezanne, Basquiat.
If the crowd doesn't want to buy you, you won't beat the crowd. But the trouble is that artists for the most part do not want Van Gogh’s fame, they want the income of the salon favorites of the crowd.
How can you stretch the rules of life of real artists dedicated to their path onto people who serve big business and also call themselves artists?
And if possible, then we are all artists. If you allowed yourself to draw in Photoshop or Procreate, then you can give others permission to draw in Leonardo or Automatic1111.
No offense, just business, nothing personal.
I will say more, a real artist will not read this article and will not leave a comment under it. These people solve completely different problems and are not bothered by such trifles.
Does it matter to you what others think about whether you're an artist? I think no. If that's the case, why would your opinion on who qualifies as an artist be more important? People create for various reasons: enjoyment, financial gain, or even recognition. Does the label others assign them truly matter?
If artists determined who among them qualifies as an artist and whose work deserves a million-dollar price tag, it would be an interesting (perhaps even entertaining) spectacle.
The key question here is whether we're discussing the right to be called an artist or the right to work as an artist.
It seems that the concern lies more with competition in a professional setting, rather than individuals pursuing artistic hobbies personally. This suggests the focus is on professional recognition and financial gain, not the act of artistic creation itself.
p.s.
Why didn't you like my analogy of the emergence of digital art and the emergence of generative art?
You've found your niche in digital creativity and now you're championing it and calling it art.
Others will find themselves in AI art and will defend it.
pps I apologize for my English, perhaps I am not expressing my thoughts clearly enough.
I also think that, algorithms do not possess intelligence on their own. The intelligence lies with the human operator who formulates the task, controls the process, and provides feedback and direction to the AI regarding image generation. Creating high-quality, commercial-grade AI art requires significant human effort. Without human input, the results would be random and unrefined. It is not simply a matter of pressing a button and letting the AI do all the work.
I personally oppose the deliberate use or even mention of specific artists' names when creating AI-generated images. I see no point in doing so. In my humble opinion, it would be beneficial if this technology truly brought something new to the art world. However, for now, it seems to be merely a more advanced Photoshop tool for specific tasks.
Speaking of signatures on artworks, I вспомнил how artists in the past did not consider it beneath them to sign a work in which the bulk of the work was done by their apprentices. The same applies here. AI is not a master, but rather your apprentice. You teach, guide, and direct, and then you also correct the result based on your own vision of beauty and your goals.
Furthermore, if a human does not intervene in the generated result, other people may not find any beauty in the work. Perhaps this is the problem. AI could potentially create a new direction in art, but people may not see the beauty in it.
In any case, I like my new analogy of AI-generated results with a painting done by apprentices. The master decides what to do next.
However, it may turn out that the real true artists in this world are the inventors of new technologies and devices. They are the ones who truly bring something new into the world, something that didn't exist before and that can be used in real life. And if it weren't for the inventors, the author of the post would still be lugging around heavy lithographic stones instead of drawing on a light and convenient iPad.
By the way, no one has canceled lithographic stones. Use them, find your own style! But no, it's better to download a set of brushes. :)
Cambridge-degree level irony. Perfect response to stupidity. Although very un-American of you. I do wonder where all this leads. AI generation in Adobe Illustrator is better than many of the offerings from online libraries. 80% of the way there in 20 seconds, and then edit the rest. I hope the answer is that this sets a 'bar of adequacy' for low-cost work, and then human creativity takes quality work to a higher and more profitable level.
On the central subject of Art and AI, the reason that Botticelli could turn out so much art was that he had a studio of students painting in his style - that he just finished off. And 600 years later, the approach has stood the test of time. What's the difference between that and using AI as a tool in art? There are many 'so called' (to my mind) artists - and I would certainly include Mr Brainwash in this - who sell art at vast prices on the pretext of 'paying homage' to highly original artists such as Banksy. What's the difference between that and using AI as a tool in art? AI will change art. And people will buy what they will buy - as they always have. The times they are a changing. Carpe Diem.
The big difference between having apprentices and using AI a computer algorithm
one is a tool without Soul and Spirit... (that's the AI in case anyone was confused)
the apprentices are all individual humans with Soul and Spirit, even though they are painting in the style of their master
it is still going through the filter of a soul on how that person feels that day
if they are hungover, if they had a great morning, if they just got yelled at by their master...
all of these nuances will affect the final piece
with a silicone TOOL such as AI with its clever algorithms, this does not exist.
I'm not saying one should be used at the exclusion of the other
but one is very different from the other...
AI is a tool nothing more there is no Divine intelligence in AI
IT HAS NO SOUL...
and ALL art and CREATIVITY is about the expression of the human SOUL that comes from within and expressed outwardly either through music, song, writing, Art, dance, Etc.
Spot on...
I'll be alerting the elders you publicly disclosed the initiation ceremony
No! Please don't! I promise to be more careful in the future!
WE WILL BE KEEPING AN EYE ON YOU... and using AI to do it... :0p
Mike drop.
Wherein the footnotes are secretly the main content. Classic clandestine move.
I try to be sneaky, sometimes. : )
My first ai awareness was the film which broke my heart .(I sob every time at Pinocchio) I am hoping that all AI iterations find the humanity that they always seem to be seeking.
I think I just spit my tea my monitor. Thanks Kyle. You made my morning, you jealous gatekeeper, you.
Ha! Glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for reading, Leticia!
AI which is just cleaver algorithms, not Digital Intelligence, and that's directly from my dad who was one of the big programmers in his day responsible for such projects like SABER, all programed by him and his team in machine language, yup, that's 1s and 0s.. That's hard core ... BTW...
Any way this AI has no soul and never will... Art in all forms talks and comes directly from our soul... All those 'artist' that are worried about AI need to focus more on developing their skills and practicing their craft.
A good artist in any field will never be replaced, and an employer that just uses AI to cut Corners will get just that a product with cut corners
Agree, agree!
This art gatekeeping notion is absurd, because it implies that we artists are some kind of different subspecies of the human race. No. Nobody evolves with the Photoshop or Blender or Photography gene, these things are human inventions we all put the work in to become good at them. The only people I can see this argument working for is people who are GENUINELY disabled and maybe AI tools can help them get the images they have in their head out into the world more easily. I would not fault someone who does not have use of their hands/arms using generative tools to assist them. But I digress.
Another tangent this reminds me of is that we need to stop calling AI artists 'AI artists'. When my clients ask me to make a logo, they're not graphic designers, if I ask chat GPT to write haikus, I'm not a poet, so if I make AI content, I am not an artists. Perhaps 'AI producer' would be better - I make music using cello and drum software, but I wouldn't call myself a cellist or drummer, I'm a music producer. But even 'AI producer' feels off; there are many more creative decisions being made as a music producer than just writing prompts into a visual slot machine.
I would like to ask you though Kyle, how do you feel about AI being used as a resource for photobashing? By which I mean that you cut out bits out of AI renders, bash them together and paint over it; same as regular photobashing but using AI images instead of photos. It's the one example I can think of where using any AI result is ethical because it's transformative and there's no raw AI left at the end (if you do it right and ACTUALLY PAINT OVER IT with your own manual artistry, not by doing the infamous Shad Brooks way). The same way Warhol used other people's photos but manipulated them so much that they became new works of art.
I know you posed this question to Kyle but I hope you don't mind me jumping in ;0)
it's interesting you used Warhol as an example because he also is credited with saying
there is nothing new everything is borrowed taken or stolen from somewhere else
and then repurposed
to answer your query it's all fair game because in the end it's the human touch that gets put on it
again the interaction with our soul which is our spark from God interacts and by that interaction it changes the original into something else which is unique and created by us. :0)
I don't mind at all, thank you! I've been asking this question a lot because I've recently started photobashing and found AI as a great resource, so I'm interested in people's opinions. And I do mean as a resource, I rework the images so much there's barely a raw AI pixel left.
And yeah the counter-example to Warhol I like to use is Richard Prince who literally takes screenshots of Instagram posts and photos of other people's photos and sells them for absurd prices and contributes nothing of his own visually and practically nothing conceptually.
Never heard of Richard but what he is doing kind of reminds me of an artist in the mid-80s Mark Kostabi from New York
What this guy did is he would hire people at minimum wage to paint for him sometimes he provide a sketch for them to color in or to paint it in on canvas, sometimes nothing.
his shtick was he would show up to the gallery on opening night with the paintings hung up on the wall that he did not paint that he did not design that he did not really put anything into
he would then approach the buyer and point out, you see this piece of work... I've never seen it before in my life before tonight, I didn't even paint it, and it's not even signed...
you can buy it for $100,000 now before I sign it or you can pay $200,000 after I sign it
this whole concept at that time was showing the Ridiculousness of how art had devalued into just a money-making scheme with no soul or Direction and in his early 20s he made a fortune
it's interesting to read about him now and how he's revered as this great surreal artist of his time but his roots were basically giving the finger to the art world and in return he made a lot of money pointing out the very hypocrisy of the industry... LoL
Interesting comments, thanks.
AI Producer is accurate. If you know comfyUI that’s the thing people are doing. It’s like a synthesiser for pixels. If you all know just Midjourney of course, I know where the hate is coming from.
I do know comfyUI. When I use AI, it was Automatic1111 WebUI and ComfyUI, from what I can tell, is essentially that, but because it uses nodes it's more flexible. At the end of the day it's still a slot machine, but at that level of complexity I could see why you could be called an 'AI producer'. The more interesting question is what are people who use stuff like Krea and use img2img drawing to control the AI result? Or for example what if an artist trained an AI model using his own art, then used realtime img2img tech to make art using it. That might actually qualify as an 'AI artist'. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me personally so long as people are actually infusing their own creative decisions and style into the finished product and not letting a machine do the creative work for them.
Funny and good article, thank you Kyle. I am both an artist (the traditional kind that was initiated with the mystical paddle) and also use AI tools to generate art, as I work in marketing. I really believe AI tools and traditional art can exist side by side, and my practice as both an artist and a marketer has benefited from this combination. I've heard non-sense from both sides. On one hand you have people who generate abominations using AI that they call art (no, that portrait of a man with 2.5 legs, 7 fingers on each hand and goat shaped pupils does not constitute good art, unless of course you meant it that way, which here isn't the case 99% of the time). They (re)set the bar really low for what art should be. On the other hand, I've also seen deeply insecure artists going to such extremes that they call for the ban of all artistic AI tools, having tried none themselves, following the angry mob mentally blindly. Both extremes are problematic as they promote ignorance.
So thank you for being a voice of reason and moderation within the wilderness. We need more of that.
Mediocrity always looks to be a victim and for an excuse, as well as a reason not to improve...
thanks for this post, glad to know you are still keeping the flame alive in the flood of all this AI "democracy"' urgh how i loathe the abuse of that term, it doesnt democratize art it just devalues artists and the creative process (largely by the use of AI by big business to further depress the working condtions and rights of those who are still human) I can accept that there will those whose creative spirit can transform AI art into something unique, but anything good even that they do, will just also be soon swallowed up by the flood and turned into derivative garbage that might look nice here and there but generally just blunts any effect art can have on the public imagination.
AI art is just another means for the status quo to steal our souls
I strongly feel it'll come full circle
you saw this with the analog synthesizers when they first came out everybody wanted one
then the digital synthesizers came out and everybody sold their analog gear to get digital ones
now everyone wants the analog gear and they're willing to pay 10 to 20 times more for the analog synthesizer
I also saw this with the introduction of digital CDs and then DAT, then Mp3s... Etc... and now the true audio files are going back to vinyl and tubes because of the warmth of the sound because of the Soul that they can hear in the music
I think in the end those that really appreciate art and are willing to pay a fair price for art WILL want the real thing
I guess it's similar to going to McDonald's for a hamburger OR going to a mom and pop restaurant and getting a real meal.
Using the above example reminds me when Eddie Murphy the comedian was talking about when he was a child he always wanted McDonald's and his mom would say we can't afford that
I can make you something better at home
she would then go to the store get some ground meat some white bread a ketchup, and mustard, Etc
Sge would proceed to make the hamburger at home. she would present it to Eddie this hamburger, which was made with white bread not even hamburger buns, and the ketchup was soaking through the bread so the bread was pink in color, and Eddie would cry and grudgingly eat his Burger
he then said once he became successful and he could afford McDonald's anytime he went through a phase where he ate McDonald's a lot and then one day it dawned on him...
they're not that tasty, and he ended up going to his mom's house and asking her to make him the hamburger of his childhood with ketchup soaked bread.
Lol! This brought me joy. Amen to all this.
Thanks for sharing this Kyle. Also, considering this statement comes from someone arguably being a public face for Adobe as a company constitutes a powerful declaration of intentions on the company's part. AI may be the genie out of the magic lamp now, but the kind many professionals could certainly agree with is the kind that augments and empowers their existing capabilities, not the kind pretending to replace them at their jobs and competences. Now we need upper managements bedazzled by the AI siren songs of maximizing profits with a skeleton crew to come back to their senses...
Dear Kyle,
Thank you so, SO much for sharing all these resources. I have recently picked up drawing again after so many years of self-doubt. I've been learning whatever I can from online resources, and your tutorials and newsletter have really helped me improve my skills. I'm so grateful I found you! I really can't thank you enough for sharing your insights, and of course all the freebies. You made my morning! :)
THANK YOU!
Once upon a time, not very long ago, I read something similar about digital artists. The main idea was that digital art is not art. Has everyone already forgotten about this?
There is only one rule - there are no rules. No one owes anything to anyone.
You can call a taxi, you can hire a driver, you can buy and drive a car, or you can get into a taxi driven by a robot. After all, your goal is to get from point A to point B - that is, to do your job and earn money. I haven’t heard cries of indignation about the lack of horse-drawn carriages on the roads for a long time :-)
We all want to earn money and live comfortably; no one wants to go the way of Van Gogh.
And if I say artist, I mean people like them: van Gogh, Morandi, Klee, Cezanne, Basquiat.
If the crowd doesn't want to buy you, you won't beat the crowd. But the trouble is that artists for the most part do not want Van Gogh’s fame, they want the income of the salon favorites of the crowd.
How can you stretch the rules of life of real artists dedicated to their path onto people who serve big business and also call themselves artists?
And if possible, then we are all artists. If you allowed yourself to draw in Photoshop or Procreate, then you can give others permission to draw in Leonardo or Automatic1111.
No offense, just business, nothing personal.
I will say more, a real artist will not read this article and will not leave a comment under it. These people solve completely different problems and are not bothered by such trifles.
Can't say I agree with anything here, but thank you for reading and for the comment.
Thank you for your answer.
However I would like to continue :)
Does it matter to you what others think about whether you're an artist? I think no. If that's the case, why would your opinion on who qualifies as an artist be more important? People create for various reasons: enjoyment, financial gain, or even recognition. Does the label others assign them truly matter?
If artists determined who among them qualifies as an artist and whose work deserves a million-dollar price tag, it would be an interesting (perhaps even entertaining) spectacle.
The key question here is whether we're discussing the right to be called an artist or the right to work as an artist.
It seems that the concern lies more with competition in a professional setting, rather than individuals pursuing artistic hobbies personally. This suggests the focus is on professional recognition and financial gain, not the act of artistic creation itself.
p.s.
Why didn't you like my analogy of the emergence of digital art and the emergence of generative art?
You've found your niche in digital creativity and now you're championing it and calling it art.
Others will find themselves in AI art and will defend it.
pps I apologize for my English, perhaps I am not expressing my thoughts clearly enough.
I am human, not robot :)
I think one of the core issues is the difference between a human doing the work regardless if it's digital or traditional
versus a machine which has no intelligence, no soul, these are just clever algorithms..., doing the work for you and you claiming the work as your own
the two cornerstones that I see AI being abused is for the lazy and the mediocre.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, Sir.
I also think that, algorithms do not possess intelligence on their own. The intelligence lies with the human operator who formulates the task, controls the process, and provides feedback and direction to the AI regarding image generation. Creating high-quality, commercial-grade AI art requires significant human effort. Without human input, the results would be random and unrefined. It is not simply a matter of pressing a button and letting the AI do all the work.
I personally oppose the deliberate use or even mention of specific artists' names when creating AI-generated images. I see no point in doing so. In my humble opinion, it would be beneficial if this technology truly brought something new to the art world. However, for now, it seems to be merely a more advanced Photoshop tool for specific tasks.
Speaking of signatures on artworks, I вспомнил how artists in the past did not consider it beneath them to sign a work in which the bulk of the work was done by their apprentices. The same applies here. AI is not a master, but rather your apprentice. You teach, guide, and direct, and then you also correct the result based on your own vision of beauty and your goals.
Furthermore, if a human does not intervene in the generated result, other people may not find any beauty in the work. Perhaps this is the problem. AI could potentially create a new direction in art, but people may not see the beauty in it.
In any case, I like my new analogy of AI-generated results with a painting done by apprentices. The master decides what to do next.
Does this mean you're not a real artist because you read this and left a comment... Jiji (I am jist teasing you I know what you mean... ;0) )
And what exactly is a real artist... asking for a friend...
Thank you, I love humor.
However, it may turn out that the real true artists in this world are the inventors of new technologies and devices. They are the ones who truly bring something new into the world, something that didn't exist before and that can be used in real life. And if it weren't for the inventors, the author of the post would still be lugging around heavy lithographic stones instead of drawing on a light and convenient iPad.
By the way, no one has canceled lithographic stones. Use them, find your own style! But no, it's better to download a set of brushes. :)
Lovely post. I was kinda hoping for a clue to the secret handshake, but message received.
Thanks for reading! I forgot the handshake ... there's a manual around here somewhere ...
Opposable thumbs, that's all I can say... ;0)
Cambridge-degree level irony. Perfect response to stupidity. Although very un-American of you. I do wonder where all this leads. AI generation in Adobe Illustrator is better than many of the offerings from online libraries. 80% of the way there in 20 seconds, and then edit the rest. I hope the answer is that this sets a 'bar of adequacy' for low-cost work, and then human creativity takes quality work to a higher and more profitable level.
Hi, Paul, thank you for reading and commenting. I'm confused by one thing: how is what I have written "un-American?"
On the central subject of Art and AI, the reason that Botticelli could turn out so much art was that he had a studio of students painting in his style - that he just finished off. And 600 years later, the approach has stood the test of time. What's the difference between that and using AI as a tool in art? There are many 'so called' (to my mind) artists - and I would certainly include Mr Brainwash in this - who sell art at vast prices on the pretext of 'paying homage' to highly original artists such as Banksy. What's the difference between that and using AI as a tool in art? AI will change art. And people will buy what they will buy - as they always have. The times they are a changing. Carpe Diem.
The big difference between having apprentices and using AI a computer algorithm
one is a tool without Soul and Spirit... (that's the AI in case anyone was confused)
the apprentices are all individual humans with Soul and Spirit, even though they are painting in the style of their master
it is still going through the filter of a soul on how that person feels that day
if they are hungover, if they had a great morning, if they just got yelled at by their master...
all of these nuances will affect the final piece
with a silicone TOOL such as AI with its clever algorithms, this does not exist.
I'm not saying one should be used at the exclusion of the other
but one is very different from the other...
AI is a tool nothing more there is no Divine intelligence in AI
IT HAS NO SOUL...
and ALL art and CREATIVITY is about the expression of the human SOUL that comes from within and expressed outwardly either through music, song, writing, Art, dance, Etc.