No Place for AI in the Art World?
I may have agreed, before I saw this video, and based my opinion solely on the crud being spewed out by the likes of various Meta sites, and others.
After watching this I realised that maybe there was more to AI than I imagined. This video, for instance, required several artistic disciplines — including drawing, script writing, and music...as well as vocals. Then, using various AI 'engines' — as just one other tool in this artist's bag of tricks — the "raw artworks" were fed into AI apps and then ultimately a video creator.
Is there bad AI? Absolutely! Just as there are bad paintings, bad poems, bad photographs... but there are also incredible works of art.
Sign up for OddsRabbit
Join communities like /c/ai and never miss posts like this. Every signup donates a meal for a child in need. Learn more
+6
View comments
Comments
I saw a post where someone posted a real piece monet art and claimed it was AI on Twitter, and despite it being real everyone that commented had complaints about it
Sounds like Twitter "experts"... they can look at a little, square image of art on their phone, and are able to authenticate it 😂
Ai usage in art is so controversial right now haha. Let me take a look at this in a second
So may things are...but then, historically, in some ways its no different than when cartoon animation began — then Xerox technology (before it became office mainstream) came along to easily replicate much of the frames, requiring less drawing time (and fewer artists). But Walt didn't like it, spearheading a studio revolt, feeling that "it lacked the refined craftsmanship and smooth, elegant lines of traditional hand-inked features". But, of course, his wallet won out lol
Yea I’m very curious to see how this all plays out. In a sense it’s similar to photoshop in that it allowed anyone to create graphics but you can still tell who knows what they’re doing and putting in effort, vs those who dont
Exactly. And back when Xerox entered the picture, some used it to create the forerunner of what would become incredible animation — and others used it to copy their bare ass. 😂
I guess it's how you define art. If it's generated, it's an interpretation other than that of the artist's, IMO. It's not a contribution or tool, it's a copy or clone of the human attempt to do so. Or some rambling nonsense I won't be able to articulate properly. Calling it soulless is so much easier and still correct. If it continues the next generations will be calling generated art masterpieces etc.
However, I was particularly intrigued by one example where it's being used to make historical documentary footage. A youtuber has made short movies set in the late Roman period and recreated some of the events from the western empire's dying days. Through painstakingly detailed prompts and refinement, he's created video of the battles, social decline and detailed simulation of the decayed architecture, correct clothing, armour and all that. It's full of artifacting, glitches, crappy dialogue etc... but there's little else like it.
Nobody's going to film this. There's no money in it, it's a niche subject and if it's ever represented, it's romanticised and most of the finer details are cherry picked from around the time of the early empire era. It gives us something we were never going to have in the first place.
Another example, is a game on Steam that piqued my interest. It was like a classic Wing Commander clone. Steam forces disclosure of AI use now and the dev stated that they used AI for cutscene artwork (cartoon style slides and talking heads). They claimed that they're not an artist and can't afford to hire artists. This is the tricky one IMO. You obviously take their word that paying for human art isn't viable. It very well may be true and that gives us a game that otherwise wouldn't exist. But we all know we'll just have a torrent of games released where they just wanted to save costs. Indie developer troubles are more believable but this problem is very interwoven with big budget games as well.
I don't know. I don't want to see it anywhere because it not only affects decisions like this but people's livelihoods. In a world where overpopulation is an issue, it makes no sense to hand jobs away from real people. Also it's cost is bigger than that and affects all life on this planet. We're literally boiling ourselves already. That alone would be argument enough to stop it in it's tracks, in a sane world.
Art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects" (Merriam/Webster) . AI does not have a conscious. In this case we see a massive mashup of images, sounds and ideas stolen from human art based on technical instruction.
AI is not, nor ever will be "art".
I disagree with your assessment of this as being "a massive mashup of images, sounds and ideas stolen from human art"...that is not at all how this was created. And I think you'll find that Merriam/Webster is the only one using the word "conscious" in their definition of art. Britanica and Oxford define it differently. That said, I understand that I may well be on the less popular side of this discussion...for now.
I'll agree to disagree ;). Consider this; How would you feel if all art museums were filled with nothing but AI images?
Actually, that is a very good point. I wouldn't want to see that at all... I think I make a definite distinction between what is digital, and what is not. I view digital artists as just that, artists — but they're works do not belong in museums.
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts.