That’s not how we should see it. Digital artists spend a lot of time creating and trying different things. On the other hand we have people with different conditions who have ideas without the skills yo execute anything.
This allows everyone to do more and quicker, increasing the earning potential. AI is useful as long as it levels out the playing field. It’s the malicious use we need to moderate and like drugs, thats a slippery slope.
When I am amazed by a piece of art, it’s because a person was able to conceive of a scene and then use techniques they’ve learned to bring that scene from their mind into reality. I think, “Wow, how did they decide to blend those colors together in such a way, and why? I wonder how hard it is to get that right? How long might it take me to learn the same technique?”
But when I look at a piece of art made by AI, I think, disappointedly, “Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good.’” It’s just not impressive.
And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks. Real artists practice their craft for years, learning and perfecting techniques and often developing their own unique style.
“Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good
“May” being the important word, here.
I suggest that if you cannot tell the difference between “someone who knows art did this piece” and “someone just hit generate” then you have no business critiquing art.
And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks.
…that won’t give you art skills. It’s practically impossible to develop an artistic eye, much less mind, by hitting generate, the feedback isn’t sufficient, you can’t train like that. No model prompts the same, btw, frankly speaking prompting is about the worst way to condition a model when you’re out to create something specific.
The art is not in the fucking medium. Never was. Never will be. Come at me for this and I’ll be referencing urinals on pedestals.
How does it increase earning potential? Best case it would flood the market with shit and result in less income due to either dilution of spending amongst thousands of idiots using “ai” or destroy the need for a market in the first place. If everything is ai why would I pay the “artist” instead of just going to stablediffusion or something similar?
I’m predicting it now. There will be either an app or a bot that collects all the photos taken at a wedding by guests and generates “professional” photos of the event. So you won’t need to frame the photos anymore. You will only need enough perspectives to predict what a framed photo would look like.
I’m against AI replacing human creativity. This is just a prediction. Not saying I want it to happen.
That’s not how we should see it. Digital artists spend a lot of time creating and trying different things. On the other hand we have people with different conditions who have ideas without the skills yo execute anything.
This allows everyone to do more and quicker, increasing the earning potential. AI is useful as long as it levels out the playing field. It’s the malicious use we need to moderate and like drugs, thats a slippery slope.
When I am amazed by a piece of art, it’s because a person was able to conceive of a scene and then use techniques they’ve learned to bring that scene from their mind into reality. I think, “Wow, how did they decide to blend those colors together in such a way, and why? I wonder how hard it is to get that right? How long might it take me to learn the same technique?”
But when I look at a piece of art made by AI, I think, disappointedly, “Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good.’” It’s just not impressive.
And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks. Real artists practice their craft for years, learning and perfecting techniques and often developing their own unique style.
“May” being the important word, here.
I suggest that if you cannot tell the difference between “someone who knows art did this piece” and “someone just hit generate” then you have no business critiquing art.
…that won’t give you art skills. It’s practically impossible to develop an artistic eye, much less mind, by hitting generate, the feedback isn’t sufficient, you can’t train like that. No model prompts the same, btw, frankly speaking prompting is about the worst way to condition a model when you’re out to create something specific.
The art is not in the fucking medium. Never was. Never will be. Come at me for this and I’ll be referencing urinals on pedestals.
How does it increase earning potential? Best case it would flood the market with shit and result in less income due to either dilution of spending amongst thousands of idiots using “ai” or destroy the need for a market in the first place. If everything is ai why would I pay the “artist” instead of just going to stablediffusion or something similar?
Why would you hire a photographer instead of using your phone?
Because phones are still not able to shoot as well as a professional camera, never mind the skills needed to frame or light the scene correctly.
Why would you hire a photographer instead of renting a camera, then?
…because you know shit about photography (I presume, for the sake of argument). Why would you hire an AI artist over doing it yourself, then?
I’m predicting it now. There will be either an app or a bot that collects all the photos taken at a wedding by guests and generates “professional” photos of the event. So you won’t need to frame the photos anymore. You will only need enough perspectives to predict what a framed photo would look like.
I’m against AI replacing human creativity. This is just a prediction. Not saying I want it to happen.