One thing about AI art is it is a lot of random with a tiny bit of nudges here and there. You can control the subject, the mood, colors, and color scheme...somewhat. You are right about the person being surprised I can't access my gallery for some reason so I only have a few examples. You can diffidently get results with very little input. The first one is the random, luck of the draw type thing. The prompt was, ";laskdjfas lksdfj" or something like that. The following two came from the same grid, prompted with, "in a white blizzard a bird taking flight with wings of light of Cerulean, copper, and greenish-white slate. Up, up we soar, past galaxies and more in search of the colors we love to explore" When you generate a prompt you get a grid of 4 images. This is when you work out/pick your composition. You can select one to upscale, reroll the whole grid or ask for a different version of one. When you ask for a different version of one of the images, you can reword your prompt to give more "weight" to a word, or color. You can add more to the prompt to build that image up adding layers to it. This is how you steer it in the direction you want.
Great debate. My 2 cents. A great deal of the value of art is its rarity and uniqueness which comes from the artist who could never reproduce their work without the aid of a machine. Their backstory, mood, blood, sweat and tears went into that painting and could never exactly be duplicated. If I have a painting and there’s a mistake of a brush stroke perhaps that’s when the artist received tragic news. The story gives it value. So AI could create an original and NFT/datestamp it I suppose to ensure it was known to be the original but anything produced by AI could always be exactly copied and reproduced. It’s also why many people are turned off by modern music because the songs are just commercial not usually written by the artist with a real meaning behind them that reflects their backstory and experience. When I hear music it always falls a little flat to me because the heartache in the song is very unlikely reflecting the singers actual experience. It feels fake. When we consume art we want to feel what the artist felt. Their love, pain, joy, fear, whatever. Can’t do that when it’s AI even if it’s an artist describing it to the program to create. It’s just not the same.
No disrespect but that is YOU! Art is personal . . . i get that Here is the problem . . . the "story" behind any art can be complete bullsh!t "Come to find Van Gogh didn't cut his ear off .. .. his barber was just horrible" - Does that change the value of his art? What I'm saying is that the "ART" has been turned over to the Sales and Marketing teams Take the same AI Generated art . . . .give it a good backstory and obscure its origins . . .and not it is "art" I am not sure I care for that . . . Rocket River
I think we agree for the most part and yes if the story changes the value changes. Art needs to speak to us and it’s the story oftentimes that does.
Truth. I have seen some AWESOME AI ART that spoke to me I think with anything . . .. we all looking for those Diamonds in the rough Rocket River
Money is always a factor but there are a lot, probably the vast majority of artists, who create art who never make a profit off of their art. My argument isn't about whether artists are going to make money but about the process of creating art and what that means to art. Consider the haptic nature of things like painting and sculpture. If you leave all of that up to a machine it changes the process of creating art. Or for music the feedback mechanism of playing and hearing each of the notes. If I just hit the Salsa button on my keyboard it will generate a Salso beat and can even generate a Salsa melody but is that the same if I'm with a drummer, bass player, and horn player and we play Salsa? For anyone that plays in a band knows that there is a give and take between the musicians even within the single piece. That is why live shows aren't always the same and are themselves unique pieces of art. One more example that I brought up in the Chat GPT thread in the D&D. I'm mildly dyslexic and frequently misplace words often inverting them when I write. Chat GPT wouldv'e likedly helped me a lot in school and probably would've improved my English grades but that I had to really concentrate on what I was writing when I wrote papers meant I had to think about what I was writing. That made me much more thoughtful and careful about my use of language. If I had Chat GPT and I just told it to write an essay about 'East of Eden". I might not have thought so much about the signifigance of "East of Eden" as a novel or even bothered to read it. So the process of creating art isn't just about the final image, song, or story but about how the creating process affects the final outcome. AI art while creating very compelling images doesn't have that same haptic process. The AI is crunching millons of bits of information through an algorithm and can produce thousands of images which it then presents as the ones that most fit the original parameters. It isn't engaged in a process of self-discovery.
Another thought on the how the process of creating art affects the final outcome. I was listening to a YouTube series about the making of Apocalypse Now. This movie was legendarily difficult to make but also there were many twist and turns to the production before shooting even began. Lucas was originally set to direct it and his vision was going to be very different than Coppola's. He wanted to make a small movie in the Cinema Verite style that was going to be about how the Vietnamese stood up to the US (the same idea behind how the Rebel Alliance could defeat the Empire). Coppola wanted a large war epic. The process though making that war epic changed the film and Coppola himself. He described it the experience as "that the jungle started to make the movie". With the tools of CGI and now AI the experience of the director, actors and location interacting won't be there. There are certainly technical challenges to be overcome but shooting in a climate controlled sound stage is a far different than shooting in an actual jungle, with actual heat, actual humidity, actual bugs and then on top of that actual explosions. There is a feedback that changes the movie.
And that can be a good thing if done correctly Art is in the eye of the beholder no matter how its created, you can look at these pics like the finished product of a directer because they have to have an idea of what they want to be created and the imagination to get the words correct for that rendering. This is not going to replace art and artist doing things by hand, it's like Rolls-Royce can charge more because they are handbuilt and exclusive and art done by an artist hand will command more.
Actual Jackson Pollock was very deliberate in his art. He used techniques that generated chaotic looking images but he actually was interested in composition and was trying to manipulate those techniques to create composition and visual interest.
I'm critical of AI art but I agree it can be considered art and I don't think it should be banned. That is not going to be practical as these tools get more widespread and more powerful. What I am debating though is how does using an AI affect the process of creating art and is AI created art better than other art. I think if we come to rely too much on AI and other technologies to create art something will be lost. It's like how many felt that fast and mass produced food and beer lost a lot from handmade beer. I would encourage like how we have Budweiser we still have microbrews that we still have human produced arts like painting along with AI art. That AI art doesn't end up supplanting those human crafts.
AI has turned The Simpsons into an 80s sitcom and the results are disturbing The capabilities of artificial intelligence are endless – it can do everything from creating brand new works of art based on the style of a famous artist to predicting future events. Now, the new technology has even been used to turn the iconic animated cartoon series The Simpsons into an 80s-style live-action sitcom, with scarily accurate results. A video named “The Simpsons as an 80's Sitcom” was posted on YouTube by The Pharaoh Nerd and showed the opening credits of the show including the home of the Simpsons family at 742 Evergreen Terrace and followed by close-ups of each of the human characters. The first is Homer Simpson who, much like his yellow counterpart, is a middle-aged balding man. Marge Simpson in human form still possesses her classic blue hair and green dress. Along with the three blonde children, the family dog, Santa’s Little Helper, is also included, though appears as an actual greyhound in the live-action AI version. Other notable characters like Ned Flanders – who appears much less nerdy and more handsome than he should – Principal Skinner, Groundskeeper Willie and Milhouse Van Houten each make an appearance and bear a varying likeness to their animated equivalents. Fans discussed some of the AI’s choices in the comments, with some poking fun at the results and others admiring its work. One wrote: “These images capture the essence of the characters so well it’s almost scary.” Another commented: “I love how Nelson looks way too old for his grade, makes him the perfect bully.” “WHY... HOW IS THIS SO PERFECT? THE THEME, THE CHARACTERS' ACTORS, THE OVERALL VIBE. THIS IS GREAT,” another said. Someone else joked: “I always loved Tom Selleck's performance as Ned Flanders, really showed his range as an actor.” Others called for AI to actually recreate a whole live-action episode of the show.
