Having an AI make the cover for your album is the fastest way for me to realize “oh, looks like someone gave up” like dude, no self respecting artist would do this without a overwhelming sum of denial and egotism.
@@52BLUEBut we're not at that point yet, and still they chose this cover art. If you simply look at a lot of AI images then it becomes very easy to spot them
“this is so surreal” it’s literally just an astronaut suit in a field of sunflowers. you could recreate this entirely in-camera and it would honestly look much better
They could've used AI to make some sort of "concept art" of how it should look and then recreate it irl for a photoshoot and it'd look 10x better. But no, that'd take actual care for art
exactly, this makes you want to do this exact thing as a photo shoot, and tbh with the right camera lens, at the right time time of day etc, with real sunflowers, that could look way cooler
ikr my first thought was just that you can find a sunflower field, get an astronaut suit, and then just take a photo because thats just photography it’s actual art instead
@@-bielle2985 Nah, AI for concept art at best could be used if you dont have any money to comision something to a real artist and you still need to pitch the idea to a board of investors. Since the modeling for AI images is predictive, you end up with stuff that has no real substance to it, while asking a real concept artist, you can get good iterations. The key distinction is an artist actually interprets the concepts you want to put into an image, while the AI just takes a vector of values that is associated with your words and tries to just predict what it should make, thats why all AI images have some extremelly boring perspectives (typically they are always centered images), because it is the most common, so the most likely to be considered as "correct". An artist would take the concepts and engage with them at a comprehensive level, not just at an informational one, which can lead to really interesting iterations. It is not rare that projects get changed because one artist takes the concepts that people gave them and makes an iteration that has a twist that is considered more interesting, so they roll with it. With AI that may only happen by literal chance AND if the AI is tuned so allows more "noise" to be introduced in the final probability vector.
the fact that AI's first widespread use was not making people's lives easier by doing menial tasks for us but instead trying to do one of the only intrinsically human things (making art) is so wild
It turns out figuring out statistical relationships in pixels is cheaper and easier than making a robot arm capable of handling plates. We'll get there.
The whole notion of AI art is so lame because you have this machine that ideally could generate anything you wanted, ostensibly infinite possibilities, and people almost exclusively use it to create Vaseline covered pseudo hyper realistic generic garbage.
You can make pretty looking stuff with more specified models or some fine-tuned style inputs, but these people don't bother. So the AI resorts to the generic "AI beautiful" style that's looks high fidelity but very averaged out and bland.
Remember in the 90’s and early 00’s when some artists would release album with hideous early-3D graphics album covers (Dance of Death by Iron Maiden for example), and those covers now look absolutely terrible and completely date the album? In 20 years we’ll say the same thing about AI album covers.
I don't understand how an artist could put their heart and soul into music they made and have the art that represents those feelings be generated by some shit program. Feels weird to me
They don't see music as art form but a money making scheme. Just like 90% of Anthony's subscribers don't see music as an art form but a means to make themselves look cool.
Every single corner of the internet is being filled with meaningless mass-generated slop and it's getting more and more difficult to find anything genuine
@@OrgaNik_MusicWith bots, A.I everything, and mass generated images polluting the Internet, I question if I'm even interacting with real humans sometimes.
I think it's not all bad with AI, things like memes and how it can be used creatively by accounts like thearchiveinbetween by generating realistic pictures to your stories are all fun and innovative. It's a tool after all, what you do with it is up to you. But I obviously can't deny all the downsides it has brought with it
@@wolfieeeee256 Likewise. Major artists are usually limited by their labels. Would be so cool if we got to see what the artists wanted to make from the start.
Could have literally just put a guy in an astronaut costume, dumped him in a sunflower field and taken a picture. Probably would still cost less than what they paid this AI hack
I can't tell if you're joking or not. So just go down to the old costume store and rent an astronaut costume, ok I've never in my life seen that available in a store. Then just find a local sunflower field. Yeah that doesn't exist either. And even if that stuff existed that would be hours of work compared to typing a few sentences.
@@zackzallie8735 What? So no one can just say "i don't like this" without also writing a whole thesis on why? Aren't you also screaming "the food doesn't suck!!!" at him? Where's your elaboration?
Mixed media digital collage my ass. That is just entirely AI generated and their explanation is the most out of touch thing I've ever heard. Digital collage is one of the most popular and accessible styles nowadays you couldn't hire an actual artist? There's tons of them.
By digital collage they mean "made by standing on the heads of the destitute artists, whose work was stolen and fed by ancap techbros into the moloch-like maw of an LLM, to deny them their pittance of a wealth"
Yeah the weird placement of the 3 clouds confirms that for me. That would be so easy to fix, even with more AI (eg removing/altering them through photoshop generative fill). This was minimally altered, and i mean MINIMALLY.
There’s so many artists in all disciplines nowadays that it’s stupid. There’s no reason 98% of people needing visual art can’t hire someone at virtually any price level to create something cool. You don’t need to find some uberprofessional artist who’s sold 1,000’s of artworks at $10,000 each or higher. Some dude in an apartment complex near your studio could be doing cool stuff and would probably be willing to sell you something for a really solid price, especially since it also means exposure for him.
In an age where the brat album cover is a thing (and a commercial success at that), why would you stoop down to the level of ai generated lifeless garbage lol
@@8bitdiedie Practically every music artist uses some form of autotune/vocal synthesizer. Not to mention mixing and mastering takes actual human skill and is in no way lazy. Tell me you know nothing about music production without telling me you know nothing about music production lmao
@8bitdiedie auto tune doesn't automatically make your music listen able LOL porter was making incredible dance music before cheerleader. I do agree with music junkie if he used ai I think that is really disappointing. If you think porter Robinson doesn't have skill, go watch one of his nurture live performances or his alt ego
i dont think tears for fears intended for this to be predatory nor they had ill intent on using ai slop on their album cover, i think theyre just out of touch old peoples trying to hop into the hip new cool trendy tech at the moment.
Pretty much this, yeah. I don't like it and I would've preferred they paid an actual album artist to make something, but these are just old guys making music in their golden years. This isn't Taylor Swift using AI, it's a band the majority of people only know one song from
its funny cause I feel like that's the whole point of using generative ai for something like this, to get inspiration or ideas for something and then make the thing yourself. If they generated that photo and then used it as inspiration for an actual photoshoot to make an album cover like this then no one would be complaining, and an actual photo would look fucked up when you zoom in.
@@a-jjjjjjj Yes very similar to a Human Brain in regards to perceiving and replicating certain aspect of Art like Style, Color choice and so on. For some reason its stealing when a neural network does it but Inspiration when a Human does it.
Typing words into an image generator and calling yourself an artist is like telling the guy behind the counter at Chipotle how you want your burrito and calling yourself a chef.
Its easier to say than prompt engineer, or AI art creator. To be fair, some AI art is created by just a prompt on the user side, specifically dumbed down for basic users, but in its original form it is typically more involved and requires some fine tuning. It can get a lot more complicated when you start training custom models. Today most of the AI generated images we see on the internet were just mass produced by people who don't know what they are doing.
And if the counter guy went around mom and pop burrito places to buy burritos which he can take apart so he can use the ingredients to assemble burrito you asked for.
i know like 20 incredibly talented artists who get nowhere near the amount of work they should. like literally throw a rock in any direction online and you will find a talented artist. it's not hard at all
This was happening far before AI. Like seriously there have always been wayyyy too many artists when compared to the demand for decades now. Going to art school was laughed at. It was always a bad gamble, and now it's being proven just how bad of a gamble it was. Like nearly every problem we face on this planet, this is sadly just a result of overpopulation. There is too much competition in every field, and now companies stand to profit by filling the gap for the layperson.
@@minhuang8848how old are you genuinely, because this is such a naive and ignorant way to view the world. please go out and meet real, talented people, try to know their stories, the world is not black and white.
The only AI album cover so far that most ppl have been somewhat okay with is Lil Yachty’s cover for “Let’s Start Here.” and even that was initially met with widespread criticism. Any artist that’s paid even slight attention should know it’s a big no-no. STOP BEING LAZY.
yachty knew what he was doing with it though. he wanted a messed up looking picture and used ai for it since at the time the less developed models were perfect for creepy or odd looking pictures. much less reprehensible than using ai to recreate art so you dont have to pay to use it as a cover imo
It may be controversial but I'm not personally 100% against the mere concept of using AI for album art. For a purpose. Just generating a cheap, shitty looking image and using it is horrible and makes the entire project look lazy. Using it like Yachty did is effective in a meta sense. It looks bad but it's meant to portray soulless people and it's a soulless image. That's a clever use of it to me.
They commissioned an "AI artist"??? If a person who types a prompt can call themselves an "AI artist", someone who commissions an image from a real artist can call themselves an artist too, then? Or does that only work when there is no skill or real artist involved? Cut the middle man, Tears for Fears, take credit for dall-e and its stolen data yourselves, you fools!
Look up this video - "Create MEAT SPEAKER with AI and Unreal Engine / Tutorial" and tell me this person is not a real artist.. You will always have lazy artists who use an simple prompt and call it a day, but when a person who is creative and good at what they do, it becomes a tool as good as the modern computer was to the classic paintbrush..
They'll all try and say that they say things and promt things that is "more complex" but that's just their fancy way of trying to make it sound like there's more to it that there really is. I can describe a house extremely well and in the finest detail but that doesn't mean I created the house.
@@EmvyBeats I have several years experience in Blender and watched the video you suggested. The guy didn't do anything noteworthy himself. Stable Diffusion generated the images he needed, and then he used them as the template for displacement / normal maps, etc. He didn't model or sculpt ANYTHING CREATIVE, he just took what SD spat out and converted it to 3D. Idk how much experience you have with 3D modeling software, but what he did in Blender isn't impressive. It's almost completely automated and takes almost no time to do since he has a template he put no creative thought into himself. At best, one should consider what he did as the final steps SD wasn't created for. So no, yours isn't an example of art, just AI fiddling with extra steps.
The most annoying thing is that this guy's other "surrealist" artwork look like as if he just pasted "in the style of..." and then a name of a surrealist artist like Dali or Magritte.
I wonder what Tears for Fears would think if I they knew that could prompt a midi roll plugin with: '4 minutes, 112 BPM, mid 80s synth rock, in the style of 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World', produced by Chris Hughes, rousing guitar solo, Linndrum, D major,' and have it reference a 40k song model I trained on 80s playlists I downloaded off Spotify, isolate a bunch of their little songwriting tricks and shit out a legally distinctive (but extremely reminiscent of their own work) arrangement for me to program my own instruments to, and then prompted an LLM with 'Song lyrics, 80s malaise, red scare, Reaganomics, Gorbachev' and had a generic 80s rock male AI voice print 'sing' them, and that they would have no way to prove that I'm not just a massive fan of theirs who has spent years studying their songwriting and wanted to pay homage but actually just some idiot with a computer whose only reference to Tears for Fears is from a Disney movie but they're trending on Tik Tok right now and I'm hoping to 'produce' the next summer jam and to profit immensely from it.
Whenever I see the Ai, I get instantly infuriated lol. Literally anything you see Ai do an artist can do x1000 better and you can actually support them
"We have an AI cover for our new album." "You guys generated this free trash instead of paying an artist?" "No, we DID actually pay an artist! An AI one!" "So you wasted MONEY on this." how the fuck does commissioning an AI artist even go, either. "Looks good, but could you have the person turned more to the right with a phone in hand?" "Sorry, but the program won't generate that, so.... pay up."
it is a scam, i know someone who does ai commisions and yeah it's just a scam lol. dumb people that don't know that there's free AI pay for these things
@@NeoEvanA.R.T Ok so if i create a project with 1000 layers that are basically empty I made a masterpiece right? I know what you mean but that statement is just odd to me. I create "Art" personally and most my shit has like 2-3 layers. But i put a lot of work into that shit (no AI).
I think the artistic community needs to be careful not to confuse and intermingle political and aesthetic critique of AI art. The danger of failing to do so (eg "this _looks_ bad *because* it's AI generated") is that when sympathetic people inevitably find AI art they DO think looks good, there's a greater likelihood they'll muddle the issues as well to think AI art isn't that much of a problem after all. If you wouldn't call it aesthetically bad art if a human made it, don't say so because its AI made. Be very clear that, no matter how attractive or visually pleasing it is (and yes, sometime it absolutely is), it is still bad because it is exploitative and literal theft. That way other people will learn to be clear on that as well.
yeah i agree w you that criticizing on ai art's looks has always been a bad move. at early stages of ai art, i remembered people always focused on its flaws and said things like "hah, look at the fingers, look at the hair, its sooo bad!!" After a while, ai actually managed to improve a lot and tbh will continue to do so. Now those flaws arent easy to notice compared to like 6 fingers and 3 armpits before. So what do you guys have left to criticize?
@@flakzythe art style that looks samey and clearly distinguishable from real art... Most of the time But as the top commenter said, ai art is bad because it's theft. And because of that I don't want it to NOT look the same, because this way it's much easier to understand who is the thief.
this is how I see it as well, but I also think there's some merit to shitting on the quality of the aesthetic. It shows how overhyped generative AI tech is, and keeps people from hiring AI "artists". Talking about aesthetic also reveals something about human vs AI art. I love almost all human-made art whether it's aesthetically attractive or not because I know it's a human's creative expression. A kid's painting might not be conventionally pretty, but it lets you see what he individually sees. Current AI art is repulsive because it it has no point of view or lived experiences/ to express. It just regurgitate whatever is on its database with no intention for the image that it's expressing
"AI" "art" _is_ also bad aesthetically-a lot of folks don't give a flying fuck if it's theft. they can try rationalizing it as "real artists steal too", or pretend it's akin to artists having inspirations. I say criticize it on all fronts. it is ugly garbage with no thought or soul to it, *_and_* it is stolen work intended to replace and/or devalue the work of those it is stealing from. even aesthetically bad art by humans has more aesthetic merit in it than aesthetically pleasing "AI" regurgitations because you are seeing their intent and ability to capture said intent. PS: the idea that "AI" "art" is totes improving and was always going to is easily disputable. the more "AI" is trained on existing "AI" images, the worse it's actually getting in terms of approximating technique. plenty of real humans fuck up hands, but no human is drawing Superman's iconic "S" with an extra curve like on "Francesco Mattina's" dogshit cover art which bungled this.
It's so sad seeing these music artists having no empathy or respect for other (visual)artists. I feel like out of anyone, artists of any medium would understand the horror of having your image, art or even voice stolen and used to create souless abominations.
@@conradlorgar5508 yeah, I see what you are saying. But, I beg to differ 😁 please do check it out. The problem is the people that started making ai art are people that are not artistically gifted, that's why everything is bad. I produce music for 17 years, I'm a great designer and video editor, and a amazing graffiti writer. And I'm making ai videos for my music for 1.5 years now, I actually make ai art. 😅
playing music might turn into a quirky pass time and then recorded music might be very AI dominated. It might even be normal to play AI created songs live and make them into your own thing.
Not the same thing lmao. Copying someone's voice using AI is a direct case of stealing someone's likeness because voice is part of someone's innate identity. Not like with AI art where you can't recognize which artists it's taking from if i asked you to name them all.
@@BigOwl51 AI is already creating very bland and repetitive music all over Spotify. It'll never replace music entirely but there are a surprising amount of people who just love to eat up AI slop. There's a ton of AI art fans in this comment section that are saying "who cares, it looks cool".
@@goldbricks1395 You ruin your own point by saying directors are directing a group of PEOPLE. AI is not a person. It is not like directing a group of PEOPLE. Directors are artists using PEOPLE for their art, their HUMAN expression.
@@nyct1b1us So if someone programs the code for a video game or HTML etc, they're not being artistic because they're not telling a person what to do, but a computer
@@goldbricks1395 so what i meant by my comment is that for directors, directing people is their medium for art, which I am defining as human expression. For a video game coder, coding is their medium for human expression. It is an instance of them using their knowledge of coding and the technology of computers to express their ideas as a human. Coding, or any example of someone using technology (digital artists for example), is not comparable to someone using generative AI to "create" an image because AI is plagiarizing actual art made by humans (aka instances of human expression) to lazily "create" its art. It is bad, not because it is someone using technology, but because other real human people, artists, are being harmed by its act of plagiarization.
😮 let me see the other guy tried to engage with your argument about if it's hard or not who gives a fuk if it's art it's making money what are you doing😮 not making money by not making a i art😮 and even if you are making money with your art😮 you're making pennies compared to the person who is drawing pictures and using AI are the same time because he's literally making more s*** than you could ever draw in your entire life😮 congratulations you're ethically superior and poor😮
True. Digital artists and graphic designers have been using stock photography and illustrations for years. illustrators have been using website generators instead of paying web developers or web designers. We buy the cheap imported product over the handcrafted one. Everyone in this comment section betrays an artist or artisan at least once a month I’d guess.
@@someghostsAt least in some cases the people who take the stock photos do get paid for the pics they took, you can’t even add that caveat to the AI junk.
Ethical issues aside, using AI slop for the cover of an album you spent months pouring your soul into is like taking a painting you spent hours painstakingly pefecting and, instead of buying a nice frame for it, you just duct-tape it to the wall. Just makes the whole thing seem half-assed. Its also incredibly ironic that they used an AI image for an album which seems to have environmentalist messaging considering generating that single image likely used more electricity than your average household uses in a week.
“Other creative processes were used to make this”- we can see his Photoshop file in the photo. It is just a bunch of guides and mattes for adjustment layers. Some of the most barebones and novice level things you can do in the program!
My album art is generally terrible, but I like using either pictures I take myself, or sometimes drawing I make. That being said I have commissioned a few artists. Not often, but I'd never use AI, F that noise.
Seriously, if someone wants to phone it in the option to just do a blank monotone cover is right there. Maybe a bit pretentious but it's always an option.
Using AI images on your album automatically makes your product look cheap and like you don't really care. And if you didn't care enough about it, then why would I care enough to listen to the album.
I can always spot AI art by getting a headache. I sometimes get brutal migraines with aura and these dogshit AI artworks always trigger my brain in similar ways. Shit works without fail ngl.
It's not even just that it's ugly, it just leaves the inherent impression of inhumanity and lack of intentionality in works that I should believe you put thought and f*cking love into. Real art is not that expensive.
@@goldbricks1395It's not about it. It's about the fact that this isn't art. This doesn't have any substance or value on an emotional level (which as far as I understand, is an important part of art). We can't just blindly embrace technology. Technology, even AI can be used in a good way but not everywhere.
@@alexf225 it has an emotional value and substance to me and a lot of people though, so basically your main argument against its use is just an opinion you personally have
@@leohanley5935 I wouldn't worry too much about that honestly, because time has already proven that we will continue to seek out "older technology" etc; like there are still extremely successful rock and funk bands(Greta Van Fleet), even hardcore punk stuff liked Knocked Loose is huge; and we also still buy Vinyl even though it's objectively less convenient to do so compared to Spotify etc. I would be very surprised if this turned out any differently long-term.
Rich bands have no business dealing with AI art. Period. They can afford artists, they are connected to great artists. Never give them a pass when they pull shit like this.
Some ai art apps restrict you from doing inexplicit pics. While other's let you go for what you Know. You could even make Miley Cyrus more dirtier.😂 Or an actress that just won't take it off.
The mature ai art apps are the real Deal. They let you have the freedom to Do whatever the hell you want. Wanna make a famous actor or actress P*rnographic you could do it.😂 Even one's that never done it in their Entire lives.
Hmm, interesting. So far it seems like AI has been produced for the masses, not just the wealthy. Though there will obviously be the pursuit of wealth when it comes to its potential.
Thank you for plugging all of us artists on Instagram who would give up their left nut for a chance at an album cover. Bucket list dont fail me now! Dam you AI!
the thing i only just figured is that when you're arguing with AI art defenders they are, by their very definition, artless. they will never understand why artists deserve work or why that work is important. you'll never change their minds because they don't have a different understanding of art than you, they have a total absence of understanding. they're artless, but AI can now give them a facsimile of creative potential. it's very, very, very, very sad.
Brian Eno is no longer an artist because you found out about AI music two years ago. The people that make these takes have no ability to research art history.
This, or deep down they want to become artists so bad, but will never put in the work. Generative AI justifies their lack of creativity & comprehension for the craft. Takes too much time, passion, vulnerability, & introspection to be an artist. Or anything rather beneficial. They gotta find the next grift that will get them “That Bag!” I rather dig myself an early grave, before I knob-slob these soulless technocrats!
The truly artless people are the ones running around putting arbitrary minimums on what constitutes ***real*** art, while completely missing what art fundamentally is
Looking at my vinyl sleeve for "The Seeds of Love" by Tears for Fears, and it's absolutely amazing with so much layering and hand-rendered details. What a shame that we've come to this crap 35 years later.
2nd Plot Twist: The "band" is just a guy that promoted Suno Ai for some music. 3rd Plot Twist: The "fans" are just bots set to generate click bait controversy. 4rth Plot Twist: The "Ai artist" is just a twitter alt count for the guy that created the fake band. 5th Plot Twist: The guy running all of this works a minimum wage job and does this on his weekends, and it's earning no money. People who aren't following Ai progress don't know that humans will be outcompeted online, long before robots take manual jobs.
Do these musicians understand that they are only a prompt away from being AI'd into oblivion too? It feels like media is one robot to another at this point. Every thing is cheep. I have no mouth...but I must scream.....
Even putting aside any ethical concerns, I just don't get why a pro musician would want their album to look so cheap and amateurish. Like it's one thing if you have 0 budget but need album art and this is the best you could do, but when you're a major signed musician it just looks so trashy. It's like the modern day equivalent of taking some clip art from MS PowerPoint, or using a stock picture with a watermark still on it.
@@cullenn2100 it is absolutely nothing even close to replication though. If you only learned at least some basics about how it works instead of whining in social networks, it would become obvious to you
People who think AI is creative and smart are delusional. It all looks like the exact super rendered cooperate slop and its not too hard to find the source material a lot of the datasets blend together, especially on the video side of things. Anyone who's done a decent amount of art will understand how devoid of creativity and control it is and how it doesn't help anyone other than the thieves.
you dont need to be an artist to figure that out, AI feeds - replicates - copies - mixes already existing art. AI bros are the new NFT bros. What we call AI now, has little to do with actual AI. This is just a robot who immitates on demand, to put it simply
if you think it looks bad now, think about how it's going to age in 5, 10, 20 years from now. actual artful album covers are timeless. iron maiden's _dance of death_ comes to mind
Voidz cover isn't bad visually but still feels so lifeless due to the origin of its creation. And also it could have looked even better with actual human touch.
@@pula.29I'm pretty sure the person they got the voidz cover from still touches up the ai generated image afterwards so it still has a more refined look. But at that point just make the whole piece lol.
Knowing that the art is AI just kills it for me. I can’t stand it. I love the vibe of that style, but man, that’s not a style, that’s a preprogrammed imitation of a style
I think it's rather queer that you would like it more if you never knew about the artist. I think maybe there's some knee jerk at first, but I think you just appreciate the art for the art. Chris Clavin ended up being a bad guy, but Ghost Mice is still good.
That Deicide snippet is so funny, imagine someone releasing an album of songs made with generative AI trained on their music, I bet the dude would "give a sh*t" then.
Amen brother , as a working illustrator / Photographer , I f**king hate how AI has changed my industries. Talent and yrs of honing your craft don't seem to matter anymore.
My pro-AI coworker came to my desk to tell me how everyone's being mean to T4F and that it was a "real artist using AI" and so i did an audit of the surrealistly Instagram and it was all AI slop..... Whats more is that they were using hashtags like nft, opensea, crypto, etc on their generations, like they have always been a grifter and its genuinely disappointing to see high profile bands give way to this kind of stuff. Its like when Pink Floyd recently did a fan-submission contest for music videos and one of the winners was an AI music video ... And the guy who made it was of course involved in crypto and nfts before getting into ai
Just take a picture of something cool. If you're not creative enough to make an album cover yourself or find an artist that resonates with you, you're not creative enough to make good music
Tbf designing, or even having an eye for, coverart is not at all the same skillset as making music. There's plenty of phoned in or derivative coverarts for great albums that are only considered classic covers in hindsight because the music itself was classic.
@@goostav8235 but why? Honestly. Like what if I want to use AI? I shouldn’t do it because YOU think it’s bad? Why should I care? Honestly this is just bigotry and in 20 years this discussion will be remembered like people saying digital art isn’t real art in the 90s
@@MultiYoutubuser because ethics? Basic human compassion? Or just a rudimentary understanding of what art is in general? Basically all the things you SO CLEARLY lack. It’s quite sad really
@@antonigolonka7158 >lacking human compassion is when you do what you want with your money instead of giving it to me It’s not our moral duty to support every single job there is. I’m sure you drive a car rather than going around on a horse, even if that hurts the horse breeding business. I honestly don’t see what the difference between that and preferring ai to traditional artists is
@@CHAOSMAN-kd1id well it is, cause everytime I look over at my phone while I'm listening to this song I see garbage AI slop that doesn't even have a fraction of the soul the actual song does
Back when AI art was in its infancy and looked like shit but was genuinely surreal and abstract, Vinny Vinesauce generated one image that was actually evocative. He then, get this, PAID AN ARTIST to recreate it in a high-definition piece of art and expand on it, and that was used as the album cover for his band Red Vox's album Realign. That is the only use case for AI, as inspiration for a paid artist to go off of.
unfortunately, with what we know now, it may not be truly ethical because unless he made the dataset or it was ethically trained, it was probably vreated with stolen data. just not good enough to make anything recognizable. not blaming him bcs it wasnt as well known and he did do the best he could to make it ethical, but yeah.
they could have literally have this concept made with photography and would have looked 100x better. just some guy in an astronaut suit in a sunflower field this summer.
Remember in the 90’s and early 00’s when some artists would release albums with hideous early-3D graphics album covers (Dance of Death by Iron Maiden for example), and those covers now look absolutely terrible and completely date the album? In 20 years we’ll say the same thing about AI album covers.
On top of AI Art, there’s so much “music” channels on youtube pumping out ai music with ai art in them. It’s like cockroaches. You block one, another pops up.
I'm so sick of AI. It looks boring and cheap. I hate how shiny and uncanny these images are. Every time a company chooses to use AI instead of paying an artist, it makes their whole brand look horrible.
@@goldencookie5456 Eventually that will happen but it doesn't really change my mind. The worthlessness of it doesn't just go away all because it looks less like AI.
> I hate how [...] uncanny these images are There are people who utilize this viscerally upsetting stable diffusion quality to a great effect. It's kinda cool when you specifically lean into the uncanny valley and embrace how bizarre, creepy, soulless and inhuman it is. There are ways to make it work (especially if there's actual effort and creativity involved, and you're not just an AI-bandwagon hack).
@@timothy8428 I couldn't find anything with some simple searches, but I did learn that Russia apparently has massive sunflower fields. So that's kinda neat
As a designer who’s done plenty of music packaging, I’d be ashamed to turn a cover in with those weirdly copy-and-paste/samey-looking “cloud choads” in the background-even as a COMP, even if I wasn’t getting paid much, even if I wasn’t personally into the band, even if the deadline was insane, even if the client insisted. You’d get “better” results using a royalty-free stock cloud photo-hell, even watermarked clouds would look better.
The primary reasons are usually small details or errors which can occur during generation. These errors are not seen by the AI because it has no way to check it's outputs and is only saying “this should match the prompt”. The reason for this is partially that running such a check system would require more resources but also that the systems used during training wouldn't be useful in this regard.
The two biggest bummers for me re: artists I love using AI art in some capacity has been the Jesus Lizard (specifically the music video for Alexis Feels Sick) and The Residents. In both cases I think the uncanny nature was "the point", at least, but it still just feels so incredibly half-hearted and hollow.
as my field of expertise in the arts has been so bastardized by tech generators, here's the dial if you have an ai cover art for your album I'm going to feed that album to Udio
I’d be happy to contribute to such incredible tech. Tech like this was something I fantasized as a kid. I can’t wait for the day AI can generate literally anything with total perfection.
Thank you! I’m a huge fan of theirs even if they have used AI, I’ll still live their music because I feel that the most important things aren’t the covers it’s the music and the people who make that music
Someone probably already mentionned this but it's also awfully similar to the cover for So Happy / Send It (2020) by Bliss n Eso. Who woulda guessed the plagiarism machine is plagiarising.
The amount of artist available to make cover art is crazy now. It was such a pain in the late 90s/early 00’s to find just one person that worked well with your band
* shrugs * I'm fine with it, although, yes, I would have thought an established band could afford a traditionally generated image, or at least fix/touch up the AI image. But "AI" and "art" are both extraordinarily broad concepts - I hate some AI art, and I hate some traditional art, and I love some AI art, and I love some traditional art. Just for the record: I am a traditional artist, and a digital artist, and programmer and AI user/researcher/experimenter (and musician, actor, writer)
I think it's very hard for anyone to really have a good take on AI if they: 1. Don't understand generally how it works or what the words "Neural Net" mean 2. Haven't used it themselves to work on projects
Same I’m a massive fan but even if this is their new album cover they will still be my fav band cuz what I care abt most is their music and them as people
I'm currently reading "Why Surrealism Matters" by Mark Polizzotti and seeing some of those "Surrealist" artworks by this hack is an insult to the medium. There is a lot of social, political and ideological commentary in Surrealism, especially when the movement ventured outside of France. Surrealism isn’t just cramming nonsensical shit together and then sprinkling adjectives like "dream-like" and "surreal" to create some false sense of artistry. IT MAKES NO SENSE THEREFORE SURREALISM, is perhaps the worst form of surrealist commentary.
Honestly, if I were a successful music artist and didn't care about the cover art of my next album, I'd still pay for a human to do it. Is saving a few thousand dollars worth a ton of backlash? Of course it isn't. The court of public opinion is already well turned against the new Tears for Fears album- and it hasn't even come out yet. Hope it was worth it, guys.
The hacky 'surrealist' AI artist has to be some kind of scam or joke. There are so many flawed aspects with their art that can ACTUALLY be fixed with AI, e.g. inpainting. But instead they leave nipple windows with leaves growing out of it for the spaceman. Legit, they probably just generated 50s images and said fuck it this one will do.
The transition to AI that companies want to make (Mostly the corpas that are at the top with no concept or understanding of creativity) won't be pretty. They HAVE the money and insist on being cheap. (Artist treatment is so bad in the industry) I'm talking billions of dollars, we know that. Nothing makes us people more pissed than knowing there is a fuckton money not being utilized for masterpieces. We have experienced what human creativity can do and how inspiring it is. It's literally been with us since the dawn of time. There's so many more but I think the majority sympathize with artists and see how AI generative art is shit.
If you scroll down all the way to this "artist's" first post in 2022, it's clearly a 2022 AI "art" and then as you scroll up you can see his images getting more detailed as generative AI improves lol. He even use to caption "DALL·E" on his posts omg
I could see how Boomers would be really into it tho. A lot of Boomers seem to be quite entertained by AI art and AI media in general. Liiike, thats their thing. its crazy.
You are absolutely wrong. It is not easy to find artist’s who can do what you need social media or Fiverr. When I was looking for cover art for my instrumental album. It took my months of reaching out to and vetting artist’s. They either weren’t taking commissions, had an outrageous fees, was using photos instead of vector, wouldn’t do what was asked, did have any vision, was dismissive because you aren’t a big name, or had ownership issues. Once AI art came up I said I’ll go that route for now on.
It’s so weird that for a lot of technological innovation the standard assumption is that Older people will be total Luddites about it meanwhile with everything AI older people seem to be uncritically embracing it while everyone younger despises it
I guess the old people are used to being outdated and going through big changes. Also this new AI tech is the same as any other tech to them since they don’t understand either of it. Older people also have less to live through, and less to go through, so naturally the younger people with futures ahead will be more worried.
The fact the entertainment industry would rather spend bajilion dollars on AI which destroys the environment and generates the most mediocre generic shit from millions of artworks from real artists, instead of spending the same amount of money on hiring actual artists with skills and creativity, shows that none of these businessmen care about art, what really matters here is the profit.
Here I am spending hours on an art piece for a simple song cover I do for the love of it, and here we have actual established musicians using AI art because they cant be bothered to toss a few bucks at an actual human artist. We truly are doomed.
Personally I feel that the only good application of AI in music that I have seen is the way EE used it for their 2022 album Raw data feel. Not only was their text AI model using ethically sourced material, the cover was also clearly chosen because of its AI generated look (this was before image generation was nearly as advanced). And the cover and art itself contains a lot of stylised design elements that had to be done afterwards. Their other uses of AI in the promo materials and music videos like forms of deepfakes or random imagery always seemed like an adoption of an esthetic rather than a lazy choice. I think the main reason it works for that album, aside from the clear intent to use AI as a thematic device rather than a labour replacement, is that it was before AI became too 'good'. Back in 2022 AI was simply an idea that was almost useable, now it is good enough that if a similar song writing style would be used for songs as EE did for that album (which was around a 5% AI 95% human split with some heavy inspiration on the human side from the AI ideas) it would simply be a normal album. You could still do a similar commentary on technology and consumerism with the current day AI models but how you would go about it I have no idea. Another decent example is the heart pt5 music video though technically that is more so using AI as a tool rather than the focal point.
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
Having an AI make the cover for your album is the fastest way for me to realize “oh, looks like someone gave up” like dude, no self respecting artist would do this without a overwhelming sum of denial and egotism.
@@sebastianherrera6514 you wouldn’t know it’s AI art unless you’re told, so what’s it matter?
@@52BLUEif you cant pick out AI art its a skill issue im afraid
@@samurai_8917 um… unless you’re told, you wouldn’t even know. And if not now then just give it time.
@@snoozley853 defending Ai? I don’t think it needs my help, buddy.
@@52BLUEBut we're not at that point yet, and still they chose this cover art. If you simply look at a lot of AI images then it becomes very easy to spot them
“this is so surreal” it’s literally just an astronaut suit in a field of sunflowers. you could recreate this entirely in-camera and it would honestly look much better
It’s a good way to flesh out an idea, but they should go with real art after the fact
They could've used AI to make some sort of "concept art" of how it should look and then recreate it irl for a photoshoot and it'd look 10x better. But no, that'd take actual care for art
exactly, this makes you want to do this exact thing as a photo shoot, and tbh with the right camera lens, at the right time time of day etc, with real sunflowers, that could look way cooler
ikr my first thought was just that you can find a sunflower field, get an astronaut suit, and then just take a photo because thats just photography it’s actual art instead
@@-bielle2985 Nah, AI for concept art at best could be used if you dont have any money to comision something to a real artist and you still need to pitch the idea to a board of investors. Since the modeling for AI images is predictive, you end up with stuff that has no real substance to it, while asking a real concept artist, you can get good iterations.
The key distinction is an artist actually interprets the concepts you want to put into an image, while the AI just takes a vector of values that is associated with your words and tries to just predict what it should make, thats why all AI images have some extremelly boring perspectives (typically they are always centered images), because it is the most common, so the most likely to be considered as "correct".
An artist would take the concepts and engage with them at a comprehensive level, not just at an informational one, which can lead to really interesting iterations. It is not rare that projects get changed because one artist takes the concepts that people gave them and makes an iteration that has a twist that is considered more interesting, so they roll with it. With AI that may only happen by literal chance AND if the AI is tuned so allows more "noise" to be introduced in the final probability vector.
WHY IS AI MAKING ART WHEN I STILL HAVE TO DO THE DISHES
the fact that AI's first widespread use was not making people's lives easier by doing menial tasks for us but instead trying to do one of the only intrinsically human things (making art) is so wild
It should get its priorities straight imo
Capitalism
Get a dishwasher
It turns out figuring out statistical relationships in pixels is cheaper and easier than making a robot arm capable of handling plates.
We'll get there.
The whole notion of AI art is so lame because you have this machine that ideally could generate anything you wanted, ostensibly infinite possibilities, and people almost exclusively use it to create Vaseline covered pseudo hyper realistic generic garbage.
It's not art, it's regurgitated slop
vaseline covered 😭😭😭😭
You can make pretty looking stuff with more specified models or some fine-tuned style inputs, but these people don't bother. So the AI resorts to the generic "AI beautiful" style that's looks high fidelity but very averaged out and bland.
@@frocco7125there’s nothing pretty about stolen art
@@BarakaTheGreatAI doesn't steal, but I understand why you guys like that lie so much, it really plays well on the emotional front.
and I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad
The memes in which I'm dying...
Bravo
Mad world...😅
Remember in the 90’s and early 00’s when some artists would release album with hideous early-3D graphics album covers (Dance of Death by Iron Maiden for example), and those covers now look absolutely terrible and completely date the album?
In 20 years we’ll say the same thing about AI album covers.
@@sharkymcshark3392 Some of the CGI images for CD covers from the 90s/00s look naff now, but at least they didn't steal from or displace artists.
If someone writes an "apology" statement for using A.I., 9 times out of 10 its also A.I.
It was totally AI too 😂
Nice profile picture.
Exactly, only ChatGPT uses the word "juxtaposition"
I ran their response through GPTZero, and it scores 76% probability of being AI generated.
@@dale2283 No, it's a word.
Dont you dare say anything bad about Weird Al
His best song is his worst title for his best song.
Lmao
amen🙏
@@Bobby_LSerunai not to be confused with Weird Ai
How come you are always such a fussy young man?
I don't understand how an artist could put their heart and soul into music they made and have the art that represents those feelings be generated by some shit program. Feels weird to me
No
They don't see music as art form but a money making scheme. Just like 90% of Anthony's subscribers don't see music as an art form but a means to make themselves look cool.
Right? It's like okay you replaced the artist that would draw your cover, keep at it and soon your record label will just replace you too 👍
The art that represents the feelings is the music bud. Who gives a fuck about an album cover in the streaming age?
i dont understand why people listen to albums 100% performed by computers, like aphex twin
Ai has been such a negative for the internet. Everything feels so dead and lifeless with these pictures dumped everywhere
Every single corner of the internet is being filled with meaningless mass-generated slop and it's getting more and more difficult to find anything genuine
have you checked out google images lately? it's so depressing, basically 50% AI slop
@@OrgaNik_MusicWith bots, A.I everything, and mass generated images polluting the Internet, I question if I'm even interacting with real humans sometimes.
I think it's not all bad with AI, things like memes and how it can be used creatively by accounts like thearchiveinbetween by generating realistic pictures to your stories are all fun and innovative. It's a tool after all, what you do with it is up to you. But I obviously can't deny all the downsides it has brought with it
@@leolehmann2736 even the most deep fried, pixelated memes are better quality than ai generated schlop
Of all bands Tears for Fears using AI is so baffling. These guys once hired Phil Collins to play one half of a song
I wonder if it was their own decision.
@woadblue withiut defending the decision at all, I doubt they did in today's label climate, but I'm still super disappointed either way
@@wolfieeeee256 Likewise. Major artists are usually limited by their labels. Would be so cool if we got to see what the artists wanted to make from the start.
@@woadblue I think it was their indecision married with a lack of vision (but probably the label, yes)
Could have literally just put a guy in an astronaut costume, dumped him in a sunflower field and taken a picture. Probably would still cost less than what they paid this AI hack
@@TwodeeTwodimensional you make art sound so easy.
I was just about to say that
@@52BLUE theyre talkin about photoshop
I can't tell if you're joking or not. So just go down to the old costume store and rent an astronaut costume, ok I've never in my life seen that available in a store. Then just find a local sunflower field. Yeah that doesn't exist either. And even if that stuff existed that would be hours of work compared to typing a few sentences.
@@tvman7916 A band with the resources a band like tears for fears has at their disposal couldve figured it out
Honestly that Tears for Fears cover makes The Voidz one look like the Mona Lisa
I mean the Mona Lisa kind of sucks.
like yeah the voidz one at least doesn't look horrendously ai😭😭😭 it's a shame they didn't comission an artist of the similar style to make the cover
yeah it was a bit stylistic and inspired with 90's anime stuff, this is pure AI
@@zackzallie8735 So just because it's a historic artifact no one can have an opinion on it? Wow such smart.
@@zackzallie8735 What? So no one can just say "i don't like this" without also writing a whole thesis on why? Aren't you also screaming "the food doesn't suck!!!" at him? Where's your elaboration?
Their response reads like it was a ChatGPT answer lol
I'm 100% convinced they fired up ChatGPT and prompted it to write an explanation for the use of AI art in their album cover
the line 'joyful nod' gives it away.
Yep
Mixed media digital collage my ass. That is just entirely AI generated and their explanation is the most out of touch thing I've ever heard.
Digital collage is one of the most popular and accessible styles nowadays you couldn't hire an actual artist? There's tons of them.
By digital collage they mean "made by standing on the heads of the destitute artists, whose work was stolen and fed by ancap techbros into the moloch-like maw of an LLM, to deny them their pittance of a wealth"
Yeah the weird placement of the 3 clouds confirms that for me. That would be so easy to fix, even with more AI (eg removing/altering them through photoshop generative fill). This was minimally altered, and i mean MINIMALLY.
There’s so many artists in all disciplines nowadays that it’s stupid. There’s no reason 98% of people needing visual art can’t hire someone at virtually any price level to create something cool. You don’t need to find some uberprofessional artist who’s sold 1,000’s of artworks at $10,000 each or higher. Some dude in an apartment complex near your studio could be doing cool stuff and would probably be willing to sell you something for a really solid price, especially since it also means exposure for him.
In an age where the brat album cover is a thing (and a commercial success at that), why would you stoop down to the level of ai generated lifeless garbage lol
virgin Tears for Fears AI astronaut cover vs gigachad Porter Robinson Nurture laying face down in a real grass field cover
Porter used AI in the Cheerleader music video. He even admitted to it and doesn't really see the issue with it.
@@PhoenixDowned Yeah, love Porter but really disagree with him on this topic.
@@MusicJunkie37Where you disappointed when he used autotune? It’s equally lazy.
@@8bitdiedie Practically every music artist uses some form of autotune/vocal synthesizer. Not to mention mixing and mastering takes actual human skill and is in no way lazy. Tell me you know nothing about music production without telling me you know nothing about music production lmao
@8bitdiedie auto tune doesn't automatically make your music listen able LOL porter was making incredible dance music before cheerleader. I do agree with music junkie if he used ai I think that is really disappointing. If you think porter Robinson doesn't have skill, go watch one of his nurture live performances or his alt ego
i dont think tears for fears intended for this to be predatory nor they had ill intent on using ai slop on their album cover, i think theyre just out of touch old peoples trying to hop into the hip new cool trendy tech at the moment.
Pretty much this, yeah. I don't like it and I would've preferred they paid an actual album artist to make something, but these are just old guys making music in their golden years. This isn't Taylor Swift using AI, it's a band the majority of people only know one song from
You read their minds, wow.
@@chuzzbot Can’t we speculate chuzzbot
I think they genuinely thought they are commissioning an artist.
Reminds me of when Ringo Starr released a bunch of NFTs a few years ago. The intention is pure, but the product itself is terrible
This all could have been avoided with an astronaut costume and a photoshoot in a sunflower field.
It would've look better too
"escape from what is known" though...
God I hate AI bros.
its funny cause I feel like that's the whole point of using generative ai for something like this, to get inspiration or ideas for something and then make the thing yourself. If they generated that photo and then used it as inspiration for an actual photoshoot to make an album cover like this then no one would be complaining, and an actual photo would look fucked up when you zoom in.
@@WobblyBits_X yeah, escape from quality 💀
their response to the whole thing kinda made it worse lol
"no, no... you see, we actually PAID someone to make an AI cover" 💀
“We commissioned an art thief” is *_crazy._*
@@ImpendingRiot83 Which artist did he steal from?
@@ThatBoiLamo Lmao watch them never respond to it.
@@ThatBoiLamo do you know how AI works?
@@a-jjjjjjj Yes very similar to a Human Brain in regards to perceiving and replicating certain aspect of Art like Style, Color choice and so on. For some reason its stealing when a neural network does it but Inspiration when a Human does it.
Typing words into an image generator and calling yourself an artist is like telling the guy behind the counter at Chipotle how you want your burrito and calling yourself a chef.
If Chipotle taste good, how cares who made it?
Its easier to say than prompt engineer, or AI art creator. To be fair, some AI art is created by just a prompt on the user side, specifically dumbed down for basic users, but in its original form it is typically more involved and requires some fine tuning. It can get a lot more complicated when you start training custom models. Today most of the AI generated images we see on the internet were just mass produced by people who don't know what they are doing.
And if the counter guy went around mom and pop burrito places to buy burritos which he can take apart so he can use the ingredients to assemble burrito you asked for.
i know like 20 incredibly talented artists who get nowhere near the amount of work they should. like literally throw a rock in any direction online and you will find a talented artist. it's not hard at all
@@desertplanet3253 if you consider them all talented, perhaps you should get yourself some good taste.
@@IuriiPlevako 🥵🥵🥵🥵🥶🥶🥵🥵🥵 cold daddy cold
This was happening far before AI. Like seriously there have always been wayyyy too many artists when compared to the demand for decades now. Going to art school was laughed at. It was always a bad gamble, and now it's being proven just how bad of a gamble it was.
Like nearly every problem we face on this planet, this is sadly just a result of overpopulation. There is too much competition in every field, and now companies stand to profit by filling the gap for the layperson.
@@minhuang8848how old are you genuinely, because this is such a naive and ignorant way to view the world. please go out and meet real, talented people, try to know their stories, the world is not black and white.
Not falling for this 😂@@IuriiPlevako
The only AI album cover so far that most ppl have been somewhat okay with is Lil Yachty’s cover for “Let’s Start Here.” and even that was initially met with widespread criticism. Any artist that’s paid even slight attention should know it’s a big no-no. STOP BEING LAZY.
With Lil Yatchy felt more vibey than fake ig to me
I liked it because it was like a metaphor for fucked up politicians
What about Everything Everything's, "Raw Data Feel" album cover?
yachty knew what he was doing with it though. he wanted a messed up looking picture and used ai for it since at the time the less developed models were perfect for creepy or odd looking pictures. much less reprehensible than using ai to recreate art so you dont have to pay to use it as a cover imo
It may be controversial but I'm not personally 100% against the mere concept of using AI for album art. For a purpose. Just generating a cheap, shitty looking image and using it is horrible and makes the entire project look lazy. Using it like Yachty did is effective in a meta sense. It looks bad but it's meant to portray soulless people and it's a soulless image. That's a clever use of it to me.
They commissioned an "AI artist"???
If a person who types a prompt can call themselves an "AI artist", someone who commissions an image from a real artist can call themselves an artist too, then? Or does that only work when there is no skill or real artist involved? Cut the middle man, Tears for Fears, take credit for dall-e and its stolen data yourselves, you fools!
Look up this video - "Create MEAT SPEAKER with AI and Unreal Engine / Tutorial" and tell me this person is not a real artist.. You will always have lazy artists who use an simple prompt and call it a day, but when a person who is creative and good at what they do, it becomes a tool as good as the modern computer was to the classic paintbrush..
They'll all try and say that they say things and promt things that is "more complex" but that's just their fancy way of trying to make it sound like there's more to it that there really is.
I can describe a house extremely well and in the finest detail but that doesn't mean I created the house.
@@EmvyBeats yea, these people should just call themselves artists and not have to qualify it.
They got scammed by a dude who typed in some quick prompts in less than 10 minutes and probably paid premium for that too.
@@EmvyBeats I have several years experience in Blender and watched the video you suggested. The guy didn't do anything noteworthy himself. Stable Diffusion generated the images he needed, and then he used them as the template for displacement / normal maps, etc. He didn't model or sculpt ANYTHING CREATIVE, he just took what SD spat out and converted it to 3D. Idk how much experience you have with 3D modeling software, but what he did in Blender isn't impressive. It's almost completely automated and takes almost no time to do since he has a template he put no creative thought into himself. At best, one should consider what he did as the final steps SD wasn't created for.
So no, yours isn't an example of art, just AI fiddling with extra steps.
The most annoying thing is that this guy's other "surrealist" artwork look like as if he just pasted "in the style of..." and then a name of a surrealist artist like Dali or Magritte.
Art of Rafal Olbinski to be exact.
I wonder what Tears for Fears would think if I they knew that could prompt a midi roll plugin with: '4 minutes, 112 BPM, mid 80s synth rock, in the style of 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World', produced by Chris Hughes, rousing guitar solo, Linndrum, D major,' and have it reference a 40k song model I trained on 80s playlists I downloaded off Spotify, isolate a bunch of their little songwriting tricks and shit out a legally distinctive (but extremely reminiscent of their own work) arrangement for me to program my own instruments to, and then prompted an LLM with 'Song lyrics, 80s malaise, red scare, Reaganomics, Gorbachev' and had a generic 80s rock male AI voice print 'sing' them, and that they would have no way to prove that I'm not just a massive fan of theirs who has spent years studying their songwriting and wanted to pay homage but actually just some idiot with a computer whose only reference to Tears for Fears is from a Disney movie but they're trending on Tik Tok right now and I'm hoping to 'produce' the next summer jam and to profit immensely from it.
underrated comment
read that as goncharov
Nice, plus their popularity and creativity came in analog (predominately) times, not digital.
Whenever I see the Ai, I get instantly infuriated lol. Literally anything you see Ai do an artist can do x1000 better and you can actually support them
It's funny because they won't support real artists then expect me to support them
For now.
Ai art looks so cheap
Give or take a year and AI will completely eradicate visual artists
Exactly!
"We have an AI cover for our new album."
"You guys generated this free trash instead of paying an artist?"
"No, we DID actually pay an artist! An AI one!"
"So you wasted MONEY on this."
how the fuck does commissioning an AI artist even go, either. "Looks good, but could you have the person turned more to the right with a phone in hand?" "Sorry, but the program won't generate that, so.... pay up."
right like when commissioning an artist, you still pay, but they CAN actually make changes you pay for.
Paying an AI """""artist"""""
It's like paying to rent a movie from a guy that does torrents
At this point you deserve to be scammed
it is a scam, i know someone who does ai commisions and yeah it's just a scam lol. dumb people that don't know that there's free AI pay for these things
that's exactly how it works, the AI just generates whatever bullshit it feels like it and they just roll with it.
Commissioning an Ai artist doesn’t “go” because an Ai artist isn’t a thing. Clear as day.
The twitter thread is so funny man. The photoshop file has 7 layers. My thumbnails has much more layers than that LMAOOO
my shitpost doodles have more layers than 7 hello?????? they did NOT try at all..........
So good art is determined by the layer count? That's legit the worst take on that subject if heard so far.
@@ThatBoiLamo layers is just a determination for how much "work" been done.
@@NeoEvanA.R.Tyeah, fantano once said: "just because things are more difficult to make, doesn't mean it's inherently better"
@@NeoEvanA.R.T Ok so if i create a project with 1000 layers that are basically empty I made a masterpiece right? I know what you mean but that statement is just odd to me. I create "Art" personally and most my shit has like 2-3 layers. But i put a lot of work into that shit (no AI).
I think the artistic community needs to be careful not to confuse and intermingle political and aesthetic critique of AI art.
The danger of failing to do so (eg "this _looks_ bad *because* it's AI generated") is that when sympathetic people inevitably find AI art they DO think looks good, there's a greater likelihood they'll muddle the issues as well to think AI art isn't that much of a problem after all.
If you wouldn't call it aesthetically bad art if a human made it, don't say so because its AI made.
Be very clear that, no matter how attractive or visually pleasing it is (and yes, sometime it absolutely is), it is still bad because it is exploitative and literal theft. That way other people will learn to be clear on that as well.
yeah i agree w you that criticizing on ai art's looks has always been a bad move. at early stages of ai art, i remembered people always focused on its flaws and said things like "hah, look at the fingers, look at the hair, its sooo bad!!" After a while, ai actually managed to improve a lot and tbh will continue to do so. Now those flaws arent easy to notice compared to like 6 fingers and 3 armpits before. So what do you guys have left to criticize?
@@flakzythe art style that looks samey and clearly distinguishable from real art... Most of the time
But as the top commenter said, ai art is bad because it's theft. And because of that I don't want it to NOT look the same, because this way it's much easier to understand who is the thief.
this is how I see it as well, but I also think there's some merit to shitting on the quality of the aesthetic. It shows how overhyped generative AI tech is, and keeps people from hiring AI "artists".
Talking about aesthetic also reveals something about human vs AI art. I love almost all human-made art whether it's aesthetically attractive or not because I know it's a human's creative expression. A kid's painting might not be conventionally pretty, but it lets you see what he individually sees. Current AI art is repulsive because it it has no point of view or lived experiences/ to express. It just regurgitate whatever is on its database with no intention for the image that it's expressing
@@flakzy They are easy to notice and it still looks bad
"AI" "art" _is_ also bad aesthetically-a lot of folks don't give a flying fuck if it's theft. they can try rationalizing it as "real artists steal too", or pretend it's akin to artists having inspirations. I say criticize it on all fronts. it is ugly garbage with no thought or soul to it, *_and_* it is stolen work intended to replace and/or devalue the work of those it is stealing from.
even aesthetically bad art by humans has more aesthetic merit in it than aesthetically pleasing "AI" regurgitations because you are seeing their intent and ability to capture said intent.
PS: the idea that "AI" "art" is totes improving and was always going to is easily disputable. the more "AI" is trained on existing "AI" images, the worse it's actually getting in terms of approximating technique. plenty of real humans fuck up hands, but no human is drawing Superman's iconic "S" with an extra curve like on "Francesco Mattina's" dogshit cover art which bungled this.
It's so sad seeing these music artists having no empathy or respect for other (visual)artists. I feel like out of anyone, artists of any medium would understand the horror of having your image, art or even voice stolen and used to create souless abominations.
I make ai music videos for my tracks. I'm very proud of my stuff. 😁 I make it art.
@nyrman the oxymoron of the statement "i make ai art"
@@conradlorgar5508 yeah, I see what you are saying. But, I beg to differ 😁 please do check it out. The problem is the people that started making ai art are people that are not artistically gifted, that's why everything is bad. I produce music for 17 years, I'm a great designer and video editor, and a amazing graffiti writer. And I'm making ai videos for my music for 1.5 years now, I actually make ai art. 😅
It's literally class betrayal
There's no other word for that
It's literally class betrayal
There's no other word for that
Bands are replacing artists as if ai can’t also replace musicians
playing music might turn into a quirky pass time and then recorded music might be very AI dominated. It might even be normal to play AI created songs live and make them into your own thing.
You’re in a state of delusion if you think ai will ever replace real music
Not the same thing lmao. Copying someone's voice using AI is a direct case of stealing someone's likeness because voice is part of someone's innate identity. Not like with AI art where you can't recognize which artists it's taking from if i asked you to name them all.
you had no problem when ai replaced all the other jobs like translators or train drivers
@@BigOwl51 AI is already creating very bland and repetitive music all over Spotify. It'll never replace music entirely but there are a surprising amount of people who just love to eat up AI slop. There's a ton of AI art fans in this comment section that are saying "who cares, it looks cool".
It's not "art", art implies human expression. It's "AI generated images".
Humans tell the AI what to do. It's like directing a group of people, and I dare you to tell me directors aren't artists
@@goldbricks1395 You ruin your own point by saying directors are directing a group of PEOPLE. AI is not a person. It is not like directing a group of PEOPLE. Directors are artists using PEOPLE for their art, their HUMAN expression.
@@nyct1b1us So if someone programs the code for a video game or HTML etc, they're not being artistic because they're not telling a person what to do, but a computer
@@goldbricks1395 so what i meant by my comment is that for directors, directing people is their medium for art, which I am defining as human expression. For a video game coder, coding is their medium for human expression. It is an instance of them using their knowledge of coding and the technology of computers to express their ideas as a human. Coding, or any example of someone using technology (digital artists for example), is not comparable to someone using generative AI to "create" an image because AI is plagiarizing actual art made by humans (aka instances of human expression) to lazily "create" its art. It is bad, not because it is someone using technology, but because other real human people, artists, are being harmed by its act of plagiarization.
😮 let me see the other guy tried to engage with your argument about if it's hard or not who gives a fuk if it's art it's making money what are you doing😮 not making money by not making a i art😮 and even if you are making money with your art😮 you're making pennies compared to the person who is drawing pictures and using AI are the same time because he's literally making more s*** than you could ever draw in your entire life😮 congratulations you're ethically superior and poor😮
Artists of different mediums are so quick to betray each other, it’d almost be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
True. Digital artists and graphic designers have been using stock photography and illustrations for years. illustrators have been using website generators instead of paying web developers or web designers. We buy the cheap imported product over the handcrafted one.
Everyone in this comment section betrays an artist or artisan at least once a month I’d guess.
@@someghostsAt least in some cases the people who take the stock photos do get paid for the pics they took, you can’t even add that caveat to the AI junk.
Ai “artists” aren’t artists
@@ImpendingRiot83 some... Point being that many of the very people complaining about supporting artist pirate content in some form or fashion.
@@nicobailey2197 I think they were talking about the musician using ai art betraying the illustrators
The funniest part is that the sunflowers aren't all even pointed in the same direction
They don't point in the exact same direction in real life either dude...
@@Elyzeon.Go outside lmao they always face the sun
@@Taksheel Like the ones in the picture? they all face the same general direction, like real sunflowers.
um... the sun moves dude
Ethical issues aside, using AI slop for the cover of an album you spent months pouring your soul into is like taking a painting you spent hours painstakingly pefecting and, instead of buying a nice frame for it, you just duct-tape it to the wall. Just makes the whole thing seem half-assed. Its also incredibly ironic that they used an AI image for an album which seems to have environmentalist messaging considering generating that single image likely used more electricity than your average household uses in a week.
it didnt use more electricity then a whole household in a week come on now
“Other creative processes were used to make this”- we can see his Photoshop file in the photo. It is just a bunch of guides and mattes for adjustment layers. Some of the most barebones and novice level things you can do in the program!
Bro actually shitting on a novice artist just to make a point against AI ☠️☠️ how pathetic
@@EndersupremE Yes, yes I am
My album art is generally terrible, but I like using either pictures I take myself, or sometimes drawing I make.
That being said I have commissioned a few artists.
Not often, but I'd never use AI, F that noise.
Seriously, if someone wants to phone it in the option to just do a blank monotone cover is right there. Maybe a bit pretentious but it's always an option.
taking a picture is even more lazy then AI.
@@jackied962no it's not bro
@@1stflower834 ok they are about the same.
@@jackied962 If you don’t think about anything very hard or know much about anything to begin with, sure.
Using AI images on your album automatically makes your product look cheap and like you don't really care. And if you didn't care enough about it, then why would I care enough to listen to the album.
I can always spot AI art by getting a headache. I sometimes get brutal migraines with aura and these dogshit AI artworks always trigger my brain in similar ways. Shit works without fail ngl.
Go to a Doctor. Sounds like a Tumor to me. Bless you!
damn you must hate hell fire by black midi that is very good ai art
@@ThatBoiLamo Yea when you get migraines like mine, you'll get that checked out. Many cases like mine where it's literally just "migraines" and cope.
@@MrHiglon "migraines and cope" sounds like a banger Album Title to me. But glad to hear you got that shit checked!
MY AI SENSE IS TINGLING
It's not even just that it's ugly, it just leaves the inherent impression of inhumanity and lack of intentionality in works that I should believe you put thought and f*cking love into. Real art is not that expensive.
If they paid that guy more than 5 dollars they got ripped off.
This is the point
I make ai music videos for my tracks. I'm the best at it. I'm very proud of my stuff. 😁 I make it art.
old people just love this shit, man
It’s funny to think the boomers in Tears For Fears were like “holy shit this painting is incredible” and paid thousands for it
imagine spending years trying to perfect an album and then just using ai for the cover
"Imagine being excited about and embracing new technology instead of clinging to the past"
@@goldbricks1395It's not about it. It's about the fact that this isn't art. This doesn't have any substance or value on an emotional level (which as far as I understand, is an important part of art). We can't just blindly embrace technology. Technology, even AI can be used in a good way but not everywhere.
@@alexf225 it has an emotional value and substance to me and a lot of people though, so basically your main argument against its use is just an opinion you personally have
@@goldbricks1395 it’s concerning that people are already referring to human art as anarchic and a thing of the past
@@leohanley5935 I wouldn't worry too much about that honestly, because time has already proven that we will continue to seek out "older technology" etc; like there are still extremely successful rock and funk bands(Greta Van Fleet), even hardcore punk stuff liked Knocked Loose is huge; and we also still buy Vinyl even though it's objectively less convenient to do so compared to Spotify etc. I would be very surprised if this turned out any differently long-term.
Using ai for an album cover is next level laziness
Yeah idk about that "laziness", but i say it's really interesting in my opinion
Not to mention the cover looks ugly af.
@@Solomarcoremix Mf, just take a photo of a bin. It's not that hard. XXD
Bruh it's worse than lazy, it admits that you're unwilling to pay an artist for art while also hoping people will pay to listen to yours
And then trying to justify it with a chat gpt written response to the backlash its even woorsee
Rich bands have no business dealing with AI art. Period. They can afford artists, they are connected to great artists.
Never give them a pass when they pull shit like this.
Yeah, I make ai videos for my tracks, I'm poor as fuck hahahahaah
Remember kids: the underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth.
Some ai art apps restrict you from doing inexplicit pics.
While other's let you go for what you
Know.
You could even make Miley Cyrus more dirtier.😂
Or an actress that just won't take it off.
The mature ai art apps are the real
Deal.
They let you have the freedom to
Do whatever the hell you want.
Wanna make a famous actor or actress
P*rnographic you could do it.😂
Even one's that never done it in their
Entire lives.
Hmm, interesting. So far it seems like AI has been produced for the masses, not just the wealthy. Though there will obviously be the pursuit of wealth when it comes to its potential.
basically communism
@@musicxnr8876 😅
Thank you for plugging all of us artists on Instagram who would give up their left nut for a chance at an album cover. Bucket list dont fail me now! Dam you AI!
Keep grinding, you'll get that Album Cover eventually. Don't let AI discourage you!
Get good enough as an artist so you don't feel threatened by a machine.
@piccoloatburgerking im not threatened by a soulless machine. That's a horrible take on my post.
@@fluidikons It was meant to be encouraging no need to get defensive lmao.
@piccoloatburgerking the way it was worded made it sound like computer art was the pinnacle of good art...which it isn't.
the thing i only just figured is that when you're arguing with AI art defenders they are, by their very definition, artless. they will never understand why artists deserve work or why that work is important. you'll never change their minds because they don't have a different understanding of art than you, they have a total absence of understanding. they're artless, but AI can now give them a facsimile of creative potential. it's very, very, very, very sad.
@@sebdecsebdec sniff your own farts a little more
Thats the one positive: it makes it painfully obvious who's into art and who's into pretty pictures
Brian Eno is no longer an artist because you found out about AI music two years ago. The people that make these takes have no ability to research art history.
This, or deep down they want to become artists so bad, but will never put in the work. Generative AI justifies their lack of creativity & comprehension for the craft. Takes too much time, passion, vulnerability, & introspection to be an artist. Or anything rather beneficial. They gotta find the next grift that will get them “That Bag!” I rather dig myself an early grave, before I knob-slob these soulless technocrats!
The truly artless people are the ones running around putting arbitrary minimums on what constitutes ***real*** art, while completely missing what art fundamentally is
Looking at my vinyl sleeve for "The Seeds of Love" by Tears for Fears, and it's absolutely amazing with so much layering and hand-rendered details. What a shame that we've come to this crap 35 years later.
Plot twist: the statement was AI generated too
Plot Twist is the name of a track of mine. It has an ai video. 😂
2nd Plot Twist: The "band" is just a guy that promoted Suno Ai for some music.
3rd Plot Twist: The "fans" are just bots set to generate click bait controversy.
4rth Plot Twist: The "Ai artist" is just a twitter alt count for the guy that created the fake band.
5th Plot Twist: The guy running all of this works a minimum wage job and does this on his weekends, and it's earning no money.
People who aren't following Ai progress don't know that humans will be outcompeted online, long before robots take manual jobs.
Do these musicians understand that they are only a prompt away from being AI'd into oblivion too? It feels like media is one robot to another at this point. Every thing is cheep. I have no mouth...but I must scream.....
Fantano’s upper lip had the sickest PS1 demo discs in the late 90’s
Stuffed mustache went crazy
Even putting aside any ethical concerns, I just don't get why a pro musician would want their album to look so cheap and amateurish. Like it's one thing if you have 0 budget but need album art and this is the best you could do, but when you're a major signed musician it just looks so trashy. It's like the modern day equivalent of taking some clip art from MS PowerPoint, or using a stock picture with a watermark still on it.
It's a matter of taste isn't it. The cover isn't my taste either, but I've seen tons of non ai art that looks cheap and amateurish that I don't like.
"AI" should also be in scare-quotes, as there is no intelligence involved, it is replication
*interpolation
@@chrisjfox8715 no, I would not use that term.
@@cullenn2100 it is absolutely nothing even close to replication though. If you only learned at least some basics about how it works instead of whining in social networks, it would become obvious to you
@@cullenn2100 regardless of what term you'd used, it's the mathematical reality of how it works. That's literally what's happening underneath the hood
The AI cape squad has arrived! Whew.
People who think AI is creative and smart are delusional. It all looks like the exact super rendered cooperate slop and its not too hard to find the source material a lot of the datasets blend together, especially on the video side of things. Anyone who's done a decent amount of art will understand how devoid of creativity and control it is and how it doesn't help anyone other than the thieves.
you dont need to be an artist to figure that out, AI feeds - replicates - copies - mixes already existing art. AI bros are the new NFT bros. What we call AI now, has little to do with actual AI. This is just a robot who immitates on demand, to put it simply
They always talk about "surrealism" but I doubt they even know what it means.
if you think it looks bad now, think about how it's going to age in 5, 10, 20 years from now. actual artful album covers are timeless. iron maiden's _dance of death_ comes to mind
I didn’t think the Voidz cover looked all that bad but the Tears for Fears is on another level of lazy
Voidz cover isn't bad visually but still feels so lifeless due to the origin of its creation. And also it could have looked even better with actual human touch.
@JortBilon2934-p2fwtf?
@@pula.29I'm pretty sure the person they got the voidz cover from still touches up the ai generated image afterwards so it still has a more refined look. But at that point just make the whole piece lol.
Knowing that the art is AI just kills it for me. I can’t stand it. I love the vibe of that style, but man, that’s not a style, that’s a preprogrammed imitation of a style
I think it's rather queer that you would like it more if you never knew about the artist. I think maybe there's some knee jerk at first, but I think you just appreciate the art for the art. Chris Clavin ended up being a bad guy, but Ghost Mice is still good.
That Deicide snippet is so funny, imagine someone releasing an album of songs made with generative AI trained on their music, I bet the dude would "give a sh*t" then.
There are multiple of those albums already out there and they suck
Amen brother , as a working illustrator / Photographer , I f**king hate how AI has changed my industries. Talent and yrs of honing your craft don't seem to matter anymore.
Should it? If someone hires you to make an image they typically only care about if the output fits with their needs, not how you got there.
My pro-AI coworker came to my desk to tell me how everyone's being mean to T4F and that it was a "real artist using AI" and so i did an audit of the surrealistly Instagram and it was all AI slop..... Whats more is that they were using hashtags like nft, opensea, crypto, etc on their generations, like they have always been a grifter and its genuinely disappointing to see high profile bands give way to this kind of stuff.
Its like when Pink Floyd recently did a fan-submission contest for music videos and one of the winners was an AI music video ... And the guy who made it was of course involved in crypto and nfts before getting into ai
Just take a picture of something cool. If you're not creative enough to make an album cover yourself or find an artist that resonates with you, you're not creative enough to make good music
Tbf designing, or even having an eye for, coverart is not at all the same skillset as making music. There's plenty of phoned in or derivative coverarts for great albums that are only considered classic covers in hindsight because the music itself was classic.
@@goostav8235 but why? Honestly. Like what if I want to use AI? I shouldn’t do it because YOU think it’s bad? Why should I care? Honestly this is just bigotry and in 20 years this discussion will be remembered like people saying digital art isn’t real art in the 90s
When photography was invented, people said the same things they say about AI now 🙄
@@MultiYoutubuser because ethics? Basic human compassion? Or just a rudimentary understanding of what art is in general? Basically all the things you SO CLEARLY lack. It’s quite sad really
@@antonigolonka7158
>lacking human compassion is when you do what you want with your money instead of giving it to me
It’s not our moral duty to support every single job there is. I’m sure you drive a car rather than going around on a horse, even if that hurts the horse breeding business. I honestly don’t see what the difference between that and preferring ai to traditional artists is
it's a shame since the new tears for fears song wasn't too bad
High praise, indeed.
imo it's by far one of the best songs they've done this century, but the cover just makes me feel weird listening to it
@@jaycie586 It doesn't have to be weird listening to it 🙄
@@CHAOSMAN-kd1id well it is, cause everytime I look over at my phone while I'm listening to this song I see garbage AI slop that doesn't even have a fraction of the soul the actual song does
As an artist I’ll be a robophobe till the day I die
Back when AI art was in its infancy and looked like shit but was genuinely surreal and abstract, Vinny Vinesauce generated one image that was actually evocative. He then, get this, PAID AN ARTIST to recreate it in a high-definition piece of art and expand on it, and that was used as the album cover for his band Red Vox's album Realign. That is the only use case for AI, as inspiration for a paid artist to go off of.
unfortunately, with what we know now, it may not be truly ethical because unless he made the dataset or it was ethically trained, it was probably vreated with stolen data. just not good enough to make anything recognizable. not blaming him bcs it wasnt as well known and he did do the best he could to make it ethical, but yeah.
Bimmy got as close to legit with it as anyone’s ever gonna get.
@@witheraway.6562 That's fair, the ethics and ecological impact of AI as it currently stands are undefendable
they could have literally have this concept made with photography and would have looked 100x better. just some guy in an astronaut suit in a sunflower field this summer.
thank goodness ur not AInthony FantAIno
Remember in the 90’s and early 00’s when some artists would release albums with hideous early-3D graphics album covers (Dance of Death by Iron Maiden for example), and those covers now look absolutely terrible and completely date the album?
In 20 years we’ll say the same thing about AI album covers.
That album art isn't even hard to Photoshop from scratch. But that would require doing it. Instead of just using AI.
On top of AI Art, there’s so much “music” channels on youtube pumping out ai music with ai art in them. It’s like cockroaches. You block one, another pops up.
I'm so sick of AI. It looks boring and cheap. I hate how shiny and uncanny these images are. Every time a company chooses to use AI instead of paying an artist, it makes their whole brand look horrible.
AI art is starting to get around that problem.
@@goldencookie5456it's really not
@@Allbrotnar It really is
@@goldencookie5456 Eventually that will happen but it doesn't really change my mind. The worthlessness of it doesn't just go away all because it looks less like AI.
> I hate how [...] uncanny these images are
There are people who utilize this viscerally upsetting stable diffusion quality to a great effect. It's kinda cool when you specifically lean into the uncanny valley and embrace how bizarre, creepy, soulless and inhuman it is.
There are ways to make it work (especially if there's actual effort and creativity involved, and you're not just an AI-bandwagon hack).
Tears for Fears using AI for their album cover is depressing.
The way people will call anything "surreal" pisses me off. An astronaut in a sunflower field is unexpected, but it's not surreal
Was there a Soviet astronaut who landed in a field of sunflowers? It rings the tiniest of bells.
@@timothy8428 I couldn't find anything with some simple searches, but I did learn that Russia apparently has massive sunflower fields. So that's kinda neat
As a designer who’s done plenty of music packaging, I’d be ashamed to turn a cover in with those weirdly copy-and-paste/samey-looking “cloud choads” in the background-even as a COMP, even if I wasn’t getting paid much, even if I wasn’t personally into the band, even if the deadline was insane, even if the client insisted. You’d get “better” results using a royalty-free stock cloud photo-hell, even watermarked clouds would look better.
The primary reasons are usually small details or errors which can occur during generation. These errors are not seen by the AI because it has no way to check it's outputs and is only saying “this should match the prompt”. The reason for this is partially that running such a check system would require more resources but also that the systems used during training wouldn't be useful in this regard.
The two biggest bummers for me re: artists I love using AI art in some capacity has been the Jesus Lizard (specifically the music video for Alexis Feels Sick) and The Residents. In both cases I think the uncanny nature was "the point", at least, but it still just feels so incredibly half-hearted and hollow.
as my field of expertise in the arts has been so bastardized by tech generators, here's the dial if you have an ai cover art for your album I'm going to feed that album to Udio
I’d be happy to contribute to such incredible tech. Tech like this was something I fantasized as a kid. I can’t wait for the day AI can generate literally anything with total perfection.
Artwork aside, TFF has never released a bad song
Thank you! I’m a huge fan of theirs even if they have used AI, I’ll still live their music because I feel that the most important things aren’t the covers it’s the music and the people who make that music
Someone probably already mentionned this but it's also awfully similar to the cover for So Happy / Send It (2020) by Bliss n Eso. Who woulda guessed the plagiarism machine is plagiarising.
The amount of artist available to make cover art is crazy now. It was such a pain in the late 90s/early 00’s to find just one person that worked well with your band
* shrugs * I'm fine with it, although, yes, I would have thought an established band could afford a traditionally generated image, or at least fix/touch up the AI image.
But "AI" and "art" are both extraordinarily broad concepts -
I hate some AI art, and I hate some traditional art, and I love some AI art, and I love some traditional art.
Just for the record: I am a traditional artist, and a digital artist, and programmer and AI user/researcher/experimenter (and musician, actor, writer)
I think it's very hard for anyone to really have a good take on AI if they:
1. Don't understand generally how it works or what the words "Neural Net" mean
2. Haven't used it themselves to work on projects
I’m a MASSIVE Tears for Fears fan and seeing their album cover was so so disappointing.
Same I’m a massive fan but even if this is their new album cover they will still be my fav band cuz what I care abt most is their music and them as people
I'm currently reading "Why Surrealism Matters" by Mark Polizzotti and seeing some of those "Surrealist" artworks by this hack is an insult to the medium. There is a lot of social, political and ideological commentary in Surrealism, especially when the movement ventured outside of France. Surrealism isn’t just cramming nonsensical shit together and then sprinkling adjectives like "dream-like" and "surreal" to create some false sense of artistry. IT MAKES NO SENSE THEREFORE SURREALISM, is perhaps the worst form of surrealist commentary.
Being the egotistic pseudo-philosopher that he is, I’m not surprised Julian Casablancas would become an AI bro.
you mean you're not a floating torso Anthony? you have legs? what's WRONG with you?!
anthony do the pink floyd tier list already please
Honestly, if I were a successful music artist and didn't care about the cover art of my next album, I'd still pay for a human to do it.
Is saving a few thousand dollars worth a ton of backlash? Of course it isn't. The court of public opinion is already well turned against the new Tears for Fears album- and it hasn't even come out yet.
Hope it was worth it, guys.
2:55 you need more clips I almost lost attention span
The hacky 'surrealist' AI artist has to be some kind of scam or joke. There are so many flawed aspects with their art that can ACTUALLY be fixed with AI, e.g. inpainting. But instead they leave nipple windows with leaves growing out of it for the spaceman. Legit, they probably just generated 50s images and said fuck it this one will do.
The transition to AI that companies want to make (Mostly the corpas that are at the top with no concept or understanding of creativity) won't be pretty. They HAVE the money and insist on being cheap. (Artist treatment is so bad in the industry)
I'm talking billions of dollars, we know that. Nothing makes us people more pissed than knowing there is a fuckton money not being utilized for masterpieces.
We have experienced what human creativity can do and how inspiring it is. It's literally been with us since the dawn of time. There's so many more but I think the majority sympathize with artists and see how AI generative art is shit.
3:16 the background videos help but can you make the text colorful i could cause a bit more of stimulation
If you scroll down all the way to this "artist's" first post in 2022, it's clearly a 2022 AI "art" and then as you scroll up you can see his images getting more detailed as generative AI improves lol. He even use to caption "DALL·E" on his posts omg
I could see how Boomers would be really into it tho. A lot of Boomers seem to be quite entertained by AI art and AI media in general. Liiike, thats their thing. its crazy.
Lead really did a number.
Like and comment for shrimp Jesus
You are absolutely wrong. It is not easy to find artist’s who can do what you need social media or Fiverr. When I was looking for cover art for my instrumental album. It took my months of reaching out to and vetting artist’s. They either weren’t taking commissions, had an outrageous fees, was using photos instead of vector, wouldn’t do what was asked, did have any vision, was dismissive because you aren’t a big name, or had ownership issues. Once AI art came up I said I’ll go that route for now on.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
@@Dan-gt3ovfiverr still ass😂
I would ai generate something, feel bad, and recreate it in pixel art. I don’t get how people actually make and publish ai generated.
It’s so weird that for a lot of technological innovation the standard assumption is that Older people will be total Luddites about it meanwhile with everything AI older people seem to be uncritically embracing it while everyone younger despises it
I guess the old people are used to being outdated and going through big changes. Also this new AI tech is the same as any other tech to them since they don’t understand either of it. Older people also have less to live through, and less to go through, so naturally the younger people with futures ahead will be more worried.
The seeds of love cover is rolling in its grave right now
Fuck, this is disappointing from Tears from Fears. You would expect a better taste from them.
The fact the entertainment industry would rather spend bajilion dollars on AI which destroys the environment and generates the most mediocre generic shit from millions of artworks from real artists, instead of spending the same amount of money on hiring actual artists with skills and creativity, shows that none of these businessmen care about art, what really matters here is the profit.
Here I am spending hours on an art piece for a simple song cover I do for the love of it, and here we have actual established musicians using AI art because they cant be bothered to toss a few bucks at an actual human artist. We truly are doomed.
Personally I feel that the only good application of AI in music that I have seen is the way EE used it for their 2022 album Raw data feel. Not only was their text AI model using ethically sourced material, the cover was also clearly chosen because of its AI generated look (this was before image generation was nearly as advanced). And the cover and art itself contains a lot of stylised design elements that had to be done afterwards. Their other uses of AI in the promo materials and music videos like forms of deepfakes or random imagery always seemed like an adoption of an esthetic rather than a lazy choice. I think the main reason it works for that album, aside from the clear intent to use AI as a thematic device rather than a labour replacement, is that it was before AI became too 'good'. Back in 2022 AI was simply an idea that was almost useable, now it is good enough that if a similar song writing style would be used for songs as EE did for that album (which was around a 5% AI 95% human split with some heavy inspiration on the human side from the AI ideas) it would simply be a normal album. You could still do a similar commentary on technology and consumerism with the current day AI models but how you would go about it I have no idea. Another decent example is the heart pt5 music video though technically that is more so using AI as a tool rather than the focal point.
Yeah, good points. Check out my stuff, it may be the second good application you see.