Another frustrating part of this: it's not like people couldn't do this before AI. You could draw what you think beyond the border of the Mona Lisa looked like before AI.
We literally did that as a project in our schools art class. It was a lot of fun as even people who couldn't draw very well or said they were "not creative" could just expand the existing structures a bit and wing it after that. Which is being creative xd
Another depressing thing no one is talking about, is the fact that AI "artists" are sneaking into artcons and real artists are being rejected under suspicion of AI art.
Imagine not realizing that the latter phenomenon is the result of artists themselves contributing to a culture of endlessly scrutinizing minute formal details in AI Art.
@Fisheryboi Yeah, precisely. Dooming the artistic community to paranoia and a conservative-reactionary dread in the face of new techniques (still unrefined, sure).
@Fisheryboi Not to mention that impressive AI compositions already exist, and it'd be easy to find human-made art to pick apart for having *terrible* form.
@@literalbruhmoment4121 1. AGI (AI generated images) are not impressive because it's all stolen work. Anyone can steal others work. Also, even the so-called impressive ones are pretty scuffed. 2. The artist community wouldn't need to apply such extreme scrutiny if it wasn't because of scammers and scum who use AGI in the first place. Until there is proper artist protections from AGI and artists have control over how the AGI made from their work is used, scrutiny is the best option. But yeah, ideally anyone using someone elses art in generative AI without permission or for a purpose the original artist did now intend or allow for should be liable for A LOT in a lawsuit. Say 100k minimum?
@@literalbruhmoment4121 conservative-reactionary dread in the face of new techniques? There are no new techniques here. There is only and exclusive plagiarism here. That's all Generative AI is capable of.
The funniest part about the Hopper extension is that it doesn't even add the door that is the one thing you would actually expect to be out of frame, because the AI is incapable of identifying that a specific element is missing
I can't wait for AI techbros to try their grubby hands at the rest of the fine arts "Oh, you wrote a poem about a talking raven? Here's ten extra stanzas explaining the magic system" "Oh, you wrote a string trio? Here's what it actually sounds like with piano accompaniment"
We can already do both with AI , hate to break it to you. No it's not good or human level just like with AI art, but it's damn good all things considered
@@morisan42 It's not actually "damn good", it's a generated facsimilie that completely misses the point of the original artwork. And it needed sometimes hundreds of human workhours in tweaking and imput data to even get it to that point. The only point to ai generated "art" is to subvert artists copyright and labor for corporations who want a "similar" product and aren't discerning towards the content or quality. It's muzak extrapolated to all other artforms.
I can't wait for cyberstalkers to make an AI chatbot based on the significan other ot the people they stalk "but better" and send it to them. Today: Fixing art with AI. Tomarrow: Fixing people with AI. The day after that: Advocating for the replacement of individuals with enhanced AI versions.
@@dakunssd I really implore you read more into the subject because we haven't trained models specifically to write poems or anything of the sort, they have learnt to do so emergently by being trained on a large amount of language, that's what makes this new generation of models so amazing.
@@Forcoy I’m talking about modern day people who still to this day say that photography is not art like the guys in Vaush’s chat who say this every time he makes the argument that AI art isn’t art
5:58 I got a whole folder of ai generated eldrich horrors that look genuinely haunting, like you'd be surprised on how far "featherless biped" or "turkeys eating people for thanksgiving" will get you with enough iterations
I dont think "art is dying" like some chatters are implying. All it takes is one good art history class for kids and ensuring good media/art literacy in our youth and all of this will be hollow. It all feels hollow. Art is only good when its communicative.
This implies future generations will have good media literacy. Present generations have very poor media literacy, and art programs are very often the first things to be cut from schools. In fact, it behooves the establishment to not teach media literacy, because it makes people more vulnerable to propaganda
But then how does death of the author work? Who are people communicating to when they either disregard or don't know the intent of the creator? In my opinion art is meaningful when it evokes feeling in you and makes you reflect on why it made you feel that way.
@@fakharyarkhan5848 Isn’t that ability to make you feel, regardless of your knowledge of the creator, a form of communication in and of itself? Not saying your opinion is wrong or bad, but I think communication is such a varied process and we don’t necessarily need to know anything about an artwork before seeing it for the artist to still speak to us.
Overall point is that AI art is either bad and inferior to human made art and thus it can never replace it, or it’s just as good as human made art. It can’t be both.
I agree that some of this image extension stuff can be a bit boring, but damn you can’t tell me king gizzards iron lung is not an awesome audio visual experience, I also think it will squeeze a few people out of some jobs, but will elevate future Alex grey etc. style artists to a new level imo. Surface tension has some fun ones as well
@@angryprotester9768 im not familiar with that, maybe i'll check it out! im not saying ai art can never be used for anything interesting. it's just stuff like the thread at the start of this video, which shows off such a complete lack of understanding of the very basics of art that makes me like, just kinda sad tbh. it's not even about jobs or whatever even tho im an artist myself, it's how empty it all feels.
@@windowsmoviemaker2003 I agree, but learning to iterate recursively with these tools is what people are missing imo, they just type "cool picture" as a prompt right now and basically get garbage, i'd really try experimenting with at least motion, if not audio visual. it's really kind of all about that with ai stuff. i'd suggest making a simple fractal zoom and training a custom model on like hundreds if not thousands of specific pictures. Unfourtunately right now the QoL features for this don't really exist or are spread across multiple platforms
@@angryprotester9768 All you need to do to make that video is 1. get an image generator to generate a series of interesting images 2. for each image, feed rotated and zoomed in copies into an AI image enhancer 3. interpolate between different sections using AI. Now, with this knowledge, go back and watch that video on mute. Hasn't it now become a lot less interesting? It also has the same problems of composition Vaush mentioned in the video, except since it's always in motion, you're constantly caught off guard with the "Ooh cool picture" reaction before you're able to critically engage with each shot. Now, finally, consider how much better the video would have been if it was an abstract psychadelic animation drawn by a human artist
The ai art scene is seems to mostly populated with people who’s creativity begins and ends with “Harry Potter in anime style.” And then get mad when people aren’t blown away with their toy.
Idk man today I tried to draw n just put my stylus down....;-; I just know capitalists will use this tech as much as possible, I don't want the media I consume be generated by AI, they don't care that the quality of their product goes down, they be doing whatever to save some bux, and every other will probably follow, then it will be hard to find good media again
Even in photography, understanding where to crop an image is one of the most important parts of your composition. Positioning of your subject and understanding what is and isn't important to your image is a huge part of what separates a great photo from an ok photo. These people changing legendary works of art with ai just think more equals better and that just isn't ever the case in art
i'm pretty sure there are arts and humanities courses in stem programs? at least mine did only theory though if they forced me to paint i would riot, i had enough homework to do on real subjects
Universities already have gen-eds to cover that. So many students are already failing to get out in 4 years (which is a time limit given by most scholarships, including need-based) so I don't think throwing on more requirements is the solution.
Stem graduates: make a computer program that can make completely new images that are almost indistinguishable from human created art. You guys: “STEM bros are just machines that don’t understand anything about art!”
@@Creslin321 yeah? i mean, i work in ML and i know how diffusion models and transformers work, i've read the papers no knowledge about art specifically went into the design of these models, unless there were some highly art-informed modifications that i haven't heard about
@@Creslin321 I'm a STEM guy (Electrical Engineering) with some formal art training, most STEM people tend to get their head stuck in their ass and can't defer to different expertise. If they don't have a big personal growth streak to get different hobbies and stuff a lot of STEM people tend make STEM their personality and become STEM Bros.
Really lucky that my country reaaally appreciates art and they make us take art clases (and no, they’re not your typical draw this class, we learn about different kinds of art, why it’s important now, why it was important in the past, and it’s relationship with revolutionary movements. My favorite was the rococo era, and our studies in indigenous art pieces
Jealous. In America, at least in high school, art is electoral and you only get to choose one class. Meanwhile, advanced science and math courses and pretty much anything they can give solid tests and grades for are requirements.
@@sacrilegioussasquatch I'm also Finnish and I have no memory of learning any art history. I could just be forgetting, but I really don't remember us learning anything outside of actually making art in grades 1-7. I didn't take it as an elective in grades 8-9 so I can't speak on that. In high school I took the one compulsory art course and I mainly remember learning about concepts and again, making (shitty) art. The little I do know is through the internet and listening to my friend's art historian mom. I was born in -96 so maybe things have changed.
I have used AI art once, and it was to get a "Bibically accurate angel lucifer" and it was the perfect blend of fucked and indecipherable. Using it for horror could be really fun!
that's 4 words i usually need 3 sentences to get something that looks like anything, that's why prompting is a skill, even if one that's not difficult to acquire
I was thinking recently about how you could create accurate representations of lovecraftian eldritch montrosities and I think AI could solve that problem which human artists are incapable of tackling. I would think if you saw something like that in a video Game it would have to be something that looked completely different every frame and from every angle and every detail suggests the presence of a physical feature that isn't in fact visible there. Ive seen those AI collages where the picture looks like a pile of mundane objects but as you examine each detail it dawns on you that nothing in the picture resembles anything youve ever seen. It would probably take a lot of processing power to render something like that at 60fps but I'm sure it could be done and the result would be a lot more horrifying than anything a human could design.
Isn't the backgrounds on both sides of Mona Lisa in the original painting intentionally mis-matched? Doesn't extrapolating a big surrounding to make sense of it ruin the entire point?
Ai art is just a tool if used properly can allow someone to quickly create images and come up with ideas and concepts. However I wouldnt use ai art as a finished piece but maybe as a jumping off point like a sketch.
6:30 ok hear me out. You do that, but with an evolving horror game. The game picks up on what scares you based on increased/decreased inputs, pauses after a scare, etc. Then they use a well trained AI art algorithm to alter the setting to make it gradually more uncanny and more tailored to what scares you. Do you jump at the fleshy amalgomations? Well here's a worse one. Are you scared of the dark? Well we're gonna gradually make things darker. AI art isn't good at making new things, but it's fairly good at adjusting existing things. And if you control what goes in by feeding it your art in your style it'll be even better at making those adjustments on the fly. I think it'd be cool for things like that, but instead tech bros just wanna make existing art worse
There was a weird game for the PS1 called "LSD" that was rumored to do something like this. It basically dropped you into what appeared to be a randomly generated 3D environment, then transported you to a different one when you made prolonged contact with something. Don't know whether it was true or not, but some people claimed that it gradually learned which features made you more likely to try to get out of an environment sooner, and then weighted the underlying formula to give you more of those.
The first writers firing is happening right now due to chatgpt. As someone who wants to apply to university for English Philology or Photography, it's rather scary.
The thing that gets me is how they sort of present it as "canon" for lack of a better word. It's "Have you ever wondered what the rest of these paintings looks like?", not "Here's what it might've looked like if it was bigger". It's like they're implying DaVinci would've loved to put the Mona Lisa in the middle of a pointless featureless field, in his mind she was always sitting in that field, but he just couldn't do that. It's just... No. You're not "fixing" a flaw in the painting by adding extraneous bullshit. Believe it or not, artists can start and stop drawing things at will, it's not like they suddenly are unable to draw when they desperately want to.
I don’t think they were thinking about composition or anything like that, I think it’s sort of like a “oh that’s kinda cool it’s a possible background for an image we have never seen a background of”💀
The comparison I always use is commissioning art from someone - AI art isn’t your art, it’s art you commissioned from your AI slave who has no agency to claim its production. Imagine if you commissioned art from an actual human being - entering a prompt into their head through e-mail or discord text of what you want - and then when they get done with the piece you claim you are the sole creative of that piece. Of course, AI art isn’t exactly the same as commissioning a human, because while you have to have open dialog with the artist you’re commissioning, hash out details, and maybe even accept some changes or tweaks to fit within their skill or purview, the with AI art you don’t have to - you just print off a million generated copies and cherry pick the least terrifying ones. On all accounts, it’s an experience that further alienates one from the world and society.
I'm convinced that this is what naturally happens when consumerism and corporate propaganda conditions people to see "more" as the only concieveable way of making something "better." True to 99% of AI art. "It's better because it can make 1000 artworks in a day with 1000 times the detail."
@@SylvesterLazarus that was exactly how I perceived this as well. It's like somehow they think more something for the sake of more is inherently an improvement.
Adobe Firefly is still the most ethical iteration of AI art, sadly most of the AI users know nothing about art in general and are experiencing the most brutal Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen in my roughly 7 years of being an artist (photo editor, digital painter, most recently graphite drawer). I have no doubts that many of them are going to be great and unique creators in various degrees of AI usage. You know.. like at least remove those strange artefacts when you extend the classic paintings, or just add extra characters yourself based on your own idea by editing them in. Or here's an idea: actually create images of variations of the Mona Lisa that you can put next to the original after expanding the canvas horizontally, but make the variations come from different time frames, from Flintstone Lisa to the futuristic Cyborg Lisa, then make a timeline out of these variations on one canvas. Even if you use AI for most of it, you already made something unique and not just stretched the image to see what happens without any actual input. I just hope there will still be room for them among the 9999999999 automatized AI art accounts all around the internet that can just endlessly push out meaningless eyecandy for normies to sell $50 worth of prints and NFTs, or worse... platforms creating their own AI content generators for every conceivable niche topic so they don't have to pay ad revenue to everyone in the expanse the future of art itself.
The extension of the Hopper piece makes the building across the street flatly facing the viewer. You see it in that the original size of the art places the windows at an angle, and makes them shrink a bit to the right, placing a viewer about 20 or 30 ft from the big window. You can see the windows at the top drop away from the edge as your eyes move to the right. This kind of thing is composition; using shapes & light to make the eye move round the image, sometimes making a 3d effect w depth. The AI expansion makes the line of windows parallel to the edge, destroying the intimacy of the closer view, & losing the sense that the viewer could go round the corner quickly. The invitation to enter is gone. FWIW I'm an artist.
Honestly this would make for a really interesting creepypasta/SCP article - where you have real AI extrapolated paintings but you pepper the borders with creepy/unsettling stuff. That would take someone with actual creativity though, so no shot from these AI dorks.
If you want, here's an excerpt from a video game that kind of look like what you describe: " The world’s greatest pianist, (Redacted), always gave her best performances when playing that sonata, her favorite piece. Many praised her excellent skill. Some couldn’t even stay seated when she played the third movement because of the overflowing energy and madness that would come of her performance. In her now empty residence from which she left for the moon, lies the piano she played since childhood, and shrunken heads which allow us to delve into her mind."
I don't want to talk down on anyone, but I do think that someone who can't comprehand how human connection works through art and why it's important are either generally not able to see value in others, or they are explicitly disliking it for not beign inhuman enough. I'm convinced that those who can only see art as a manifactured product see other people the same way, but int the world of consumerism where we're one step away from mass producing humans too it's something expected.
@@Brandon82967The prompter did not create the art, the machine did. If a man commissioned an artist, would you say the art has the intent behind it of the commissioner or the artist? Does the commissioner every actively contribute to the creation of the art?
I kinda think part of the general zeitgeist with AI art comes from people being conditioned to think of art as a natural feature of media ecosystems; they're used to stumbling across art and not really engaging with it beyond viewing it.
6:00 a band called Messugah did this for the music video of their song They Move Below, I think the result is pretty good, it conveys a good sense of Lovecraftian horror, with weird perspectives that change in unpredictable ways, monsters that appear from and fade back into the background. And eyes, so many eyes everywhere.
This ai art gives me the vibe of what happens when you look the wrong way or at something too hard in a dream, you notice it distort and change. It kinda echoes to the ai replicating how our brain composes images subconsciously, hence why the art might look alright on the first and second glance.
This is gonna be a bit of self call out. I feel like for a lot of people, most of art, mainly visual art such as paintings and photographs, is primarily about the the aesthetics and not the "artistic expression". I'll be honest in saying whenever I've been to an art museum or art exposition, I mainly just go "oh that looks nice, oo I like that" and that's the peak of my engagement with the works. I don't think I'm very exceptional. I think back to that painter Thomas Kinkade who did all those generic paintings of cottages and stuff you'd see at your grandmas house. Art people absolutely despise him and his works, yet he made millions of dollars and was incredibly successful.
What art is really about is coming up with your own personal definition of what art is, hard committing to it, and calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you a philistine.
You're articulating a perspective infinitely more sophisticated than Vaush's. The value of an aesthetic experience comes from the claim a work of art makes upon us. Works of art don't become totally impenetrable if we are not intimately familiar with the intention of the artist. In fact, sometimes the author's intentions (what they sought to express) are totally inadequate to the work of art itself. If a work of art is truly great, then we will forever find more within it, expanding far beyond what the author (naively) intended: we will continually discover (and re-discover) that its content is infinitely deeper and its form infinitely more complex and sophisticated than we had thought.
If we could get Shapiro to actually talk about art, I think he might actually agree with Vaush. The man is actually an artist. Have you seen him play violin? That being said, he has said some really dumb shit on what is and isn't music before
I hate ai art and writing because it's stealing people's jobs in an industry that is already so hard to make it in. And it all ends up looking like shit anyway.
If it looks like shit, it won't be used. Thing is, it's not gonna "look like shit" forever, the "job stealing" part is not the problem of the AI, its a problem of capitalism commodifying art.
@@keatonwastaken Art without the artist can only look shit, even if it's the most accurate and perfectly detailed art. If it is reduced to nothing more than a product it's essentially the same as conditioning people to watching static noise. If AI makes the 965th Avengers or any other franchise movie that objectively looks better than all of those that came before it, but has literally nothing beyond keeping people entertained enough to keep watching for 2 hours, that is the low point of the human species.
@@SylvesterLazarus Another argument relying on subjective opinions stated like facts. For you, it may be "shit and like static noise", for others that is not the case. Modern art had similar connotations around it, the "effort" going into art has no bearing on whether its art or not.
@@keatonwastaken If you put a bucket of vomit in front of someone and all they ask for is a bigger spoon because they don't know better they are objectively wrong. AI art created without intention is indefendable corporate fuel for humanity to reduce it to nothing but means of money production, and anyone defending it participates in the self cannibalization of life itself. Edit: grammar
@@SylvesterLazarus what else then superficial entertainment do movies like "avengers"provide? What if Ai would be able read up on emotions, storytelling and philosophy, and be able to randomly generate perfect looking movies with really deep philosophical heartfelt characters and plots?
I kinda like the wider perspective because it reminds me of other types of paintings where that kind of composition is good. I fully understand how it's bad here.
To genuinely answer the last question for someone who might need this. Pictures taken accidentally probably should not be considered art unless a human than displayed them for other people to see with intent.
I can't bring myself to agree. The way I do photography is to take a whole bunch of photos and then sift through them to find the good ones. There's some intent involved, but also a lot of dumb luck.
@@LimeyLassen I do wildlife photography and after everything is set up, sometimes you have to just focus and shoot and ask questions later, especially when it's something like birds flying.
@@LimeyLassen Do you crop them and change the saturation, contrast, color balance, light levels etc.? Not that you would need to, the act of sorting by itself is one of creative communication.
@@LimeyLassen so what? Every piece of art involves some luck. It’s especially true for photography. Any given photo could only look the way it looks if it was taken in the exact place and time and other various conditions that it was taken in. That means taking any picture involved luck in a way. I think a more valid concern would be if the person displaying a photo intends for it to be art, because something like showing a photo as evidence in court or other utilitarian cases of “displaying” like that probably wouldn’t fall under the “art” umbrella. Still, anything accidental can be art if it’s purposely placed in a context where it’s meant to be perceived as art. But that’s just what I think.
Art is not a product of great time investment into its creation. I love the Jacob Geller video “Who Is Afraid of Modern Art” to illustrate this point masterfully.
22:50 well by that same logic the person tinkering with the ai image generator prompt would be an artist because they are using their own aesthetic senses to tweak and change the model's outputs, testing different combinations of words and parameters trying to arrive at something that aligns with their own artistic vision. I really don't see the point of splitting hairs over what is and isn't art when we could just simply designate AI-enabled images as its own category of art and judge them on their own artistic merits. That bloke who was posting expanded versions of famous artworks is an artist but he's just bad at it. His works are derivative and don't bring anything of value to the originals they are based on. The images that he chose to create and publish are basically tech demos and framing them as 'the rest of ' only exposes his lack of understanding of and respect for said original works and the aesthetic qualities they became famous for. If these god damn tech bros want their works to be viewed and thought of as art, then let's just give it to them. If they chose to post their AI generated images and call them art, that just means they are free game for brutal and relentless art criticism.
I love Vaush, and the AI space needs a lot of criticism and healthy debate. I am also concerned about AI ethics, as are a lot of people who use this tech. But there are no nuanced takes to be found here. Just attacks on the people exploring this tech, and making fun of the most low-effort products of that tech. "It's just the tech bros that are into AI art." -This is misleading and meant to essentialize and write off artists and hobbyists who use these tools. I've been using generative tools for many years. I know there's some overlap but can people stop lumping crypto bros in with everyone who is using this technology to speed up their workflow, test concepts, make variations of their work, rapidly generate textures, brainstorm designs, restore photos, and just play around? I've seen generative tools used extensively for roleplaying and worldbuilding references, it's great for that. LOL this AI generator is not literally as good as a Renaissance master and it can't even improve on the most famous paintings in the world. -Using outpainting to expand the images isn't meant to "improve" the composition but just as a fun exercise out of curiosity, or in this case probably just for some quick content for a listicle. Someone could get better or dramatically worse results based on a thousand factors. Generative art is still limited, yet the most common argument I always seem to see against it is "AI ART UGLY." If Vaush knew anything about how generative art is actually used by artists, he might be shocked to learn that it's very possible to define the composition of a piece and make many other meaningful choices that shape the results of generation, including creating your own models. This is even before you get into post-generation work done in photoshop, inpainting, etc.
Completely agree. Vaush’s takes on AI art have the energy of a conservative freaking out about trans people in bathrooms or in women’s sports. It’s completely irrational, uninformed, and solely about the emotional reaction of something “sacred” (his view of art) being soiled by “the unclean” (his characterization of people who like AI art as hyper capitalist tech bros).
@@Creslin321 I don't agree with the anti-STEM stuff but it's definitely nowhere near as bad as the conservative panic over trans people, let's not even pretend.
It's a tangent, and for fairly selfish reasons, but: Can you elaborate a little on this last bit? As someone who's active on art-sites, so much of what I've seen of self-proclaimed AI art users is just people spamming wave after wave of pictures created by posting a few words into a prompt-based image generator, clearly doing little to nothing else to touch up the image, and getting very, VERY sanctimonious about it (to the point that I'm pretty sure it's soured me to the technology, itself, a bit more than it otherwise would). I'm aware that AI has tremendous potential to be a tool used alongside human skill and creativity, but the only specific example I can think of is the existence of that one cartoon where it was used to finish a sketched background... so I'm a little curious about what you mean with stuff like creating one's own models and the like.
@@dinodare1605 my point is just that both conservative anti-trans panic and Vaush anti-AI rhetoric come from the same kind of reasoning. Which is outrage over the sacred being defiled.
Same personally, I think its just a new medium of art that has a place, it helps anyone who is curious get into art even if they don't have the time/talent for it.
Dal-E and Midgard are stochastic image generators, they require some kind of input to extrapolate a result. It's not art, it's an attempt of predicting what that input would be based on a learning dataset and set of weighted nodes.
I'm kind of embarrassed at how much ai at has affected me as an artist. I wonder if it's worth the time learning skills like 3d. It makes me feel depressed. I feel old, unable to adapt to the rate of change. What scares me isn't really what's happening now, but what's coming. Not only for my own skills, but for my son, who is almost certainly learning a syllabus which will be irrelevant by the time he graduates.
I mainly get paid to do 3D for a living, but occasionally do digital paintings also. If you want to go to 3D only for work safety, I wouldn't recommend that. Sure, it's not directly threatened at the moment and making predictions in this is kinda pointless, but the same shift is still present. It's just a question of when and how much will there be left outside of basically being a janitor for an more automated process. Same happened years ago with a lot of the art workflows being based on scans and scan clean ups instead of pure digital sculpting for example.
I don't think AI Image generators (at least, the paradigm we have now) are ever going to completely replace artists, if that's any comfort... until computers become truly capable of human level thought (nothing like what we are/Vaush was talking about here, and not likely for a long, long, LONG time, if ever) there's always going to be certain things those programs struggle with, and some things they can't do (they're improving, but only in certain ways). AI tools as means of assisting artists might become more popular, but that's another story (and even there... there's still a market for "Traditional Art" in spite of Digital having been a thing for decades). That... doesn't mean AI image generators won't have a negative effect on the profession, unfortunately, they may reduce demand by narrowing where human artists are needed and/or streamlining some processes, among other issues, but... such is life. Regardless, I wouldn't give up hope altogether.
@@ZalvaTionZ I actually work as a UI designer, but also do company marketing etc. I've mostly just been learning 3d for video and marketing illustration.
@@KatieBadenhorst I think people are overreacting, AI art isn't a replacement for artist, it's a tool. Learn it and incorporate it into your style. To make an analogy, and this is a real story, when electric drills were first introduced there were construction workers who were afraid that they were no longer needed, many tried to strike or just outright quit thinking that electric tools would "replace the need for construction workers". Looking back at that now it's ridiculous, but this is what happens with EVERY NEW TECHNOLOGY, it doesn't replace you it just adds new dimensions to the job you are doing and expands it to a wider market. If anything the demand for artists and art designers will likely go up now that the process is becoming easier and more streamlined. This means companies will be more heavily reliant on art based marketing campaigns which means more jobs,. People seriously need to stop being so reactionary and afraid of technology. There will always be a need for human oversight and coordination no matter how great the computer algorithm. Even if AI art became so advanced that it could create masterpieces like the Mona Lisa is microseconds, there will still be a need for a designer to oversee the process and make sure the intangible elements in the art (composition, art direction, context, message, tone etc...) are all working.
This made me think of a song lyric: “You’ve probably seen the sun rise hundreds of times. But let a painter paint it, or a poet describe. The very moment when heaven and earth might collide, and god let the air of life come outside. Satan doubted it, angels bow to it. I’m so beautifully human and I’m proud of it.” -Brother Ali.
chat's reasoning: well there's one area, and another area, so in between the two there must be a hard line mathematics: sometimes the boundary between two areas or functions is incalculable or undefined, we can only make a best guess
I still think the deeper threat of AI art isn’t for high art, stuff that will go in galleries and whatnot. It’s more about losing human art in board games, card games, album art, concept art for movies, video games, and tv. Already there are people designing AI magic the gathering art and it’s depressing.
I don't think AI art will "Replace" art done by humans, it's a tool, no different from a power drill. It's meant to assist artist and streamline the process. So there will still be artists and graphic designers, but instead of the artist having to sketch everything by hand and redo everything 500 times over, they can use AI to take care of the small details or make things quicker
The biggest struggle I have with AI art is the comparison with pendulum art and similar styles. Is pendulum art not art? If it is art, what is the difference between pendulum art and ai art?
I'd say that humans don't have a monopoly on beauty. Snowflakes are incredible, but no one made them, and most of them get buried and destroyed without ever being appreciated.
I mean I think that this stuff is neat but I agree that art is meant to convey a theme or feeling between the artist and the viewer, there is no such connection with soulless ai that lacks purpose in what they do
I disagree, the art does not need to remind the observer of the artist, it can exist on its own, the question of "how and why was this made" is usually better left unanswered as it causes more discussion and engagement around an art piece.
@@keatonwastaken You missed the point, it's not about 'reminding' the observer of the artist or a definitive answer as to how and why it was made. But quite simply the connection between an artist expressing a message/thought/emotion and a viewer interpreting/recieving a message or meaning. AI 'art' entirely removes the first half of that, meaning the art is no longer a human interaction. You can sit and discuss AI images all you like but the undeniable reality is that there isn't any purpose, meaning, thought or emotion behind it to interpret or discuss. It'd be like sitting and discussing the emotional meaning behind TV static.
@@saladdodger4722 Not really no, there is not much of a different connection between someone who uses AI to pick a generated art piece vs someone who draws an artpiece or someone who takes a picture, AI is a tool, this is fundemental misunderstanding from your side. All of them have a level of thought behind them, you can think 1 second for an artpiece or 5 years, it doesn't make either one less or more of an art piece. If you say you can't interpret anything from AI generated art, that's just you being uncreative and snobby, not the art being any different.
@@keatonwastaken Honestly, you and people like you just seem unable to comprehend the concept that art is a connection between artist and audience. Removing the artist from that connection kind of defeats the purpose. I don't see how this has anything to do with your point but the difference between an artpiece with 1 second and 5 years of thought behind them is that the 1 second one is likely to be shallow and crap but I'd agree that they're still art. an AI doesn't think though so it doesn't matter. Looking for meaning in AI images is like looking for meaning in a page of random numbers, there isn't any. It isn't about snobbishness or creativity but that you're speculating about something that doesn't exist. I don't know why I waste my time getting involved in these discussions because it's like explaining what art is to a wall at times, all it comes down to is 'I like pretty picture'.
@@saladdodger4722 That is your definition of art, it is not something that is factual or universally agreed upon. But regardless, even ignoring that reality I already mentioned how AI art still has that aspect, its just once again AI being a *tool* humans use, which is something you ignored in my previous response. "AI doesn't think so it doesn't matter" Who do you think puts in the prompt for the thing? Who do you think looks and picks a generated image? There is at least one second of human thought there, so by your logic, it is still indeed an input by the person, which makes it art. Third reminder that AI is not a human replacement, it is a TOOL for humans to use, this is quite fundemental about what AI's purpose is. And yes, it is absolutely about snobbishness and lack of creativity, you program yourself into a spot where you refuse to think and then blame the product for "not being something you can think about", that is indeed a you problem and not related to anything about AI art. You say its like talking to a wall, but that's called consistency, I argue that art has no boundaries and restrictions, you disagree yet provide no solid boundaries, I behave consistently while you are unable to do so because your limits are arbitrary and change in the way it suits your argument. Lastly, many art is just "haha look pretty", many people just make art because its pretty, this doesn't make them not an artist, there is not a deep meaning behind every art.
Using AI to make game covers look more "Realistic" is the new "Mario made in unreal engine 8k realistic." it's just pure ignorance towards art styles in favor of realism, and it does it with the grace of someone crashing a car into a brick wall
It's interesting that ever since Twitter was purchased by Elon, "Blue check mark" went from being an insult used by the right wing to insult the left, to an insult used by the left wing to insult the right.
If youve seen to AI “commercials” I think that the in and out uncanny phasing the algorithm causes would possibly be able to portray the shifting descriptions of Lovecraftian horror.
Yeah i feel a genuinely good use for AI art is making things specifically non-human and surreal. Something about being conceptually organic and human-made but not quite right lends itself so well to this tech. We should do it on purpose to see the real potential there. AI art should be used to explore what regular artists can't.
This could be used to expand 4:3 shows to 16:9 so studios will stop cropping them when they want to put them back on tv. I just can't wait to see the nightmare ai creatures in the backgrounds of shots in The Simpsons, in the first couple months when they try it.
Vaush criticising the adobe tool without knowing what it is. It's not supposed to create art, it's supposed to intelligently extrapolate content, which it does really well.
6:20 I think the best use of the tech is something like what black midi does for their cover art, especially on hellfire and calvacade. From what I understand, they take their own art and then fed it into an algorithm
Everyone should have to take some humanities classes. Art, art history, and ETHICS. Also, we know what the rest of the Mona Lisa looked like. We have historical record or how it looked before it was trimmed. I don’t think Van Gogh or Hopper paintings have been trimmed though. Maybe the person that made this doesn’t even know the Mona Lisa was actually trimmed they just wanted to make it bigger lol. Vaush is right, adding all the extra stuff ruins the composition of the originals. Also the thing that makes the skirt look like that is called a bustle, a hoop skirt is different.
Lmao that rendition of The Birth of Venus took it from a beautiful painting to a tacky fresco you'd see at an Italian-themed mall food court restaurant. The only thing missing would be the featureless white dress they'd have painted onto her! 🤣😂🤣
Composition is the arrangement of elements in a scene. Elements and Scene have loosey goosey meaning where context allows- So like, Comic panels on a page and elements within an individual panel are both parts of composition but with different contexts!
"AI Art" is a bad name, it's just AI generated images, be it txt2img or outpainting. For the technology it's really cool to look at and play around with. As "art" it's just not art.
23:26 Reminds me of when my friend and I were on a trip to my family’s beach house and we were bored so I randomly said “let’s have a debate about what qualifies as art” 🤣 It was an interesting conversation.
8:29 - he’s talking about art illiteracy, then all he can imagine is ‘ wouldn’t is be cool if there was another head behind “god” ‘ when “god” is sitting in the outline of a human brain..?! Sometimes, I wonder how different he is from those he critiques.
Well, it's not just art illiteracy that's a problem in Western world, but whole media and humanities illiteracy in general. That we are unable to use analytical skills from hermeneutics or structuralism or formalism to read not just paintings, but books, films, tv shows and yes, even news clips, articles, photographies from world events or interviews with politicians and various speeches. I don't know how it is somewhere else in Western world, but in my country at high school, literature is taught in a way that was taught before 1920, before theory was even born. I know that various theories (hermeneutics, psychoanalytical, marxism, semiotics, feminism, phenomenology, deconstruction....) were developed in 20th century so just couple of decades ago, but media world doesn't wait - it's getting more and more complicated and general public is in even MORE contact with media, but knows less and less how to analyse it, interpret it. And instead of affirming humanities as extremely important for 21st century, we are closing various departments at Unis, because we are short-sighted and stupid, cancelling teaching philosophy at high schools in my country...(even though they replaced it with mathematics, which is also great, I love mathematics & logic, but it's certainly not the peak of all knowledge. and in this case making situation even worse..)
some of the images reminded me of album art which are intentionally portrayed from a wider angle to leave open area for the bands name and album title... without those features they just felt kinda empty
I don't think AI art is special until it fully merges with the mind and is just a telepathic imagination to communication method. I like AI writing tools but I literally edit everything an AI spews out it just helps structural and basic conceptual output.
The "copying code from Github" bit hits me cause I used to draw and I'm literally copying code from github right now I am trying to get back into drawing though
I'd prefer it if "ai artists" embraced the surreal aspects of the medium & didn't try so hard to make the system replicate what modern artists do. I saw those older photos of when the software was less refined & thought they were infinitely better then what we have now. DALL-E's avocado chair looks way better in my opinion compared to what contemporary ai artists achieve. The ai artists could have formed an entirely new style which would have looked great & would have set them apart from other mediums but instead they decided it would be best to try and replicate what human artists already established. The ai artists generating videos on TH-cam seem to get that forming a new style is a good thing & if one looks at any of the "𝑥 person eats spaghetti" (I have one in mind but I forgot it's name) one can see what I'm getting at. Those videos don't make an attempt to replicate what's already been established & do no harm to other artists but instead use the medium to make something entirely new & interesting. tldr: AI's artistic potential is being misused by the people who try to replace human artists & those that embrace AI's surrealism aren't misusing it.
I use ai art for storyboards and references for projects to demonstrate to the hired artist the vision. Anyone who thinks AI can replace humans doesn’t value humanity lol
Even with my very basic knowledge of composition, I know without ever seeing the original that something is wrong in several of these. There's just too much empty space. And well yeah, it works. Cropping it down to the original just makes more sense.
I think a lot of this is like surgery on a grape. It wasn't done because we need to perform surgery on grapes or because performing surgery on a grape is incredible, but because it gives people a physical grasp on the potential for the technology.
I do find this stuff cool, the ai backgrounds. The only problem I have with this, which is the big problem, they use artist art to feed into their data. That is beyond fucked. Pretty sure I’ve heard from different people that it’s basically stealing from the artist since they don’t get paid and aren’t alerted to this. I also heard from someone else that someone fed their AI of someone’s art when the artist died. Sicking.
The Mona Lisa can now be understood in its full form famously depicting a floating torso, thank you AI art.
Just the way Da Vinci would have wanted it, if he had had more imagination
And now with weird big tits as Davincky would have done if he was not homosexual
You could produce infinite variations of it, this was just one of them.
@@Danuxsy and yet each one of them is inferior to a creation of a human mind and skill; not by any tangible property, but by the fact alone.
Another frustrating part of this: it's not like people couldn't do this before AI. You could draw what you think beyond the border of the Mona Lisa looked like before AI.
People are acting like nobody could possibly draw John cena fighting spiderman on their wedding day, only a robot
We literally did that as a project in our schools art class. It was a lot of fun as even people who couldn't draw very well or said they were "not creative" could just expand the existing structures a bit and wing it after that. Which is being creative xd
@@g4ud178 someone better have done the right thing, and given her a trex body.
@@bibsp3556 I don't know why I like the picture of John Cena marrying Spiderman so much😅
@@fuucaran I'm good at coming up with nonsense.
Another depressing thing no one is talking about, is the fact that AI "artists" are sneaking into artcons and real artists are being rejected under suspicion of AI art.
Imagine not realizing that the latter phenomenon is the result of artists themselves contributing to a culture of endlessly scrutinizing minute formal details in AI Art.
@Fisheryboi Yeah, precisely.
Dooming the artistic community to paranoia and a conservative-reactionary dread in the face of new techniques (still unrefined, sure).
@Fisheryboi Not to mention that impressive AI compositions already exist, and it'd be easy to find human-made art to pick apart for having *terrible* form.
@@literalbruhmoment4121 1. AGI (AI generated images) are not impressive because it's all stolen work. Anyone can steal others work. Also, even the so-called impressive ones are pretty scuffed.
2. The artist community wouldn't need to apply such extreme scrutiny if it wasn't because of scammers and scum who use AGI in the first place. Until there is proper artist protections from AGI and artists have control over how the AGI made from their work is used, scrutiny is the best option.
But yeah, ideally anyone using someone elses art in generative AI without permission or for a purpose the original artist did now intend or allow for should be liable for A LOT in a lawsuit. Say 100k minimum?
@@literalbruhmoment4121 conservative-reactionary dread in the face of new techniques? There are no new techniques here. There is only and exclusive plagiarism here. That's all Generative AI is capable of.
The funniest part about the Hopper extension is that it doesn't even add the door that is the one thing you would actually expect to be out of frame, because the AI is incapable of identifying that a specific element is missing
That just means the AI needs to be improved and trained more
I can't wait for AI techbros to try their grubby hands at the rest of the fine arts
"Oh, you wrote a poem about a talking raven? Here's ten extra stanzas explaining the magic system"
"Oh, you wrote a string trio? Here's what it actually sounds like with piano accompaniment"
Ai art is what happens when people who failed English class in high school try to write literature
We can already do both with AI , hate to break it to you. No it's not good or human level just like with AI art, but it's damn good all things considered
@@morisan42 It's not actually "damn good", it's a generated facsimilie that completely misses the point of the original artwork. And it needed sometimes hundreds of human workhours in tweaking and imput data to even get it to that point.
The only point to ai generated "art" is to subvert artists copyright and labor for corporations who want a "similar" product and aren't discerning towards the content or quality. It's muzak extrapolated to all other artforms.
I can't wait for cyberstalkers to make an AI chatbot based on the significan other ot the people they stalk "but better" and send it to them.
Today: Fixing art with AI. Tomarrow: Fixing people with AI. The day after that: Advocating for the replacement of individuals with enhanced AI versions.
@@dakunssd I really implore you read more into the subject because we haven't trained models specifically to write poems or anything of the sort, they have learnt to do so emergently by being trained on a large amount of language, that's what makes this new generation of models so amazing.
These are the types of people who think photography isn’t art because “It’s just taking a photo”
@@Forcoy the words "soulless and stale" is subjective, so your argument falls apart there.
@@Forcoy Yes, it is, that's my point, no one can describe stale and soulless.
@@Forcoy I’m talking about modern day people who still to this day say that photography is not art like the guys in Vaush’s chat who say this every time he makes the argument that AI art isn’t art
Photography is Science surely
@@Forcoythat honestly a very interesting view point, as an artist I haven’t thought about the camera and AI comparison
5:58 I got a whole folder of ai generated eldrich horrors that look genuinely haunting, like you'd be surprised on how far "featherless biped" or "turkeys eating people for thanksgiving" will get you with enough iterations
can i haz
I dont think "art is dying" like some chatters are implying. All it takes is one good art history class for kids and ensuring good media/art literacy in our youth and all of this will be hollow. It all feels hollow. Art is only good when its communicative.
This implies future generations will have good media literacy. Present generations have very poor media literacy, and art programs are very often the first things to be cut from schools. In fact, it behooves the establishment to not teach media literacy, because it makes people more vulnerable to propaganda
But then how does death of the author work? Who are people communicating to when they either disregard or don't know the intent of the creator? In my opinion art is meaningful when it evokes feeling in you and makes you reflect on why it made you feel that way.
@@fakharyarkhan5848 Isn’t that ability to make you feel, regardless of your knowledge of the creator, a form of communication in and of itself? Not saying your opinion is wrong or bad, but I think communication is such a varied process and we don’t necessarily need to know anything about an artwork before seeing it for the artist to still speak to us.
Overall point is that AI art is either bad and inferior to human made art and thus it can never replace it, or it’s just as good as human made art. It can’t be both.
I disagree, art can be whatever you want it to be.
god what a deranged way to perceive art,,, the fact that theres people who soy over this kinda stuff fills me with such dread
I agree that some of this image extension stuff can be a bit boring, but damn you can’t tell me king gizzards iron lung is not an awesome audio visual experience, I also think it will squeeze a few people out of some jobs, but will elevate future Alex grey etc. style artists to a new level imo. Surface tension has some fun ones as well
@@angryprotester9768 im not familiar with that, maybe i'll check it out! im not saying ai art can never be used for anything interesting. it's just stuff like the thread at the start of this video, which shows off such a complete lack of understanding of the very basics of art that makes me like, just kinda sad tbh. it's not even about jobs or whatever even tho im an artist myself, it's how empty it all feels.
@@windowsmoviemaker2003 I agree, but learning to iterate recursively with these tools is what people are missing imo, they just type "cool picture" as a prompt right now and basically get garbage, i'd really try experimenting with at least motion, if not audio visual. it's really kind of all about that with ai stuff. i'd suggest making a simple fractal zoom and training a custom model on like hundreds if not thousands of specific pictures. Unfourtunately right now the QoL features for this don't really exist or are spread across multiple platforms
@@angryprotester9768 All you need to do to make that video is 1. get an image generator to generate a series of interesting images 2. for each image, feed rotated and zoomed in copies into an AI image enhancer 3. interpolate between different sections using AI.
Now, with this knowledge, go back and watch that video on mute. Hasn't it now become a lot less interesting? It also has the same problems of composition Vaush mentioned in the video, except since it's always in motion, you're constantly caught off guard with the "Ooh cool picture" reaction before you're able to critically engage with each shot. Now, finally, consider how much better the video would have been if it was an abstract psychadelic animation drawn by a human artist
The ai art scene is seems to mostly populated with people who’s creativity begins and ends with “Harry Potter in anime style.” And then get mad when people aren’t blown away with their toy.
Stemcells using these AI tools to create art is like a guy buying Warhammer miniatures saying he's doing engineering.
Idk man today I tried to draw n just put my stylus down....;-; I just know capitalists will use this tech as much as possible, I don't want the media I consume be generated by AI, they don't care that the quality of their product goes down, they be doing whatever to save some bux, and every other will probably follow, then it will be hard to find good media again
@@xorsama If the shows suck and no one watches, they’ll be forced to go back to human made content. That’s one perk of the free market
That thumbnail 💀
The fucking horses!
And the horse fucking!
Even in photography, understanding where to crop an image is one of the most important parts of your composition. Positioning of your subject and understanding what is and isn't important to your image is a huge part of what separates a great photo from an ok photo. These people changing legendary works of art with ai just think more equals better and that just isn't ever the case in art
AI art has plenty of customization as well, far more than in photography.
@@Brandon82967 k
That's why humanities and arts are important even for STEM programs. Holistic humans VS STEM Bro machines.
i'm pretty sure there are arts and humanities courses in stem programs?
at least mine did
only theory though
if they forced me to paint i would riot, i had enough homework to do on real subjects
Universities already have gen-eds to cover that. So many students are already failing to get out in 4 years (which is a time limit given by most scholarships, including need-based) so I don't think throwing on more requirements is the solution.
Stem graduates: make a computer program that can make completely new images that are almost indistinguishable from human created art.
You guys: “STEM bros are just machines that don’t understand anything about art!”
@@Creslin321
yeah?
i mean, i work in ML and i know how diffusion models and transformers work, i've read the papers
no knowledge about art specifically went into the design of these models, unless there were some highly art-informed modifications that i haven't heard about
@@Creslin321 I'm a STEM guy (Electrical Engineering) with some formal art training, most STEM people tend to get their head stuck in their ass and can't defer to different expertise. If they don't have a big personal growth streak to get different hobbies and stuff a lot of STEM people tend make STEM their personality and become STEM Bros.
It was called a bustle, not a hoop skirt.
so glad i wasn't the only one who caught that
The exoskeleton booty
@Sacrilegious Sasquatch we care about the way turn of the century women enhanced their asses, lmao
Really lucky that my country reaaally appreciates art and they make us take art clases (and no, they’re not your typical draw this class, we learn about different kinds of art, why it’s important now, why it was important in the past, and it’s relationship with revolutionary movements. My favorite was the rococo era, and our studies in indigenous art pieces
Jealous. In America, at least in high school, art is electoral and you only get to choose one class. Meanwhile, advanced science and math courses and pretty much anything they can give solid tests and grades for are requirements.
What country are you from?
Edit: lemme guess, it's in the EU?
Same, I'm in finland and we definitely had them!
@@sacrilegioussasquatch I'm also Finnish and I have no memory of learning any art history. I could just be forgetting, but I really don't remember us learning anything outside of actually making art in grades 1-7. I didn't take it as an elective in grades 8-9 so I can't speak on that. In high school I took the one compulsory art course and I mainly remember learning about concepts and again, making (shitty) art. The little I do know is through the internet and listening to my friend's art historian mom.
I was born in -96 so maybe things have changed.
@@wanton_josh no actually, I’m from the Caribbean! Dominican Republic to be exact
Oh my god, there is no "rest of the Mona Lisa"!!!! It's just more, but also nothing.
I have used AI art once, and it was to get a "Bibically accurate angel lucifer" and it was the perfect blend of fucked and indecipherable. Using it for horror could be really fun!
that's 4 words
i usually need 3 sentences to get something that looks like anything, that's why prompting is a skill, even if one that's not difficult to acquire
@@vaylard9474this might've been praise, but I took it at first as an insult
@@Bobogdan258
i intended it as a tip
I was thinking recently about how you could create accurate representations of lovecraftian eldritch montrosities and I think AI could solve that problem which human artists are incapable of tackling. I would think if you saw something like that in a video Game it would have to be something that looked completely different every frame and from every angle and every detail suggests the presence of a physical feature that isn't in fact visible there. Ive seen those AI collages where the picture looks like a pile of mundane objects but as you examine each detail it dawns on you that nothing in the picture resembles anything youve ever seen. It would probably take a lot of processing power to render something like that at 60fps but I'm sure it could be done and the result would be a lot more horrifying than anything a human could design.
I watched this segment live but I came to say this is the greatest thumbnail in Vowsh's illustrious history
It really threw me for a loop all I could do was stare
Isn't the backgrounds on both sides of Mona Lisa in the original painting intentionally mis-matched? Doesn't extrapolating a big surrounding to make sense of it ruin the entire point?
Yes, AI art doesn’t take into account what actually gives art value (artistic intent)
At least it didn't try to make a second, Mona-er Lisa to her left
Ai art is just a tool if used properly can allow someone to quickly create images and come up with ideas and concepts. However I wouldnt use ai art as a finished piece but maybe as a jumping off point like a sketch.
@@Gloomdrake Lol! That's remarkable XDDD
@@Gloomdrake Not this time.
6:30 ok hear me out. You do that, but with an evolving horror game. The game picks up on what scares you based on increased/decreased inputs, pauses after a scare, etc. Then they use a well trained AI art algorithm to alter the setting to make it gradually more uncanny and more tailored to what scares you. Do you jump at the fleshy amalgomations? Well here's a worse one. Are you scared of the dark? Well we're gonna gradually make things darker. AI art isn't good at making new things, but it's fairly good at adjusting existing things. And if you control what goes in by feeding it your art in your style it'll be even better at making those adjustments on the fly. I think it'd be cool for things like that, but instead tech bros just wanna make existing art worse
There was a weird game for the PS1 called "LSD" that was rumored to do something like this. It basically dropped you into what appeared to be a randomly generated 3D environment, then transported you to a different one when you made prolonged contact with something. Don't know whether it was true or not, but some people claimed that it gradually learned which features made you more likely to try to get out of an environment sooner, and then weighted the underlying formula to give you more of those.
@@Anthropomorphic dream emulator?
@@Forcoy That one, yeah.
The first writers firing is happening right now due to chatgpt. As someone who wants to apply to university for English Philology or Photography, it's rather scary.
The thing that gets me is how they sort of present it as "canon" for lack of a better word. It's "Have you ever wondered what the rest of these paintings looks like?", not "Here's what it might've looked like if it was bigger". It's like they're implying DaVinci would've loved to put the Mona Lisa in the middle of a pointless featureless field, in his mind she was always sitting in that field, but he just couldn't do that. It's just... No. You're not "fixing" a flaw in the painting by adding extraneous bullshit. Believe it or not, artists can start and stop drawing things at will, it's not like they suddenly are unable to draw when they desperately want to.
I don’t think they were thinking about composition or anything like that, I think it’s sort of like a “oh that’s kinda cool it’s a possible background for an image we have never seen a background of”💀
The comparison I always use is commissioning art from someone - AI art isn’t your art, it’s art you commissioned from your AI slave who has no agency to claim its production. Imagine if you commissioned art from an actual human being - entering a prompt into their head through e-mail or discord text of what you want - and then when they get done with the piece you claim you are the sole creative of that piece.
Of course, AI art isn’t exactly the same as commissioning a human, because while you have to have open dialog with the artist you’re commissioning, hash out details, and maybe even accept some changes or tweaks to fit within their skill or purview, the with AI art you don’t have to - you just print off a million generated copies and cherry pick the least terrifying ones. On all accounts, it’s an experience that further alienates one from the world and society.
Ah yes Starry Night and the Mona Lisa! Famously paintings that were not inspiring enough and needed fixing! Thanks AI techbros!
Yes because the people who did this clearly thought that they had made improvements on some of the most famous paintings in the world 🤦🏻♂️.
@@Creslin321that's quite literally how they arrogantly presented it in their tweets
I'm convinced that this is what naturally happens when consumerism and corporate propaganda conditions people to see "more" as the only concieveable way of making something "better." True to 99% of AI art. "It's better because it can make 1000 artworks in a day with 1000 times the detail."
@@SylvesterLazarus that was exactly how I perceived this as well. It's like somehow they think more something for the sake of more is inherently an improvement.
Adobe Firefly is still the most ethical iteration of AI art, sadly most of the AI users know nothing about art in general and are experiencing the most brutal Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen in my roughly 7 years of being an artist (photo editor, digital painter, most recently graphite drawer). I have no doubts that many of them are going to be great and unique creators in various degrees of AI usage.
You know.. like at least remove those strange artefacts when you extend the classic paintings, or just add extra characters yourself based on your own idea by editing them in. Or here's an idea: actually create images of variations of the Mona Lisa that you can put next to the original after expanding the canvas horizontally, but make the variations come from different time frames, from Flintstone Lisa to the futuristic Cyborg Lisa, then make a timeline out of these variations on one canvas. Even if you use AI for most of it, you already made something unique and not just stretched the image to see what happens without any actual input.
I just hope there will still be room for them among the 9999999999 automatized AI art accounts all around the internet that can just endlessly push out meaningless eyecandy for normies to sell $50 worth of prints and NFTs, or worse... platforms creating their own AI content generators for every conceivable niche topic so they don't have to pay ad revenue to everyone in the expanse the future of art itself.
The extension of the Hopper piece makes the building across the street flatly facing the viewer. You see it in that the original size of the art places the windows at an angle, and makes them shrink a bit to the right, placing a viewer about 20 or 30 ft from the big window. You can see the windows at the top drop away from the edge as your eyes move to the right. This kind of thing is composition; using shapes & light to make the eye move round the image, sometimes making a 3d effect w depth. The AI expansion makes the line of windows parallel to the edge, destroying the intimacy of the closer view, & losing the sense that the viewer could go round the corner quickly. The invitation to enter is gone.
FWIW I'm an artist.
There's so much more to these thinks than the techlords making it will ever care to understand
@@bibsp3556 Most people sense this stuff intuitively. An art background makes it possible to put it into words.
Honestly this would make for a really interesting creepypasta/SCP article - where you have real AI extrapolated paintings but you pepper the borders with creepy/unsettling stuff.
That would take someone with actual creativity though, so no shot from these AI dorks.
If you want, here's an excerpt from a video game that kind of look like what you describe:
"
The world’s greatest pianist, (Redacted), always gave her best performances when playing that sonata, her favorite piece. Many praised her excellent skill. Some couldn’t even stay seated when she played the third movement because of the overflowing energy and madness that would come of her performance. In her now empty residence from which she left for the moon, lies the piano she played since childhood, and shrunken heads which allow us to delve into her mind."
Whoever makes these thumbnails deserves a raise. Oh wait, I forgot, it was probably AI.
In case you're being serious: It's not AI, it's a real person. Specifically, JoeManyLiberals, per the description.
These people calling it mysticism must unironically think cheap ass ai chat bots are the same as having ACTUAL relationships.
I swear the people calling it that have zero overlap with actual people in STEM. There's nothing mystical about it, it's code
I don't want to talk down on anyone, but I do think that someone who can't comprehand how human connection works through art and why it's important are either generally not able to see value in others, or they are explicitly disliking it for not beign inhuman enough.
I'm convinced that those who can only see art as a manifactured product see other people the same way, but int the world of consumerism where we're one step away from mass producing humans too it's something expected.
@@SylvesterLazarus yeah, it's a mentality that produces problems like slavery.
@@SylvesterLazarus AI art does carry meaning through the prompt though. It can’t create anything without it
@@Brandon82967The prompter did not create the art, the machine did. If a man commissioned an artist, would you say the art has the intent behind it of the commissioner or the artist? Does the commissioner every actively contribute to the creation of the art?
I kinda think part of the general zeitgeist with AI art comes from people being conditioned to think of art as a natural feature of media ecosystems; they're used to stumbling across art and not really engaging with it beyond viewing it.
That thumbnail tho
6:00 a band called Messugah did this for the music video of their song They Move Below, I think the result is pretty good, it conveys a good sense of Lovecraftian horror, with weird perspectives that change in unpredictable ways, monsters that appear from and fade back into the background. And eyes, so many eyes everywhere.
This ai art gives me the vibe of what happens when you look the wrong way or at something too hard in a dream, you notice it distort and change. It kinda echoes to the ai replicating how our brain composes images subconsciously, hence why the art might look alright on the first and second glance.
That's a thing?
@@MidnightBreezey yup, kinda freaky
This is gonna be a bit of self call out. I feel like for a lot of people, most of art, mainly visual art such as paintings and photographs, is primarily about the the aesthetics and not the "artistic expression". I'll be honest in saying whenever I've been to an art museum or art exposition, I mainly just go "oh that looks nice, oo I like that" and that's the peak of my engagement with the works. I don't think I'm very exceptional. I think back to that painter Thomas Kinkade who did all those generic paintings of cottages and stuff you'd see at your grandmas house. Art people absolutely despise him and his works, yet he made millions of dollars and was incredibly successful.
What art is really about is coming up with your own personal definition of what art is, hard committing to it, and calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you a philistine.
You're articulating a perspective infinitely more sophisticated than Vaush's. The value of an aesthetic experience comes from the claim a work of art makes upon us. Works of art don't become totally impenetrable if we are not intimately familiar with the intention of the artist.
In fact, sometimes the author's intentions (what they sought to express) are totally inadequate to the work of art itself. If a work of art is truly great, then we will forever find more within it, expanding far beyond what the author (naively) intended: we will continually discover (and re-discover) that its content is infinitely deeper and its form infinitely more complex and sophisticated than we had thought.
If we could get Shapiro to actually talk about art, I think he might actually agree with Vaush. The man is actually an artist. Have you seen him play violin?
That being said, he has said some really dumb shit on what is and isn't music before
I hate ai art and writing because it's stealing people's jobs in an industry that is already so hard to make it in. And it all ends up looking like shit anyway.
If it looks like shit, it won't be used.
Thing is, it's not gonna "look like shit" forever, the "job stealing" part is not the problem of the AI, its a problem of capitalism commodifying art.
@@keatonwastaken Art without the artist can only look shit, even if it's the most accurate and perfectly detailed art. If it is reduced to nothing more than a product it's essentially the same as conditioning people to watching static noise. If AI makes the 965th Avengers or any other franchise movie that objectively looks better than all of those that came before it, but has literally nothing beyond keeping people entertained enough to keep watching for 2 hours, that is the low point of the human species.
@@SylvesterLazarus Another argument relying on subjective opinions stated like facts.
For you, it may be "shit and like static noise", for others that is not the case.
Modern art had similar connotations around it, the "effort" going into art has no bearing on whether its art or not.
@@keatonwastaken If you put a bucket of vomit in front of someone and all they ask for is a bigger spoon because they don't know better they are objectively wrong. AI art created without intention is indefendable corporate fuel for humanity to reduce it to nothing but means of money production, and anyone defending it participates in the self cannibalization of life itself.
Edit: grammar
@@SylvesterLazarus what else then superficial entertainment do movies like "avengers"provide? What if Ai would be able read up on emotions, storytelling and philosophy, and be able to randomly generate perfect looking movies with really deep philosophical heartfelt characters and plots?
I played Dagerfall for the first time recently. Even procedural generation can be terrifying.
I never look at these like art, just like how far the technology is. Not looking at it as an artist but as an engineer.
I kinda like the wider perspective because it reminds me of other types of paintings where that kind of composition is good. I fully understand how it's bad here.
To genuinely answer the last question for someone who might need this. Pictures taken accidentally probably should not be considered art unless a human than displayed them for other people to see with intent.
I can't bring myself to agree. The way I do photography is to take a whole bunch of photos and then sift through them to find the good ones. There's some intent involved, but also a lot of dumb luck.
@@LimeyLassen
I do wildlife photography and after everything is set up, sometimes you have to just focus and shoot and ask questions later, especially when it's something like birds flying.
@@LimeyLassen Do you crop them and change the saturation, contrast, color balance, light levels etc.? Not that you would need to, the act of sorting by itself is one of creative communication.
@@LimeyLassen so what? Every piece of art involves some luck. It’s especially true for photography. Any given photo could only look the way it looks if it was taken in the exact place and time and other various conditions that it was taken in. That means taking any picture involved luck in a way. I think a more valid concern would be if the person displaying a photo intends for it to be art, because something like showing a photo as evidence in court or other utilitarian cases of “displaying” like that probably wouldn’t fall under the “art” umbrella. Still, anything accidental can be art if it’s purposely placed in a context where it’s meant to be perceived as art. But that’s just what I think.
Art is not a product of great time investment into its creation.
I love the Jacob Geller video “Who Is Afraid of Modern Art” to illustrate this point masterfully.
BASED
22:50 well by that same logic the person tinkering with the ai image generator prompt would be an artist because they are using their own aesthetic senses to tweak and change the model's outputs, testing different combinations of words and parameters trying to arrive at something that aligns with their own artistic vision. I really don't see the point of splitting hairs over what is and isn't art when we could just simply designate AI-enabled images as its own category of art and judge them on their own artistic merits.
That bloke who was posting expanded versions of famous artworks is an artist but he's just bad at it. His works are derivative and don't bring anything of value to the originals they are based on. The images that he chose to create and publish are basically tech demos and framing them as 'the rest of ' only exposes his lack of understanding of and respect for said original works and the aesthetic qualities they became famous for.
If these god damn tech bros want their works to be viewed and thought of as art, then let's just give it to them. If they chose to post their AI generated images and call them art, that just means they are free game for brutal and relentless art criticism.
Mr Voosh: art convays meaning and intent
Me: cute waifu drawing produces dopamine, brain go brrr
As a programmer, yes. The majority of our vocal group is r*tarded and you should not listen to them.
Vaush decribing Metaverse god-kings being nobody IRL applies quite well to his discord mods
Damn Vaush how powerful is the laptop you use to game and stream from?
I'm like 90% confident he either has a GIGABYTE/Aeorus laptop, or an MSI laptop. He doesn't seem like the type to use ASUS or Acer.
I love Vaush, and the AI space needs a lot of criticism and healthy debate. I am also concerned about AI ethics, as are a lot of people who use this tech. But there are no nuanced takes to be found here. Just attacks on the people exploring this tech, and making fun of the most low-effort products of that tech.
"It's just the tech bros that are into AI art."
-This is misleading and meant to essentialize and write off artists and hobbyists who use these tools. I've been using generative tools for many years. I know there's some overlap but can people stop lumping crypto bros in with everyone who is using this technology to speed up their workflow, test concepts, make variations of their work, rapidly generate textures, brainstorm designs, restore photos, and just play around? I've seen generative tools used extensively for roleplaying and worldbuilding references, it's great for that.
LOL this AI generator is not literally as good as a Renaissance master and it can't even improve on the most famous paintings in the world.
-Using outpainting to expand the images isn't meant to "improve" the composition but just as a fun exercise out of curiosity, or in this case probably just for some quick content for a listicle. Someone could get better or dramatically worse results based on a thousand factors. Generative art is still limited, yet the most common argument I always seem to see against it is "AI ART UGLY." If Vaush knew anything about how generative art is actually used by artists, he might be shocked to learn that it's very possible to define the composition of a piece and make many other meaningful choices that shape the results of generation, including creating your own models. This is even before you get into post-generation work done in photoshop, inpainting, etc.
Completely agree. Vaush’s takes on AI art have the energy of a conservative freaking out about trans people in bathrooms or in women’s sports. It’s completely irrational, uninformed, and solely about the emotional reaction of something “sacred” (his view of art) being soiled by “the unclean” (his characterization of people who like AI art as hyper capitalist tech bros).
@@Creslin321
I don't agree with the anti-STEM stuff but it's definitely nowhere near as bad as the conservative panic over trans people, let's not even pretend.
@@dinodare1605 it’s not as bad, but it is definitely as irrational
It's a tangent, and for fairly selfish reasons, but: Can you elaborate a little on this last bit?
As someone who's active on art-sites, so much of what I've seen of self-proclaimed AI art users is just people spamming wave after wave of pictures created by posting a few words into a prompt-based image generator, clearly doing little to nothing else to touch up the image, and getting very, VERY sanctimonious about it (to the point that I'm pretty sure it's soured me to the technology, itself, a bit more than it otherwise would).
I'm aware that AI has tremendous potential to be a tool used alongside human skill and creativity, but the only specific example I can think of is the existence of that one cartoon where it was used to finish a sketched background... so I'm a little curious about what you mean with stuff like creating one's own models and the like.
@@dinodare1605 my point is just that both conservative anti-trans panic and Vaush anti-AI rhetoric come from the same kind of reasoning. Which is outrage over the sacred being defiled.
"I have about the same words per minute on my phone as I do my keyboard"
That gave me psychic damage
As an artist, I love AI art ! :D
Same personally, I think its just a new medium of art that has a place, it helps anyone who is curious get into art even if they don't have the time/talent for it.
Based
The Mondrian one was especially insulting
Dal-E and Midgard are stochastic image generators, they require some kind of input to extrapolate a result. It's not art, it's an attempt of predicting what that input would be based on a learning dataset and set of weighted nodes.
I'm kind of embarrassed at how much ai at has affected me as an artist. I wonder if it's worth the time learning skills like 3d. It makes me feel depressed. I feel old, unable to adapt to the rate of change. What scares me isn't really what's happening now, but what's coming. Not only for my own skills, but for my son, who is almost certainly learning a syllabus which will be irrelevant by the time he graduates.
I mainly get paid to do 3D for a living, but occasionally do digital paintings also. If you want to go to 3D only for work safety, I wouldn't recommend that. Sure, it's not directly threatened at the moment and making predictions in this is kinda pointless, but the same shift is still present. It's just a question of when and how much will there be left outside of basically being a janitor for an more automated process. Same happened years ago with a lot of the art workflows being based on scans and scan clean ups instead of pure digital sculpting for example.
I don't think AI Image generators (at least, the paradigm we have now) are ever going to completely replace artists, if that's any comfort... until computers become truly capable of human level thought (nothing like what we are/Vaush was talking about here, and not likely for a long, long, LONG time, if ever) there's always going to be certain things those programs struggle with, and some things they can't do (they're improving, but only in certain ways).
AI tools as means of assisting artists might become more popular, but that's another story (and even there... there's still a market for "Traditional Art" in spite of Digital having been a thing for decades).
That... doesn't mean AI image generators won't have a negative effect on the profession, unfortunately, they may reduce demand by narrowing where human artists are needed and/or streamlining some processes, among other issues, but... such is life.
Regardless, I wouldn't give up hope altogether.
@@ZalvaTionZ I actually work as a UI designer, but also do company marketing etc. I've mostly just been learning 3d for video and marketing illustration.
@@KatieBadenhorst I think people are overreacting, AI art isn't a replacement for artist, it's a tool. Learn it and incorporate it into your style. To make an analogy, and this is a real story, when electric drills were first introduced there were construction workers who were afraid that they were no longer needed, many tried to strike or just outright quit thinking that electric tools would "replace the need for construction workers". Looking back at that now it's ridiculous, but this is what happens with EVERY NEW TECHNOLOGY, it doesn't replace you it just adds new dimensions to the job you are doing and expands it to a wider market. If anything the demand for artists and art designers will likely go up now that the process is becoming easier and more streamlined. This means companies will be more heavily reliant on art based marketing campaigns which means more jobs,.
People seriously need to stop being so reactionary and afraid of technology. There will always be a need for human oversight and coordination no matter how great the computer algorithm. Even if AI art became so advanced that it could create masterpieces like the Mona Lisa is microseconds, there will still be a need for a designer to oversee the process and make sure the intangible elements in the art (composition, art direction, context, message, tone etc...) are all working.
This made me think of a song lyric:
“You’ve probably seen the sun rise hundreds of times. But let a painter paint it, or a poet describe. The very moment when heaven and earth might collide, and god let the air of life come outside. Satan doubted it, angels bow to it. I’m so beautifully human and I’m proud of it.”
-Brother Ali.
chat's reasoning: well there's one area, and another area, so in between the two there must be a hard line
mathematics: sometimes the boundary between two areas or functions is incalculable or undefined, we can only make a best guess
I still think the deeper threat of AI art isn’t for high art, stuff that will go in galleries and whatnot. It’s more about losing human art in board games, card games, album art, concept art for movies, video games, and tv. Already there are people designing AI magic the gathering art and it’s depressing.
I don't think AI art will "Replace" art done by humans, it's a tool, no different from a power drill. It's meant to assist artist and streamline the process. So there will still be artists and graphic designers, but instead of the artist having to sketch everything by hand and redo everything 500 times over, they can use AI to take care of the small details or make things quicker
@@lordlubu3029 I think there’s value in doing things the slow way. Especially when it comes to art.
The biggest struggle I have with AI art is the comparison with pendulum art and similar styles. Is pendulum art not art? If it is art, what is the difference between pendulum art and ai art?
That is an interesting point that i haven't really considered
I'd say that humans don't have a monopoly on beauty. Snowflakes are incredible, but no one made them, and most of them get buried and destroyed without ever being appreciated.
Can’t wait for the Spider-Verse 60fps AI “fixes”
I do really like the idea of changing faces in photo's for privacy.
Omg the thumbnail 😭😭
I mean I think that this stuff is neat but I agree that art is meant to convey a theme or feeling between the artist and the viewer, there is no such connection with soulless ai that lacks purpose in what they do
I disagree, the art does not need to remind the observer of the artist, it can exist on its own, the question of "how and why was this made" is usually better left unanswered as it causes more discussion and engagement around an art piece.
@@keatonwastaken You missed the point, it's not about 'reminding' the observer of the artist or a definitive answer as to how and why it was made. But quite simply the connection between an artist expressing a message/thought/emotion and a viewer interpreting/recieving a message or meaning. AI 'art' entirely removes the first half of that, meaning the art is no longer a human interaction. You can sit and discuss AI images all you like but the undeniable reality is that there isn't any purpose, meaning, thought or emotion behind it to interpret or discuss. It'd be like sitting and discussing the emotional meaning behind TV static.
@@saladdodger4722 Not really no, there is not much of a different connection between someone who uses AI to pick a generated art piece vs someone who draws an artpiece or someone who takes a picture, AI is a tool, this is fundemental misunderstanding from your side.
All of them have a level of thought behind them, you can think 1 second for an artpiece or 5 years, it doesn't make either one less or more of an art piece.
If you say you can't interpret anything from AI generated art, that's just you being uncreative and snobby, not the art being any different.
@@keatonwastaken Honestly, you and people like you just seem unable to comprehend the concept that art is a connection between artist and audience. Removing the artist from that connection kind of defeats the purpose.
I don't see how this has anything to do with your point but the difference between an artpiece with 1 second and 5 years of thought behind them is that the 1 second one is likely to be shallow and crap but I'd agree that they're still art. an AI doesn't think though so it doesn't matter.
Looking for meaning in AI images is like looking for meaning in a page of random numbers, there isn't any. It isn't about snobbishness or creativity but that you're speculating about something that doesn't exist.
I don't know why I waste my time getting involved in these discussions because it's like explaining what art is to a wall at times, all it comes down to is 'I like pretty picture'.
@@saladdodger4722 That is your definition of art, it is not something that is factual or universally agreed upon.
But regardless, even ignoring that reality I already mentioned how AI art still has that aspect, its just once again AI being a *tool* humans use, which is something you ignored in my previous response.
"AI doesn't think so it doesn't matter"
Who do you think puts in the prompt for the thing? Who do you think looks and picks a generated image? There is at least one second of human thought there, so by your logic, it is still indeed an input by the person, which makes it art.
Third reminder that AI is not a human replacement, it is a TOOL for humans to use, this is quite fundemental about what AI's purpose is.
And yes, it is absolutely about snobbishness and lack of creativity, you program yourself into a spot where you refuse to think and then blame the product for "not being something you can think about", that is indeed a you problem and not related to anything about AI art.
You say its like talking to a wall, but that's called consistency, I argue that art has no boundaries and restrictions, you disagree yet provide no solid boundaries, I behave consistently while you are unable to do so because your limits are arbitrary and change in the way it suits your argument.
Lastly, many art is just "haha look pretty", many people just make art because its pretty, this doesn't make them not an artist, there is not a deep meaning behind every art.
Using AI to make game covers look more "Realistic" is the new "Mario made in unreal engine 8k realistic." it's just pure ignorance towards art styles in favor of realism, and it does it with the grace of someone crashing a car into a brick wall
It's interesting that ever since Twitter was purchased by Elon, "Blue check mark" went from being an insult used by the right wing to insult the left, to an insult used by the left wing to insult the right.
The longer I look at the thumbnail, the closer I feel myself approaching nirvana
8:07 the really sad part about that one is there is actually additional art around it.
11:36 Wow, what a coincidence with the new Adam Something video.
If youve seen to AI “commercials” I think that the in and out uncanny phasing the algorithm causes would possibly be able to portray the shifting descriptions of Lovecraftian horror.
6:50 man, so true 😂
That's a great thumbnail btw
Yeah i feel a genuinely good use for AI art is making things specifically non-human and surreal.
Something about being conceptually organic and human-made but not quite right lends itself so well to this tech. We should do it on purpose to see the real potential there.
AI art should be used to explore what regular artists can't.
This is why STEM got extended to STEAM
What does the A stand for?
@@Hamza-qs7ez Arts.
@@imacds Why would Arts be in STEM?
This could be used to expand 4:3 shows to 16:9 so studios will stop cropping them when they want to put them back on tv.
I just can't wait to see the nightmare ai creatures in the backgrounds of shots in The Simpsons, in the first couple months when they try it.
Vaush criticising the adobe tool without knowing what it is. It's not supposed to create art, it's supposed to intelligently extrapolate content, which it does really well.
6:20 I think the best use of the tech is something like what black midi does for their cover art, especially on hellfire and calvacade. From what I understand, they take their own art and then fed it into an algorithm
Everyone should have to take some humanities classes. Art, art history, and ETHICS. Also, we know what the rest of the Mona Lisa looked like. We have historical record or how it looked before it was trimmed. I don’t think Van Gogh or Hopper paintings have been trimmed though. Maybe the person that made this doesn’t even know the Mona Lisa was actually trimmed they just wanted to make it bigger lol. Vaush is right, adding all the extra stuff ruins the composition of the originals. Also the thing that makes the skirt look like that is called a bustle, a hoop skirt is different.
Lmao that rendition of The Birth of Venus took it from a beautiful painting to a tacky fresco you'd see at an Italian-themed mall food court restaurant. The only thing missing would be the featureless white dress they'd have painted onto her! 🤣😂🤣
Composition is the arrangement of elements in a scene. Elements and Scene have loosey goosey meaning where context allows- So like, Comic panels on a page and elements within an individual panel are both parts of composition but with different contexts!
"AI Art" is a bad name, it's just AI generated images, be it txt2img or outpainting. For the technology it's really cool to look at and play around with. As "art" it's just not art.
Didnt realize how bad the extrapalation was untill you zommed in and it looked so much better
I would love for Ben Shapiro to be an apolitical dork. He is kind of endearing. So sad he went that way :(
If he jsut did stuff like that with no politics I'd like him if he jsut didn't speak about his political views
23:26 Reminds me of when my friend and I were on a trip to my family’s beach house and we were bored so I randomly said “let’s have a debate about what qualifies as art” 🤣 It was an interesting conversation.
8:29 - he’s talking about art illiteracy, then all he can imagine is ‘ wouldn’t is be cool if there was another head behind “god” ‘ when “god” is sitting in the outline of a human brain..?!
Sometimes, I wonder how different he is from those he critiques.
Well, it's not just art illiteracy that's a problem in Western world, but whole media and humanities illiteracy in general. That we are unable to use analytical skills from hermeneutics or structuralism or formalism to read not just paintings, but books, films, tv shows and yes, even news clips, articles, photographies from world events or interviews with politicians and various speeches. I don't know how it is somewhere else in Western world, but in my country at high school, literature is taught in a way that was taught before 1920, before theory was even born. I know that various theories (hermeneutics, psychoanalytical, marxism, semiotics, feminism, phenomenology, deconstruction....) were developed in 20th century so just couple of decades ago, but media world doesn't wait - it's getting more and more complicated and general public is in even MORE contact with media, but knows less and less how to analyse it, interpret it. And instead of affirming humanities as extremely important for 21st century, we are closing various departments at Unis, because we are short-sighted and stupid, cancelling teaching philosophy at high schools in my country...(even though they replaced it with mathematics, which is also great, I love mathematics & logic, but it's certainly not the peak of all knowledge. and in this case making situation even worse..)
some of the images reminded me of album art which are intentionally portrayed from a wider angle to leave open area for the bands name and album title... without those features they just felt kinda empty
This is not STEM major trying to be art majors. These are business majors trying to be art majors.
it's called a bustle (the big dumpy) ...a hoop skirt just has hoops to make it wider generally but a bustle sticks out the back like a duck's bum.
I don't think AI art is special until it fully merges with the mind and is just a telepathic imagination to communication method. I like AI writing tools but I literally edit everything an AI spews out it just helps structural and basic conceptual output.
The "copying code from Github" bit hits me cause I used to draw and I'm literally copying code from github right now
I am trying to get back into drawing though
That composition change on the Mona Lisa there crushes my art soul
I feel like the boulevard of broken dreams painting he talks about isn't the best example as it's just not that bad.
I- it took me watching the entire video to understand the thumbnail- nicely done!!
I'd prefer it if "ai artists" embraced the surreal aspects of the medium & didn't try so hard to make the system replicate what modern artists do. I saw those older photos of when the software was less refined & thought they were infinitely better then what we have now. DALL-E's avocado chair looks way better in my opinion compared to what contemporary ai artists achieve. The ai artists could have formed an entirely new style which would have looked great & would have set them apart from other mediums but instead they decided it would be best to try and replicate what human artists already established. The ai artists generating videos on TH-cam seem to get that forming a new style is a good thing & if one looks at any of the "𝑥 person eats spaghetti" (I have one in mind but I forgot it's name) one can see what I'm getting at. Those videos don't make an attempt to replicate what's already been established & do no harm to other artists but instead use the medium to make something entirely new & interesting.
tldr: AI's artistic potential is being misused by the people who try to replace human artists & those that embrace AI's surrealism aren't misusing it.
9:48 Wait a fucking minute, am I imagining things or does the S in Shapiro seem familiar?
Horse + Ai = ?
Brad Troemel is probably one of the best online people for art literacy imo, especially as it applies to the internet and the digital age
Most of the AI extended images are still well-composed. Sure the composition is different from the original... that's the point
Yea I agree. Only thing that's lame is the tech bro twitter accounts posting it.
I use ai art for storyboards and references for projects to demonstrate to the hired artist the vision. Anyone who thinks AI can replace humans doesn’t value humanity lol
Even with my very basic knowledge of composition, I know without ever seeing the original that something is wrong in several of these. There's just too much empty space. And well yeah, it works. Cropping it down to the original just makes more sense.
I think a lot of this is like surgery on a grape. It wasn't done because we need to perform surgery on grapes or because performing surgery on a grape is incredible, but because it gives people a physical grasp on the potential for the technology.
I do find this stuff cool, the ai backgrounds. The only problem I have with this, which is the big problem, they use artist art to feed into their data. That is beyond fucked. Pretty sure I’ve heard from different people that it’s basically stealing from the artist since they don’t get paid and aren’t alerted to this. I also heard from someone else that someone fed their AI of someone’s art when the artist died. Sicking.