Your video is of capital importance. As a digital artist, I've struggled all my life against the push for conformism enforced by online platforms. The result is a generation of artists drawing pretty girls or superheroes to get a couple more likes. What's more, sharing ideas is very difficult: a person-to-person approach is what has allowed people to confront each other, critique and grow, while today's digital landscape is hyper-individualistic and opposed to the creation of an involved community of artists. The lack of "inherited spaces" is something I'd never thought about. I would be tremendously interested in you expanding on the theme of the most popular trends in digital art not representing the human condition. I've never seen someone express this concept with such lucidity of thought. I hope your next video treats the "Hyper-human fantasy art" and its pure aestheticism.
Yeah, & everyone is as good a musician as mozart & as good a physicist as einstein....& men are women & ur anything u want to be....i declare myself to be a billionaire & so can you...everyone is rich, no more poverty or hunger
@@vincentvancraigDon’t confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. Anyone can learn the skills to be an artists, even more so than ever with the internet giving free advice you once had to pay for or go to college to receive. And even with AI, you’re still not the one making the art. The Ai is which is saddening and defeats the purpose of self expression.
Never mind your take on the AI stuff, you're also on point that the online markets are stifling creativity, be that books made to be within amazons guidelines or even something as niche as table top role playing game where in the 80s and 90s new ground was being explored but now almost everything is just a skin of dungeons and dragons. Movies and video games are also obvious suffering from that safety net the companies are afraid to risk going out side of like they use to do. loving this channel, keeps me inspired to make something new.
I don't mean this as sarcasm but there is nothing stopping traditional artists from doing things "the old way". If there is truly value there, then they will survive. As an example, you can buy kitchen cabinets that are machine made but there are still artisans that make cabinets. Which you choose depends on your budget and goals. Full discloser, I am an AI fan and I have worked with ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion a LOT. I have noticed that AI has big issues trying to draw something it has not "seen". I asked an AI to draw a ladybug from the point of view of a bacteria. It kept just showing me pictures of ladybugs, or ladybug type insects. It could not do this but an artist could conjure an image to mind in 1 second.
@@timhays2086 these will be the last steps, your question has the limit of changing frame reference, which is possible with GPT 5 (sapposedly). We are at the edge of the curve, that I think for certain.
@@timhays2086 Me and my friend were discussing the other day, that when we were kids there were so many carpenters and artisans. Now, it's almost impossible to find one. My friend wanted to restore some old chairs that she got from her mother and finally found someone. It was extremely expensive and did a very poor job. The chairs have sentimental value to her, but she should just have bought new generic ones from Ikea, lol Art takes a lot of time and effort but people need to eat and have a paying job. There will be traditional artists in the future but not as many as today.
@@julimibz is ironic that machines are here to take the funny and expressive jobs, forcing artists to make boring and repetitive works to make a live... it's like a parody
@@Mente_Fugaz This. I think it's often ignored in the debate that we're not talking about mundane, soul crushing jobs which also ruin your health but generally jobs that are done by people which they genuely like and see as their calling. If those get "outsourced" to some algorithm, then it's going to definetly be a huge problem for those people that lose them. Now, one might say well tough luck! Progress yeah baby! But they overlook the fact that this will happen to many professions eventually. Even medical ones. We're talking about teaching, a lot of administrative work, basically anything that's intellectual but also in many ways subject to repetitive tasks which can be learned by machine learning algorithms. And I wonder, what are all those people going to do in the end? We might see a serious spike in severe depressions and other psychological issues in the future. Maybe a good time to invest in companies producting anti-depressants ...
I'm severely affected by this mentally. This is more of a personal thing, but I put a lot of baggage to 'oh, i can draw cartoons' as part of my self-esteem, so when anyone can simply 'create' art, means my value diminishes. I need to learn to detach myself emotionally from art to pick myself up. Objectively though, it's still sad that it comes to this. Pro-AI art will obviously be happy with this no matter what. It's like magic. I can imagine being excited with this if I can 'create' my own art, without learning how to create it conventionally. Imagine what you can do with it. Exploit it in so many ways. I've seen tutorials on TH-cam on how to make money making AI generated sticker designs for example. I refuse to see AI artist as 'artists'. A new term/tag/category should be made for them. Like creative prompters, or AI maker, AI Art Creator, or something, anything. Just not artists. Update Edit: Hey everyone, I appreciate all the comments and I've read most of them. Some of them are information that I already know, some are an eye-opener, some are leaning more towards tough love, which I appreciate for being real. There's some comments that I disagree with but you know, agree to disagree. I do see the potential of AI art, it's an amazing and Powerful tool. I appreciate creatives or artists who use AI art to elevate themselves, as in, using AI art with a human touch. Like 20% AI, and 80% human skill, an AI-Human fusion. There are those who uses AI very productively as part of their creative workflow instead of just simply using AI art exclusively without any human touch (100% AI generated art, direct text to image only). And of course, obviously I don't have any right to define who should be considered as artists or not, this is just my OPINION. AI art is here to stay. It will be the norm in the future. And there's nothing that we can do about it but to adapt and find ways on how we can leave a space for AI in our everyday creativity. Hope you guys have a nice day. God bless our AI overlords.
How gatekeeper of you to displace those who make you unconftable. I'm a traditionally trained artist who became digital artist for it ease of use. I have given everything to be an artist. I have learned every too and medium, digital and traditional. So let me tell you, AI can be art, It's a new medium, even more disruptive than photography was, but it's just a medium to express and create. I've been using it for a couple years now, well before it was this good and popular. The process is the same, the mind space you enter wile doing it is the same. You have to engage on an artist state to use this tools to their maximum potential. I encourage you to try midjourney, go for the unlimited plan and go insane, you will find the limit's of your own creativity, you will find out a lot about yourselve and the things you seek to create. Pay great attention to the process and you will find yourselve experiencing that great joy of creation, of exploration you get while painting or sculpting or writing. Also It makes a big difference to know how to paint, to know about art when making an AI image, your taste, your knowledge, everything ads up. Not every photo is a piece of art, same with AI. I is in you the artist to make the art.
I feel your pain. I too dedicated my entire life to becoming a great artist and now, it is something that literally anyone can create. That said, I do believe niches will emerge that require these skills in the same way that playing an accoustic guitar is more valuable that playing a MIDI. Keep doing what you love.
Firstly, you shouldnt worry about what others think of you in terms of how you value yourself. Youre not any less valued because there were already a billion other artists out there who can cartoon as good or better than you. Secondly, are your cartoons even unique? Fresh? Are you doing something new with them? Or are they just ... another cartoon. Is your style unique to you? If not, then how can you attribute any value to something that isnt in short supply? It seems like maybe youre confused on what makes you valuable as a person, and as an artist. Just keep your ideas and concepts and imagination raw, spontaneous, and thoughtful, and you'll be fine. If all youre doing is cliche garbage then you were already doomed to oblivion before AI art was even a concern.
Try making art with ai….it’s a very tedious process to get what you want and it’s 100% breaking new artistic ground. Sure, there’s the ones that type up something random on mid journey and sell it oaks a sticker…fine by me. But running stable diffusion on your own rig, experimenting with prompts, models, vae, and the numerous different extensions….then taking it to photoshop to correct and edit things, and then bring it back and keep tweaking it. It’s an art form. That’s what art is. You’re still making it, just using patterns. Give it a genuine try before you write it off. Being an artist is being creative and open minded, but I think your feelings about it are what many artists feel. They’ve deeply attached their sense of selves to their ability to create art…and why shouldn’t they? Im an artist myself that attended art school, and I know how painstakingly laborious making artwork can be and training your hand and eye. But just know that this is a new movement, and many classical artists im sure would’ve had the same negative sentiments about the art we do today. A few of us enjoy pioneering in this space, and nothing is going to stop that lol. I know many ai artists have already trained models on their own specific tweaks, far removed from the models source.
Imagine if... instead of working out, proper nutrition and effort, you could just describe what body you want and it would happen overnight? What do you think would happen to sports or beauty standarts of society? They would stop existing and wouldn't be appreciated anymore. This will happen to art. Nobody will care about what you painted or generated anymore. It's dead.
Maybe you could have a new body every day. Maybe one day you could be a woman, next day man, next day something else. Maybe you could dive deep into what a having a body is and means. I have always dreamed about it, being able to change form. I'm not a trans person by any means, but this idea of changing bodies is aboslutly fasinating to me, bodies is a topic i have explored plenty in my own art. I'm not sure bodies are a thing of apresiation, bodies are so much, having this power over your own form would maybe make us all much more unique, a true expresion of ourselves and our values in our flesh. I feel like everyone should have power over their own bodies, and I hope we find the way in the future. What would happen to sports and beauty stanrdts? Beuty standrs could get much more variated and diverse. Sports could be acessible to much more people, only people with certain body types can participate on certain sports, imagine using diferent bodies for diferent occasion. I feel like you are mising the point in life, it is not to be more than eveyone else, I dont paint as much as I do to be better than other people, to feel pride on my hard work. I paint because I love it, I paint because I can express. AI art is one more way you can express. And I wish one day I can pick my body because I don't care about beein more than someone else I care about deeper things. I have been doing callistenics for about four years and even if i could chose my body I would keep doing it, because I dont do it to look a certain way, I doit because it makes me feel good, I helps me with my mind and I can share it with other people.
@@zershuan I think you don't understand what my point is at all. You are looking at this from a purely individual perspective, yet I am concerned about social and comunal implications. In a way, it is sad that we only think about ourselves anymore.
The internet is and will be even more flooded with AI generic portraits of girls wearing glasses, houses and such. Deviant art is already plagued with it
Health care costs would plummet as people would be healthier. Everyone would live fuller lives without the limitations of their current frail bodies. Beauty standards would change, but they do that now. Society as a whole would be undoubtedly and unbelievable be in a better place.
@@USBEN. you are a client, like someone who asks for a comission... it doesn't matter how specific you are on what you want the artists to make for you, you didn't make it... but if you build a story about it, you are an artist, a writter maybe
I’ve seen people arguing that they didn’t have time to learn “how to art” when they were young- presumably because they were doing other stuff. So now AI art entitles them to become artists without any effort.
Can you please start using "Old artist" We just getting with the times! Joking but your ask sound as silly, just because you came first doesn't mean much.
@@Juan_laudathat's the same as saying: I always wanted to have a lot of money, but I never had the time to work for it, now with this tool I can steal other people's money and feel productive, Well, those models only generate derivations of stolen content, that's why you can't ask for anything that hasn't been drawn before, or a style that is not in the model yet... (because it wasn't housed within a tag for the AI to react to said word)
Before watching all of your video and knowing where you go with this issue, I would like to give my two cents, because the topic is very dear to me. First of all: I got a fully unlocked AI-Art-System running on my own GPU and there are just no limits and it is growing better by the minute, rather than by the day. But what I wanted to tell is: I am an Artist from Germany, am 44 years old and have Multiple Sclerosis and went from a fully able ArtDirector in Advetising to being not able to work anymore, with two partly paralyzed hands, severly disabled. I still can draw, but I am slow as fuck and most likely will lose this ability sooner than later. For month I play with AI-Tools, from Disco Diffusion with its more abstract styles to the now photorealistic Models or totally artful models. I can express myself creativly thanks to those tools, like I was able before my MS. I take AI-Art as a better Version of stockfootage, that I can incorporate into a final picture, or I can tweak a little a abit too wonkey work by my shaking hands and make them more as I envisioned. And when I can‘t move my hands anymore, I still will be able to produce visions out of my head onto the screen and this is amazing. Sadly there are some artists, that love their precious gatekeeping or simply don‘t understand what AI-Art does, or use their fanbase to create outrage, to generate more clicks and earn more money from the masses that now cry Theft and Ethics and bs. Ok, now back to your video. Stumbled across it and up until now it seems, that I found a new interesting channel with you. :) Cheers! Chris
Any form of AI requires us to give up control of a process. I am trepidatious of a future where everyone is dependent on AI instead of their own creativity. But hey... it's just a tool right? Yeah... for now.
Exactly, thank you. AI supporting persons aren't thinking far ahead enough. Right now it might be a tool, in the future it'll be able to replace artists completely. The way developments are going in like the next 5/10 years
@@creativecipher I honestly believe that illustrators, graphic designers and people that do post production should start thinking about what comes next for them. But artists? Can AI develop something approaching creativity? It's ironic, but I think we're about to enter an age where artists have job security.
It really doesn't require giving up control. It just enables and empowers people in a new way. You can still craft art to your specific vision with AI, not to mention supplement it with more traditional digital art techniques.
the only problem I have with AI image generation is the use of copyrighted work in training data, I think we should have a degree of control over use of our art, we have a copyright as a contract between artist and society, Artist shares art for free with people, in ecchange he can control the use of this art. AI breaks it all, we shouldn't push boundties just to push boundries.
If you posted your art online (which benefits you in a lot of ways) then you automatically consented to any artists using any tools to use it as inspiration and practice material .. you literally can't ever stop that, if you don't want people to do that just stop posting your art online or post it only in online private pay-to-view galleries.
@@AscendantStoic That's very unstoic of you. Just because something is exhibited publicly, it doesn't give you any ownership over it or any inherent right to profit off it. There is a deep lack of morality on how AI companies keeps using copyrighted work, with no compensation to the original creators, while they profit highly from appropriated work. Quoting the legal team handling the class action lawsuit against Stability "value of this misappropriation would be roughly $5 billion.". That's a lot of food taken from someone's table... I am yet to hear of a serious artist who has issues with AI tools, other than their abusive, unauthorised use of copyrighted work.
People simply prompting an AI are Art Directors, not artists. Artists who use AI as a tool to expand their vision are no different from artists who manipulate stock photos, use photoshop filters and such. Art is whatever conveys a message. P.S. it's totally open already, I make my own models using my own material, everybody can.
Person using AI art: "Imma get famous" pro art test: "You cannot use AI, here are some traditional tools and we want to see you put work without any cheating" Person using AI art: "Uhhhhhhh...... uummmmmmm but.... errr..... (begins mumbling).... I cannot draw well"
Person using photoshop: "I'm going to get famous" pro art test(?): "You cannot use computers, here are some bottles of paint, select number of brushes, canvas, palette and an easel. Person using photoshop: "Uhh... err... I cannot mix colours well and there is only one layer..."
Person using Ableton with synth "I'mma get famous" (Because that is the only goal of art to you posers) Pro mmusic test "You cannot use ableton, only analog instruments since I arbitrarily have decided it's ch eating if it's not difficult enough" "Person using ableton" Oh no, I won't get FAMOUS! Oh my gosh! Franz Kafka didn't seem so fucking concerned with fame but you couldn't get that you human AI.
Two words: Stable Diffusion It's already open, and free on the internet. Anyone can run it locally on their personal computer as long as you have a GPU.
12:55 "But savvy people knew what was going on, and those really interested in the arts knew where to find it" I think you may just not have the savvy when it comes to AI art... yet. Stable Diffusion is not limited by morality as you posit. I recommend looking up Lynn Cole, who is a modern day dadaist working with generative AI.
Chat GPT will not allow shock content. What I do is, I tell it to write something politically correct and then I simply edit that script in an inverted way or swap out mundane names with famous names. That's what I do with my A.I. videos. Chat GPT has great writing structure, I just use it to my advantage by warping the text to what I want the computer to say, not what it said.
Just a matter of time indeed. The haughty types will never disappear, all we can do is drown them out, but in time, the knee jerk response so many people have right now will go away. The history of automation tells us so.
Open versions of stable diffusion are actually very easy to find and install. The biggest limiting factor is your local GPU. the share part is ofcourse harder.
It's kinda funny how people still don't realize Stable Diffusion is open source meaning there are no constraints. People think of AI art as Dall-E and Midjourney which ban you for asking for a sexy woman. Living under rocks.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, companies rarely need artists, they mostly need illustrators. AI can create illustrations, icons & co. faster and cheaper than humans. Those who adapt will flourish, those that don't will go under.
@@nicejungle Prombt got nothing to do with control because the person who type words understand what he want but the image generated machine doesn't so the person doesn't control anything he/she just using image generation which doesn't understand what it generated because is more of images it found on the web that react with the prombt not controlled by any person.
I totally understand what you are saying. But I think that the problem is one of distribution. If you have a strong enough computer you can run models that are like DALLE2 but are not moderated like Stable Diffusion. The only problem is that there is a big barrier of entry if you are not tech savy. Aside from that I totally agree that we are going to see AI be made into it's own medium.
The barrier to entry is smaller than you think, you may be intimidated by the look of a terminal, but if you follow a step-by-step tutorial you will be up and running in about 10 minutes. Pretty much the entire process has already been automated. What is left is having a powerful enough PC, but the performance requirement has been steadily dropping and PCs will get cheaper in time. In the meantime, you can rent a server time for pretty cheap nowadays. It's not like art classes and art supplies are that much cheaper (you may still want them, tho).
I has viewed a few channels with AI girls art and to me they seems very generic. It is basically the same woman with different clothes and hairstyles on all of those images.
Such a fantastic, and concise, take on the matter.... Part of the problem with AI is that in previous anti establishment artistic movements, there was no immediacy to the wave, and the establishment as well as other people were able to shift and grow accustomed to the new paradigms. AI is coming fast, faster than anyone knows, and there isn't time for society to adapt and incorporate. I agree, though, that Art needs to be able to explore all the ranges of human shadow and light, but fear the ones making the rules won't see it that way.
After watching dozens of videos on the challenges posed by ai art, I convinced myself that the main (unrecognized) problem is.... the self-esteem and social esteem of the artist or of those who simply consume art. Each of us always wants to appear "young" "in step with the times" and "projected towards the future", consequently we are all terrified of saying or doing things that may seem "nostalgic for the past" "worthy of your grandfather" "old fashioned" (in the language of the Italian futurists "passatisti", since you quoted a passage by the Italian futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti). This fear of appearing old and scared of the new things afflicts many youtubers. In fact, if they invite artists "not to be afraid of ai art" they look good, their self-esteem grows, the algorithm loves them and, who knows,maybe Holz of midjourney and the other gnomes of silicon valley who have massacred art will quote their videos etc. With all due respect to the calm and kind landlord, well this is the hundredth "don't be afraid" video in which a vlogger talks about 1) cars against old horse carriages, 2) photography against painting, 3 ) Luddites who destroyed machinery, 4) revolutionary artists who have broken with tradition throughout history. Stop it for once! Invent something else! Anyone who has completed high-level university studies in art history and criticism and aesthetic philosophy knows that each of these four topics is used inappropriately. I've always been a "futurist" at heart. I have always loved science fiction, I have been using photoshop at the highest level for fifteen years ( only for my pleasure, I'm not a professional artist ). But loving the future also means always being on guard against the dangers that can make the future worse than the past (the dystopian literature help us to recognize those dangers). Being a futurist also means criticizing Laion, Open Ai etc. without being blackmailed as "passatisti", "worse than my grandfather" etc. and without having to hear the little lesson on carriages, photography, Luddism etc. for the hundredth time. And now I get to the point: the idea itself (described by the quote in the video at 0:39) that through a prompt written on midjourney I can get my "creative idea" out of my head in its purest form, without "fighting" against the material means, plus the idea that thanks to prompts everyone can finally be an artist (because manual talent is now superfluous) are lies worthy of Huxley's dystopia. No guys, get over it: the only means to give shape to creative intuition are HANDS. If you have the innate talent refined by exercise to use your hands well, and if you have deep poetic inspiration, you can be an artist otherwise there is no prompt that can help you. In fact, Ai art seems "terrific" at the first sight but at the eyes of educated people of good taste it is empty and ugly. Get over it: it's not enough to want to be an artist. There are very few artists, even less than those who consider themselves artists and who will be swept away by history. But this is too deep a topic that cannot be covered in one comment. Maybe to shout to the world the truth that I think I understand (but I'm willing to change my mind if someone explains to me where I'm wrong, without mentioning carriages, Luddites and photography again) I'll be forced to open another channel and make a video on this topic, which of course will have less than 10 views because the algorithm does not love those who say things that are too far from the common mentality (and also because I express myself in Italian). But I don't have time anyway.
How about this angle- Ai art helps people who do not have the physical means to make an image into reality, but have an image in their head. Example, the very hands you mention. There's something called an "essential tremor" (along with many other physical and neurological conditions) that makes your hands shake, even with stability-assisting programs or plugins, this at best helps mitigate SOME of the condition to be workable, and for others still isn't enough... especially if you're doing detail work. Worse, let's say you do not have working hands, like, at all. There are head-mounted devices that can try to replace the limbs, but these tools often have a difficult learning curve on top of the already difficult task of learning the foundational aspects of Making Art. ... Now imagine that you understand how computers work, how to translate the beautiful human mind into commands a piece of machine learning knows just as fluently. Are you going to shame that artist because they take the image from their head and make it into reality in a way that doesn't make them jump through fifteen ableist-approved hoops of fire? Are you going to tell that artist they're not allowed to make a living because they refuse to do the cripple-dance and suffer nobly and quietly... the way that greater society wants them to do? You may say this is a hypothetical, but as someone who both lives with someone who has an essential tremor, and as someone who's physical issues kept them from learning the fundamentals well... this is is a reality for us.
@@basilmemories In a comment I could not say everything there is to say about the relationship between brain and hands (which is why I feel the need to make a video) and in any case I partially agree with you. I believe that progress means above all inventing ever more perfect tools to alleviate the suffering of the sick and the disabled. A tool is good or bad depending on how we use it: for example, a knife can be used to kill or to cut food. Similarly the extraordinary technology of Midjourney Stable Diffusion etc. it can be used to destroy art or to help disabled people express their ideas. I also think that this technology could be very useful in the field of psychiatry, to help psychotic individuals shape the monsters of the unconscious and face them. But in absolute terms, if you don't have any disabilities and you want to be an artist, if you learn to develop your manual talent you can make better works than you would by writing sentences on an ai art generator. What I'm trying to say, The Art mentor just said perfectly in his new video: "In 1-2 years AI Art will be dead and here's why." I highly recommend watching it. Greetings. P. S. A curiosity: Dante also speaks of a true great artist with a "trembling hand" in Paradise (XIII).
Many people have an image in their head but it’s not until you sit down to actually realize the idea in your head do you realize how unrefined and vague that idea is to begin with and you basically had the AI do 99% of the work.
@@EliteNz3 Really? because I have a very specific thing that I want when I ask something like: "an ancient eyeless wormlike draconic beast, clutching at it's own neck and vomiting up neon light, as it writhes on rain-slick concrete. In the background are the time-faded ruins of a once-great city, it's own neon signs now broken and dark" That's a very specific thing. Soon to be followed by the ai giving me the equivalent of "I don't know half of what those are and could you please tone down your edgelord bs for like, a single femtosecond. I'm begging you here."
@@basilmemories Yes I know you have a strong idea, but translating it from your mind onto paper is more than just a mechanical process of your hand. Your mind likes to fill in gaps. Your mind REALLY fills in gaps and it's only through great effort can truly realize your idea. Art isnt as much about being able to use your hands perfectly but it's about being able to simplify your understanding of visuals data. There's a reason newer artists struggle with "symbolic drawing" and that's because your brain takes shortcuts and fills in the gaps and it's only through observation and effort that you can start to understand the world through an artists lens. Over the past few months learning art I havent felt like I got "better" I just feel like everything has gotten easier. It's not about climbing a mountain it's about realizing there is no mountain. It's an incredibly rewarding process of learning. Sorry about the wall of text.
Ai art is often paired up with word “automation”, by those defending Ai art. Can you imagine the outrage by your local GPs if tomorrow, an app is released and it tells you your symptoms and it also has the rights to prescribe you medicine. Do you really think lawyers would keep quiet if people could settle their differences through a $2.99 app??
No, but as the long history of automation will tell you, complaining about it wont stop it. What I take issue with is when people blame the technology even though their complaint is about the broken economy, or when they start spreading misinformation about it.
AI isn't niche, it's boy bands, it's a manufactured product, by people who neither care nor have any interest in art, it seems amazing and slick, but it's incredibly homogeneous. It draws from trawled content and since it can produce at an exponential rate, it's not going to be able to refine anything, it's visual incest. Most of the AI art already looks the same. We're told that self-proclaimed creators/prompters are "finally" unleashed to create, unfortunately without having developed any visual aesthetic and apparently they all must think the same things are impressive. Someone a while back raved about how in one month they'd produced 20,000 pieces of AI art, but when I looked at their social media, their curated feed looked like boring psychedelic art, all of it basically the same. It wasn't "Most Advanced", it was aggressively regressive. This is not where any meaningful or insightful or dangerous content will come from, because most people participating have nothing to say and if they do they can't control the visual language cause they don't know the history and so they don't recognize how dated what they do looks.
Art is just coming up with a vision you have and then bringing it to life to share your imagination with others. If you make it easier to do thats a plus not a negative. Especially if you make art more accessible to many more people.
That's fine in self but not when it trains off of artist's that can't opt out or have their identity stolen when someone purposely imitates their artwork. The art that ai is making does not result in the prompt writer's journey of learning different brushes traditional or digital and learning about each individual stroke what they can do and how exactly they like it. AI art is beautiful in itself especially when you pay premium to target professional artists and use them to your self gain, but that's taking someone else's experiences and pretending they are your own.
@@pikapurin1865 isnt that what humans do i look at a copywrite photo and train off it, and what about tracing, or photo bashing?on top of that you can use ai responsibly with control networks and an image you hand create to get an image which is more original. it cn be used for good or bad just like anything else and mostly depends on the actor.
Additionally it's about the new access of people who would use AI to create pornography of their friends and family or others to harrass them, real artists who love their craft don't use their art to sexualize their irl friends or just to harrass someone online.
@@pikapurin1865 that is true. not too far in the future we will not be able to distinguish real from fake based on content of the internet. i think people will just have to get used to that.
@@domenicperito4635 Also, the only thing AI can do is make new art based off of concepts and art styles that already exist. People started off making cave wall art to drawing anime. If AI only had pictures of cave wall art and everything the world had and looked like thousands of years ago, it still would not come up with the concept of cartoons and Vocaloid characters or smth. Real artists are always going to be needed. I would say AI Art would mainly eliminate the artists that do not have a real sense of creativity and make the same things that the AI does, and the AI will continue to only be able to make what it is given. If most artists begin to use this as an "advantage" there will be a dramatic slowdown in the culture and new findings itself, this really just hurts everyone who says they love art while using AI and encourages artists to use it too instead of hand drawn. So that's why AI Art is not the same thing as humans learning from other humans, we have eyes and opinions on ways we see the world, the AI can only ever do what it is ever given. Even children who have not experienced anything yet can have dreams for imagination and creativity, this is not true for AI.
It's funny, many years ago I made concept art for my novel with bitmip paint. Now I'm feeding my own sketches and crude drawings from a lack of time to be invested in drawing, and using mid journey to improve an ideal result. I wonder how those results can be refined by a professional artist. The problem is how the world views art and how monetized it is. Imagine if we never had to worry about money, I wonder how much more open the avg view on ai art will change.
I watched this totally prepared to formulate my counterarguments as you went along, but I came away feeling this was a refreshingly balanced and thoughtful take on some of the deeper issues at play. I will quickly point out though that, safety rails or not, it is remarkably easy to summon deeply disturbing and edgy works with DallE and Midjourney as is -- and not just gratuitous horror show imagery. In fact, with the right kind of prompting (and/or blending, in the case of Midjourney), it is frankly difficult to avoid seeing subtle and not-so-subtle scenes that are nothing short of haunting testaments to the human condition. It would be hard not to be a Jungian archetype-churning machine once fed with hundreds of millions of human-created training images. My family and friends are about 50% traditional artists of one stripe or another -- not of the sticker-making variety, but committed, principled, and possessing of critical eyes for quality and integrity in the artworks of others. As a lowly non-drawing urban planner, I've always felt a bit like an outsider in terms of expressive ability. While I've dabbled in photography and a little woodworking as my own means of visual expression, it's not until the very recent advent of the aforementioned tools, that I've had a personal explosion in my ability to bring forth (I hesitate to offend people by saying create) personally very visually intriguing and complex images that I would consider genuine reflections of my worldview and unsorted inner conflicts. If that is not "art", then I may be confused as to what that word means. The images I've prompted, blended, and carefully curated, are utterly unique to the world and would simply never have existed without my intentional interventions. So far, I am batting 1.000 (an Americanism) in my slow-moving but dogged evangelical quest to convert one artist friend at a time over to the side of fully embracing AI as a potential form of art. We still universally deride the proliferation of "hot anime mech commander girls", "fantasy dwarven swords", and similar creations that completely dominate the digital media sharing spaces you rightly criticize, but we are not fooled into thinking that that is where we should be looking if we're expecting to see emergent art anyway. I agree that the spaces for sharing the edgy stuff have not yet really emerged, but we may need just a little patience. After all, three years ago (maybe two?) I had literally never heard of text-to-image AI models, and now I'm obsessed and enriched because of it. My family has never had so many intellectual discussions about art or read more about art history as we have in the past year. Anyway, screed halted. Surprisingly great video, and I look forward to seeing more and hearing how your thoughts on the subject evolve in the coming months. Thanks!
oh yeah art movements, the part of your life where you lose skill and start getting more and more abstract and treating them as beautiful because of age
I am an artist - and a programmer. I think I have a fairly good idea of how "AI art" is generated (it's basically captured from humans, mainly without their consent). From what I have seen so far ca. 99,999% of the "art" generated by AI models is neither in any way revolutionary nor interesting. The rather small part of AI generated artifacts that have some artistic value do have this value because there is a meaningful and interesting human oncept behind them. So I truly do not see any sort of paradigm change coming along with AI created artifacts. AI powered artifact generation has as much do to with art as, for example, brute-force chess programs have anything to do with humans playing chess.
I've seen astonishing AI art already. Last pieces I loved were the richest people on Earth depicted as villagers of the poorest corners of the planet. Magnificent. As for the the tool itself, you should look up at how install it locally and create new models, without any restrictions, so you can see for yourself how "dark" it can be :) Search for A1111, a new world will open in front of you.
The whole reason they are already talking about shutting down AI is exactly because of the 'fringe' art that you are talking about. It is happening and they don't like it because it doesn't conform to their world view. It is only a matter of time before the chaff of 'surrealism' and anime fantasy burns off. We will start seeing some truly groundbreaking, and shocking work come out and they won't be able to censure it. They will try.
This was a wonderful video, however I feel your premise that AI art is sanitized and controlled by a few AI companies is completely wrong. The technology behind modern AI art is called stable diffusion and it's open source, meaning it isn't owned by any entity and, therefore, is open for unlimited public use. Notably, the technology is lightweight enough to be used with high-end hardware available to consumers (anyone with a decently powerful graphics cards), but this is still a relatively high barier of entry for most people (the bare minimum GPU for generating ai art in a reasonable amount of time would still cost hundreds of dollars, not to even mention how much a GPU capable of creating it's own AI models would cost). Anyone with the required hardware can run stable diffusion on their computer and generate images. As for the models themselves, there are countless models, specializing in different styles and subject matters available online to use for free that provide as good, if not better, outputs than what these AI companies provide on their websites. AI art companies provide a service for the people who cannot run stable diffusion themselves or for those who don't know they can. These companies often claim ownership of the art generated and add content filters that are not present in their original models. These, of course, aren't concerns for the AI art enthusiast that generates all their images locally. On top of this, other Ai art open source technologies built on top of stable diffusion that allow for further control and freedom in both the generation and model creation aspects are constantly coming out (such as LoRAs and hypernetworks), many of which these companies don't offer as options. Overall, the AI art world is much more broad and free than what AI companies offer and tell their users. I personally only have a passing interest in AI art, so I haven't dwelt too much into it, but I have dwelt enough to roughly understand what is possible and I feel that once propper workflow tools are developed, AI art has a bright future ahead.
Thanks so much for taking the time with this comment, I learnt a lot from it! Really appreciate it, thanks mate - edit - if you know how to get involved in what these private communities are sharing that would be great!
He ain't wrong. The Community is stuck in Stable diffusion 1.5 because later models are hampered by Artist Sueing Stable diffusion for "copyright" so they afraid to use such images as celebrities thus making inferior models.
@@arnowisp6244 Why should anyone just give up copyright in a capitalist system where you are forced to enter a competition to earn a living for yourself? People show such opportunistic naïvety when it comes to machine learning and data. No one has uploaded/created data knowing that suddenly in the early 20's it will all be fed to machines with the ideal outcome in mind being the total automation of everything that can possibly be automated. Cases like Adobe with Adobe Stock may have legally crafted their terms of conditions broad enough to now utilize their communities data for these ML purposes (how that will be perceived morally we shall see) but the same can't be said for SD or Midjourney or even Github Copilot. Hence why these issues are already brought to court and rightly so. All of these people who created so much of the data that made powerful algorithms possible in the first place are shit on by opportunists for simply demanding their basic commercial rights within capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Putting "AI" and ART" into the same phrase is where all of this goes wrong. What is missing is the word: "GENERATED". The stuff is generated from other stuff that already exists. Re-Rendered from previously imagined imagery. The biggest problem is that there is a LOT of it generated VERY QUICKLY. Basically - a giant cess-pool of visual SEWAGE from the toilets of failing human artistic endeavor. Not "CREATED" - just spewed and vomited. Quickly seen and just as quickly forgotten, as soon as the next piece of shit arrives.
Im sure that in due time there will be a lot of open course AI of all kinds made by users for users, without any restrictions. That would be a turning point imo.
generative art is art, traditional art is art, 3d art is art, even weird liberal sus art exhibits are unfortunately art. the bar for calling something art is as low as a making a dot on a medium. painter's tears are art too, so ai art generators are creating even more than we realize.
we shall see. i played around with this and got bored in a month. i tried it again, because everyone was saying how far the technology advanced. again, i got bored in a month.
If AI art was just a new medium, it would be really cool, and in some ways it is. But if it in any way diminish the amount of artists, it will be a great loss for the art world as a whole. Keep in mind that AI only recycle the work already done by a living, breathing being. As it do not walk this earth and lack emotions, it can not create something that is not a mix of what it was trained to do. New techniques and styles, appear only if you do not solely rely on old work, like AI do. It can mix and match, copying countless styles. But it can never combine it with something new, something it was never trained for. If art is going to be interesting in the future, we still need those people, expressing themselves with hands and eyes. It is an utterly different way of expression than asking a machine to make something for you using your words. You use different parts of your brain. As for the limits the companies have given, you are right about how the web would have been flooded with porn and violent images. I see how the prompters are so desperate to make porn already. I have seen how the face of a ten year old are glued to scarcely clad bodies of fully grown women, and it recieves praces by drooling men, wishing that character was real. It is disturbing to say the least. The only interesting AI generated images I see, are when bizarre humour is involved. This at least has involved some amount of creativity. I wonder how long it will take for the web to be saturated with recycled art, and people start craving something real and fresh instead.
Ah yeah, you could just use a model you can run at home, where you are solely responsible for what the models outputs are. I'd say the relationship between a hosted models proprietors and the people using it is more like that of a really overbearing patron to an artist in their "care".
Artists who do not use AI tools with their own aesthetic point of view in mind are letting the tool be the artist. Either the artist's creative vision is stronger or the machine's is. This is the difference between people making art with AI and people making shiny objects.
I don't think ai art is a medium, people who type into prompts are not artists, they're more like clients, that person who paid you to make a painting is not the artist
Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important. People select what AI art they like and don't like and that is what makes it art.
Eh i think it's a scale, I wouldn't consider the people that just type in a prompt and get a shitty result an artist. Just like that one insta girl who is just feeling cute isn't a photographer. But if you watch a video on how good ai art itself is made it actually takes up a decent chunk of time. You go through multiple iterations of the same image constantly choosing the result that results in the image you want, shift the different prompts and sliders around, etc. The artpiece that one that one random competition took like 86 hours to make or smthn, and if that ain't art idk what is.
@@masontoy1976 forgive me, but i cannot rationalize your logic. You seem to be conflating (for lack of a better term) pain-stakingly producing every line,shade,color and effect on a piece which (in my case is at least; im fairly slow) can take upwards of 6-10 hours of actual work with sifting through hundreds of prefab images. I do not understand.
@@ZakuBlk i guess you don't have to be skild to be an artist that's the point. If you are skild, good, most people aren't. But for me the term doesnt matter, if is unethical is other discussion
The problem I see with AI art has more to do with capitalism - take automation, in it self a good thing, ppl need to work less, could have more free time etc, but in our capitalist world it means a loss of jobs, ppl without money etc. With AI art unfortunately it will be the same, of course there will be ppl who will use it to make fantastic new art, but on the other hand, for corporations it will be another tool to get rid of „the cost factor of labour“…
To get rid of cost factor of labour, unfortunatly in this case means getting rid of the people creating something of value. It will mean an infinite amount of images, recycled past copies of something that was once unique. At the same time it will diminnish the development of new expressions. We need artist, not only something ordered from a machine using words. It involves totally different parts of the brain. I do not want a machine trained on the past, to dictate the future of the visual human expression. I think we can find a way around it though. At least I hope so.
It’s true. On one hand it’ll cost jobs, on the other it opens paywall doors to others (like self employed or small business) who can now use affordable AI to boost their own income, so, morally gray I guess 🤷♀️
The problem is than "capitalism corporation" will don't bother hiring a guy if they can get what they want in two clics. Yeah. Midjourney, ChatGPT, Leonardo, all those things cost less than an Artist and give the expected product at the end. :/ In one day of try, i believe an AI can give you what you are looking for without passing by an Artist.
As an artist who creates mural-size oil paintings, I see the potential of AI-produced art, but it's only pulling from whatever information that's been made available to it. Many artists pull imagery from inside their unique, self-aware consciousness which can result in new styles of art. Until A.I. can *"pull something new out of its own self"* it will remain as random assemblages of images that mimic art.
wrong. because the images it creates are totally new, original, and unique. its not collaging, its using pattern recognition and language recognition. it recognizes patterns based on the way those patterns are described by the people who did the training (or software). the images themselves havent existed until they do. the interesting thing about it, from my perspective, is that it gives the average person the ability to bring their ideas into the visual space without having to have a complex talent. this doesnt, in my opinion, devalue those with talent and skill. but its not really any different than paying a concept artist to create an illustration for you based on your ideas and descriptions, other than we simply dont have to pay a person or business. the concepts and ideas that the users of these tools have are coming from the same self-aware consciousness that the artist uses. Some artists, though talented, cant bring their mental images into reality through their given skill set. Some can do it perfectly. to say that an image cant be art simply because it wasnt hand made by a human is preposterous. the other side of that coin is to say that every image made by a human is art. no one person or group has the right to say what is or isnt art to anyone else. any attempt to do so defies what art is and destroys the concept. i know several ai artists whos images and concepts are way more 'art'sy (to me, and thats what matters here. or to you, if you're looking at them) than a bunch of the hand made 'art' i see across the various social media and digital art spaces. but it doesnt matter what i think! The only thing that anyone should care about when it comes to art, is what they personally feel about a given work in their own world. No ones opinion of/on art should matter to anyone else.
No, you're wrong because even humans are conditioned, we overrate our own creativity, can't compete with AI, also arti is so subjective, someone can draw bullshit painting or extremely simple painting that'll be considered a masterpiece, it's all weird, story telling is the best from of art
I really enjoyed the two videos of yours on this topic that I've watched so far. I found the channel just when I became really fed up with all the angry or plain ignorant rejections I encountered on the one side, and the mindless hype on the other. And while I don't agree with all of your takes, the new perspectives are very much appreciated. Thanks, I'm looking forward to more :)
Ai is not just another tool , or another just movement , it is pointless to make these comparisons , and fundamentally downplays what is about to happen.
@@_loss_ my argument is: Everyone is used to seeing change. Normally that change happens at a rate where everything can adapt. Its reasonable to a normal rate of change 'just another tool' , or 'just another movement '. However there is a limit to the rate ecosystems adapt. Rapid change is like a bomb going off , or years of drought . Here ecosystems die and never come back. A normal rate of change needs a 'don't worry it will work out attitude' ... its just another tool This does not work for extreme rates of change . Its like standing in front of a forest fire and hoping your house will be ok. 'the just another tool' attitude is not going to work because all creative industries are about to be burnt from the bottom up.
@@lappwv This is absolutely not true. Industry is business. Clients buy things based on desire and cost. It you flood any market with stuff that is a thousand times cheaper than human effort you devalue the entire market to the point that human effort no longer pays the bills. Illustrators are already losing there jobs to Ai because publishers are ultimately motivated by profit not soul.
The German language distinguishes between artists and artisans, although their works are not always easy to distinguish from each other for the average spectator. Within these semantics, AI is merely an artisan and no artist. It still can, in cooperation with a human instructor, create works of art. This has happened in history before, where artists instructed other people to physically manifest their vision. There are also parallels to photography, which is now recognized as a tool for everyday use as well as creation of fine art.
I'd say most people online, including myself, are artisans. Very few craftsmen are artists. Most create products to be consumed. In Norwegian, we usually only consider artists those who mainly use their art to express themselves. It usually only relates to high art, and it's kind of has to be exhibited in a gallery to be acknowledged.
Bravo.. you help define something I’ve been wanting to convey for a while. Yes you can use AI as an artisan and has its uses obviously it’d be blind to deny or reactionary to just trash it.. but AI work is like artisan work with its merits but not the unique value of pure artistry the beings that bring forth an unknown out of nothingness.. should not be underestimated, undervalued or ignored… It’s an absolutely different story to create something that is pleasing using AI than wrestling alone in front of the Blank page
@@JoiskiMe That's been the status for decades and has been debated up until now. Artists are usually well aware of the gatekeeping some "prestigious" galleries partake in. A romanian (so, as you can imagine, quite shocking for someone in Eastern Europe, shortly after the fall of communism there, as compared to what you say is "the nordic status quo"), on his quest to become an artist, after he uprooted and went to New York, became at the time famous for establishing his own museum. The institution was himself and he was walking around, close to those prestigious galleries, carrying works of his fellow artist friends - he hung them onto himself and went on exhibiting them on his own 2 legs. If "being in a gallery" is most of your (your local area, the apparent mass culture there, I presume) argument for what passes as "high art", you might not be talking to the right people. If art is of no interest to me, of course I wouldn't know how to differentiate types of art and whatnot. What about your fellow citizens who 'consume' art? What about those who create it? Do most of them agree with that? I doubt it, in 2023. We might have to move onto defining what "a gallery" is. Agreed?
A few people have commented that you can get Ai generative tools locally, where the morality of big business does not hinder what you make. I should have made this more clear in the video, my point is more regarding the gatekeepers of how the average person accesses these tools, eg midjourney and where they can share their work without censorship. I'm learning loads from comments as I'm a traditional artists trying to keep up with whats happening, so i really appreciate everyones input!
There are also tools that go beyond a text prompt and allow various kinds of image recognition input, allowing it to function more like a complex image filter, with more functions making it more of a standard digital art tool rather than a simple "make cool picture" button. Some digital artists use these tools as mere steps in our process, with manual human stages as well. The capabilities have expanded fast in just the past few months.
While you are absolutely right about how the average version uses the tools, there is still some hope in the local model space. While nothing that requires a user to use Git can ever be truly called accessible, more user friendly 'download this .exe and go' programs have been in development and several plugins for photoshop are currently available. A future where local usage is the 'standard' is still very much possible although at least a year out still. Furthermore developments like LoRA's have allowed users to explore the training aspect of model making without the need of prohibitively expensive servers and gpu clusters. [it's hard to explain but in short, there are ways to staple additional subnetworks on top of an existing model to allow for that model to learn and express new ideas without having to remake the entire thing] It's not all as dire as it might seem, although you are absolutely correct that ultimately it is in the shared spaces where our ability to express new art is most limited. As it is now, many traditional art sites are actively hostile to AI work and the most productive communities often end up being discord servers that are difficult to find and distressingly insular. I'm not sure what the solution could be on that front beyond waiting for time to cool hostilities towards AI. eventually Adobe will cram AI into everything and people will have to cope, maybe then the rest of us can come back out into the light.
I was going to add that but the comment section is quick. You had some good thoughts. There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding AI and how it works but I personally could not turn down the opportunity to be a part of the next paradigm shift in creativity. I'm currently working to push it in ways that I don't believe anyone has thought of, just yet.
I see AI "art" as just decorative art, like those prints you purchase at a supermarket or wallpapers you use on your pc screen. They can be stunning, but they are not the real thing. What I mean is that a work of art is something unique, that exists in the real world as an object produced - crafted - by a human being after careful planning, reflection, introspection, exploration of own limits and hopes. A human being who has knowledge and the will to break boundaries and find ideas then put them on canvas or any other medium the artist uses as his tool and mode of expression. Art is NOT typing a bunch of words in Midjourney and call it art, unless you are happy to call art an "human-inspired imagery fully created by Artificial Intelligence" So art is what appears on my blank canvas after many hours of work, brushes and oil paints as my tools. Maybe my art is crap, maybe I'm a unskilled artist but what I paint is on my walls, unique and tangible, the product of my soul. I'm already sick of the deluge of AI "art" that is now everywhere, smothering the work of people who spend countless hours in their studios until it's like they cease to exist. Too much background noise will kill human creativity, or just make it inconsequential
This will sound strange and maybe totally irrelevant. Apologies in advance due to the possibility that I might've missed something, my English is still not at the level I'd consider to be good enough for deeper conversations about art in genereal. If I understand correctly you're saying that AI will fundamentally change what we know and think about art now. My biggest fear about AI is the infinite possibilities to take away even more value from art than how much it was taken by consumerism in general, until every form of human expression is going to be replaced with a piece of content that fills the same space, but is being created and curated by corporations. Fair enough 9 out of 10 people already don't care about art and about the artists who make them beyond knowing the name of the company who produced that piece of art or knowing the general name of the medium or artstyle, but I'm afraid that the 10th is about to be converted into that too. According to how I see art now, it is something that is either partially or entirely a product that is used commertially or it is the more classic version which is an act of communication.. that sounded strange... the "piece of food for the soul" as you said it before in the other video. Now if I understand and interpret what you said correctly, are you saying that what you predict is that AI is going to fundamentally change this view of art and transform it into something that is so alien for all of us that we can't even comprehand it with our current understanding of the word? That art as we know it is going to be abolished to open up the way for something we've never seen before. If that is the case can you honestly say that the reason why I think about it the way I do is because I'm unable to comprehand what comes next? Because the only possibility I see is that corporate AI created content is going to destroy art as a whole until everything in the world that could be created by a human is replaced with an entirely machine made product. If I understand correctly, you are claiming that this way of viewing it must be false due to the fact that I simply don't even know what the future of art is going to look like? I just can't convince myself that there is any sort of place for a human creator of art of any kind in the society of tomarrow. I feel like I wrote down this whole comment to cope with this fact and to seek comfort in someone's approval who thinks otherwise.
I understand your thoughts, your English is good! I'm addressing your points in my next video. I think you are focused on the utility of art in a commercial frame, or as a communication tool. These are just two ways art is used. Ai may take over these but it will never replace the human desire to make art, therefore it will never replace art. People make art for many reasons, but ai will never be able to take away WHY we are drawn make it. Ai will be able to replicate the output of artists sure, it will never kill the desire. Its not about the output, - its about understanding ourselves in the process. Thats the power of art. I think people worried bout Ai will find a lot more hope in making art themselves, especially people who previous looked for answers in science and never thought art could help them. I truly believe this will lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the arts. People just need to be reminded of its potential.
My worry is more or less limited to the commercial art world (a world I used to be part of as a successful illustrator) I think many commercial artists may become obsolete, and worse still the ‘image’ may become almost obsolete: since literally anything can be produced by anyone in a photorealistic way we will constantly question images and their value or truth. I think this is a huge shame. The death of the image kind of already happened with Instagram, but I think this will go further. When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? What will happen to that feeling you get when you see a great image? Maybe we’ll become ever more jaded. However, I predict a return to the real. People still paint and make sculpture. In fact when the AI discussion constantly refers to ‘artists’ and ‘art’ I think it would be slightly more correct to refer to illustrators and illustrations. Because AI cannot paint with oil on canvas, or sculpt with clay or bronze - I think the artifact will retain its value. But that’s not to say I’m ok with thousands of illustrators/designers losing their careers. I think the push for efficiency is a huge problem for the world, the only people that win in the efficiency/productivity/profit race are the shareholders. Budgets for illustration are way lower than they were in the 90’s and pretty soon there will be no budget, because ad agencies will have art directors who can just prompt an AI to come up with an ad campaign. 🤷♂️ Elon Musk is right, we need to hit the pause button immediately before we get into deep water without thinking about it properly.
@@jaspergoodall3206 One of the... nope, the single one moment I agree with Musk on this one. :D Yes, I'm sure the whole illustration industry is about to be disturbed beyond words because of it. I personally was in the first wawe of people getting slapped by AI becuase I'm a still low-tier intermediate artist and I mostly took bottom feeder jobs since 2021.. doing digital pet portraits on Fiverr for the most part, which is I'd argue are the objectively best representaional works pretty much all image generators can do in the moment, but it's a great motivator for me to get better and not get stuck at that level. The only thing I'm really worried for is that the whole society's value assigned to art already seems to be dropping on an unpresidented scale in favor of endless content consumption. You say that "When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? " I'd argue that there is still value in a thing that you produced by any means (including AI) exactly the way you wanted to express what you want to express, but social media has been suffering for long for groups mass producing content, just how long is there gonna be a single place on the internet where you can display your work and share them with others you could never meet in real life due to.. you know, geographical issues? And if the digital space is filled AI mass produced art, how long until certain people will start to fill even the phisical space with the same thing? Create tomarrow's hologram museums where "fictional AI powered artists" will display their works, who won't just not ask for payment, but their owners will be the ones paying for their displays in a strange McDonaldification of art, where you can go into a "Future Museum" in any city of the world to see AI Bob Ross (licensed AI artist lol) and his artworks instead of even looking at a human's art instead. You can already see that the most watched art streamer on Twitch is Bob Ross, who's been dead for 28 years, but the owners of his painting episodes are still broadcasting him, and people watch that instead of living artists. I'm just worried about this endless spiral of mass production that might be coming that won't even leave any space even to AI art maker individuals, then a few generations later there will only be consumers and no creators. I know... I'm far into my nihilist artdoomer ark... :_D I just hope some people in some hidden corner will still be making art a 100 years from now if my predictions come ture.
It is a turn in the events, but if AI produces something we cant comprehend, we will not care about it. As I see it, as of now, AI art generator are trained on the past, and if the real artists are getting fewer the future expressions of art will sadly be a Frankestein made entierly of bits of the past. Art is in itself an human urge to express how it feels to be alive, wanting to share their experience with others. Can a machine be ordered to give me the exact way I see a dear face, or the light spilling through my fingers? Can it make the exact thing I want it to, something utterly unique to me? An artists style is like their DNA. A machine can not make that exact error or focus on the exact line that a individual do. I think we will tire of it, and crave something, real and raw, made with the part of the brain, wordprompters seldom use. I think people will find ways of expression the machine would never come up with on its own. Because we are biological, whimsy, wierd creatures, and we try to make a machine be us. But it will never be.
If its any help I do come across people who are finding using AI as a first adult experience of creating images to be something thats inspiring them to look deeper and wider than just AI. People who have been encouraged by it to learn to draw and paint, or are exploring art history for references to create from in new ways. There is a sort of common idea of what happens with AI pushed by hype around it and peoples expectations from that which is missing a lot of what is actually happening in pockets within AI art communities.
commissioners are not artists, if I request a painting with such and such requirements, that does not make me an artist, the same way an art critic or curator is not an artist, a person commissioning A.I. To generate images for them is not an artist. Also A.I.generates imagery is not art. By definition art is a human activity is not just about the end result, but the cultivation of the skills necessary and the process that goes into the production of one piece, also the artist's thought process required to create the artwork and the message and story. So yeah what makes art 'art' is human labor. But not just the hours that it took to create one piece, but all the hours that took to learn the skills to make that piece as well. Because of this, Ai generated Imagery cannot be copyrighted... So it has no comercial value. Art is not just a pretty picture.
Thank you. I believe the commission analogy is perfect for this. People are genuinely just comissioning the AI to create their art, that does not make them an Artist. Like what?
But if someone is commisioning you to create a artwork with a specific message and story, are you still an artist? Are people who are fast learners when it comes to art less of an artist because they didn't cultivate their skill as someone who spent longer to reach the same level of skill? And when it comes to copyright, you're wrong. Copyright is about human input and not about time spent creating the artwork or the time cultivating the skills. If I with only a few hours of experience with waterpainting in school years ago painted something distinct it would still have copyright protection. As the field develops, AI-generated art will get better protection as the early decisions where made based on old rules and lack of presedence in how to handle the subject matter. Besides, even if AI-generated images are not protected by copyright, it still doesn't prevent the product as a whole that contains the images to be copyrightable. Just like Disney movies are protected by copyright, but not the elements borrowed from the public domain.
@@sevret313 If someone comissions you, yes. you are an artist. I think you misunderstood that part. We're saying that a comissioner (the person that is comissioning the artist) is not an artist.
Exactly.The same way a washing machine cleans up clothes for you or a dish washer washes up your dishes... Did you actually do the job? Well nope, you just gave the input, the machine gave you back the output. Simple as that
I know this is just one example but it might help to explain why you don't see the fringe artists for AI atm. Me and a group of friends have been playing with it making art sharing ideas and experimenting for months now but we're all anxious introverted nerdy types and we would be terrified and unprepared to publicly share anything we make as there would be backlash. I'm not trying to point fingers, it's understandable at the minute, this is new to everyone. As I said it's just one example but maybe it points to the type of people who are generally experimenting with AI art atm
nah, man, I'm pretty certain that Max Headroom is timeless and will always be cutting edge. is ai art even art or is it a vending machine that is no more art than vending machine is customer service.
the art is in the concept, not constrained to the execution. so, yes. it can be. but it can also be mindless garbage. there is also a lot of mindless garbage that is considered art. so... again, yes.
It is art but when you use it you are not an artist but an art director. A director that need to explain to a really dumb and stubborn computer what to do.
@@leucome I think that's a actually a quite complicated and pretty deep debate what ever if the content created by algorithms is "art" or not. Think about it. Do we see it is art because it's amazing? Or because it involves a sort of creative element? There are some (legal) definitions regarding art which require a human element to it. For example, a painting done by a dog, wouldn't be considered art because there was no human involved as creator. At the same time, we also don't consider a beautiful scenery art. Under such strict circumstances, AI generated content is not really considered art. There are at the same time also other definitions which do consider it art however. So there really isn't an answer to it that's as clear as one might think.
What everyone seems to be missing in this AI vs. art discourse is that art, decent wall hanging art, is no longer rare or precious, it is not a scarcity, it is a surplus. Quality art and craft is bursting the seams at Etsy and other creative online outlets. This fact alone is what is going to make the segue from human made art to computer made art pretty effortless. The glut of art in the market is driving artists who want to "make it" into stylistic quirkiness. In order to do something fresh, the tendency is to unleash one's eccentricity in a realm of imagination that is already a dimension away from reality. The other problem artists are faced with in the world of surplus is that the insights art creates in the mind of the spectator are less than spectacular. As one steps into an art gallery from the street, the immediate impression is one of a "mismatch" between the tactile milieu of the street and a room filled with oddities that puzzle and confuse with bizarre juxtapositions, little isolate universes often surreal to the point of meaninglessness. The age or artistic "isms" is long gone. Trends or fads in art become impossible when the intensely personal aesthetic of the artist explores their subjective psyche for money. An AI made "photograph" has already won first prize in a prestigious photo exhibition. Art as a spectator sport is dead.
My main problem with AI art is the fact it draws from other artists' works to create something without any short of talent It's basically just stomping on people's hard work to create whatever you want with the same effort a Google search would take Like if I were to copy a piece of art by drawing it myself I at least put down the effort to do so and it will have my touch since it can't be the same since well I have my own art style "you get what I'm trying to say"
in the stuff ive made (computer backgrounds) I use 2 AI Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, I input a crude sketch of the scene i want into midjourney, and refine the prompts and variations until i like it, i will do the same on diffusion, as it has more customization then i bring it back to midjourney and blend them together, it is very much unique, however if you do the bare minimum prompt like Mona lisa in the style of the mona lisa of course its going to be similar, it still takes a tiny bit of creativity. I used a ying yang tatoo, blended with a picture of a black rose, and a suflower, got a ying yang sunflower and rose, looked pretty cool but not unique, i then blended that result with a picture of the moon and sun, endend with a wierd hybrid, combined that back with my sunflower, and rose, and it came out spectacular a sunflower with the sun in the heart and vines curling out forming yin, a black rose with a heart of the moon and vines w/thorns making up the yang, surrounded by a halo of fire with stars in the background..... does that sound like someone elses work?
AI art is not art. Don't care what anyone says. Art is defined as human made, it is literally in the definition. So no, AI 'art' is not art, no matter what your opinion is.
This says more about your definition of the word "art" than about text-to-image diffusion-based neural-networks. One might just as easily say "art is defined as stuff I think looks pretty," and it would be less retarded.
@@ShankarSivarajan Um... look up the dictionary definition of art, then come back and call me a retard again. Education is key here, might wanna obtain some.
Sam Hamper, thank you for your thoughtful & thought provoking video. I agree with many of your observations & abstract analysis of the way (art) things were, & are. As an older artist who worked as an illustrator & fine artist in the 1970s to early 2000s, I returned to film, or rather video in 2004. Today I use AI technology to restore & enhance scanned analogue film, along with improving blurred or low res’ still images. Sometimes the results are astounding. Sometimes the results are rubbish, or at best negligible. It is an exciting age to be living in technically, yet a disturbing age to be living in socially & politically.
What a brilliant comment. It really isn't so much about new technology threatening us, it's how modern tools slip into benefitting the few instead of the many. We really should be heading towards a universal basic income, where artists could create art without the fear of starving.
I'm at 1:41 and, with all due respect, I think you didn't do your research enough. This AI "art" explosion happened when open source models started to compete with closed ones. Everyone can use any stable diffusion model on google colab for free with no restrictions whatsoever, absurdly easy.
Ever since the introduction' of streaming service, it's always struck me not only what is online, but what is not... a simple example of this is how the 'category or Art' simply does not exist... something which has influenced so much and taken so many forms, simply seems to been assigned to history...
On one hand I agree with you. However current AI models are trained on almost "all" existing images on the internet - while training, the AI remembers the proportions and parameters most commonly used. The next stage is users (people) training/telling the AI which of the AI images work and which don't, training it further on what is important in an image - since most people who use it have no interest in art , it basically train it to be as commercial looking as possible . The reason I find this problematic is because visual art is a universal language, not dependent on the era you live in or the location - you dont need that to connect with another human though out centuries or cultures. Its one of the earliest ways humans communicated and it deals mainly with existence and the human experience. Automating one of the earliest and most human activities really makes no sense to me, it seems very of cynical. What I've seen is mass producing stuff in the style of someone - commercializing further the voices of existing artist's, but not making something new. AI might be the newest and most complex medium ever, but at the same time its the only one in the entire human history which doesn't feel like it produced something which wasn't done before by other mediums, unlike any other medium it has no unique quality which distinguishes it - like marble from wood or digital from oils. Even the art movements you mentioned - they started with an idea which made them different and interesting from their very begging , AI image generators were funded by people who wanted to mass produce NFT's or overtake the most commercial sectors in the entertainment industry. In a sense AI art gives you ONLY the choices that were made so far by others, while robbing you from your own - which in itself is very anti-art on a level which punk or dadaism can't be compared to.
That's completely the wrong way round from beginning to end, and badly fuzzy in all the important places... Visual art is not universal. It is a realtive language, completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. You need that commonality to connect. If you don't have that, you see art so foreign that you are untouched, or touched in ways that are way, way removed from the artist's intention. You don't get cave paintings. Sure. You and I admire them for various reasons. But you can't ever possibly get their intended meaning and emotional significance, as those things were completely dependent on an original context long lost. The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many. AI art also is not "a medium". The medium AI generates art in is "digital art". So far very few people have used image generators to actually work in marble, wood, or oil (an idea which immediately tickles my fancy). A good comparison to AI art as it is now, is the printing press. It was used by religious fanatics to bring their favorite texts to the masses. Then it spread to uses in administration, business, and enabled the rise of stuff like "the newspaper" and "the novel". Each of them were, right from the beginning, operating in the grey area between craftmanship, art form, and business that we nowadays call "mass media". I think AI art is similar to that. It's not a syle. It's not an art form. It's not a movement. It's a tool. And that will enable the creation of something new, just like the printing press enabled new things. That those new things the printing press created could have an artistic dimension worth exploring on their own? Took a few hundered years, till Andy Warhol, for someone to really explore that artistically. So it might take a while until we have the distance to grasp what "generative tools" are doing.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d Thanks for the comment :) ,I politely disagree. Your definition of universal doesn't mean anything tho, like absolutely nothing works whiteout any context, even simple things as colors. Art is not completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. If you look at it anthropologically you see how ideas develop, commonality between cultures, religions etc. Most art expresses the most basic human needs , fears etc. to the point that many cultures have the same symbols for something begin good or bad whiteout being directly connected. In that sense art isn't alien to different cultures than themselves and civilizations didn't just emerged out of nowhere with their unique language and symbols. Like cave paintings for example, you don't need much context to realize that usually the artist puts tons of care drawing 1 big animal and the crowd of humans is drawn like stick figures, just to realize that may be they(the artist and their tribe) lacked the concept of individuality and saw their selves as a collective etc. and the focus of what is important in this life style is what is begin hunted, the magnificence of the animal which provides food and cloth to the collective - like that is the point of life for them, you don't need crazy amounts of context to get that. "You can't ever possibly get their intended meaning" is also not true, sure I wouldn't experience Babylonian art in the exact same way as a bronze age peasant from 1000BC would, but that is because my perception of the world is different, not because the meaning of their world is lost - this creates a fundamental difference. To be fair, no 2 people ever experienced art the same way - not now, not then. "The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many." Well there is one visual language, that is why anthropology and psychology work, we express the same things but with different words that's why its universal. It might look a bit different visually , but that is because individuality and choice - what is our stance in the limits of the human experience. This is why AI art by principle doesn't work from me - on one hand it robs you from choice, which is the most important thing you have as an artist, on the other it puts a machine to make believe what a human might produce or want to see. Sure as tech is very impressive, but as art I think its vulgar to invade an activity which deals with human expression and replace parts of it by something which imagines - what being human might be like. " AI art also is not a medium", "It's a tool" - in my opinion often a medium and a tool are the same thing. In that sense I don't feel AI art is part of digital art, I feel AI art is in the digital realm. The reason i call it a medium is because of the context of the video , but also the difference AI art is treated by galleries vs how digital art is, but also the way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience? Idk for me AI art creates mainly visual pollution, that is why its biggest fans are people who make p0rn with it.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying AI art has the potential to be used to generate impactful and interesting art just like how the printing press was used to generate interesting art as well as it being used for commercial pieces? In that sense I mostly agree AI art does have the potential to generate interesting things, however, the very nature of AI, or more accurately algorithms, is to generate something that is palatable you can even ask an AI to make something interesting but it will still suggest to you the most visually appealing one of the interesting prompts you typed down. Now, does that mean someone can't make their own AI model to purposefully be trained to make unappealing/interesting art? No, but even so then AI art in order for it to function is entirely reliant on the preexisting images and data you fed it, meaning the most unnapealing/non commercial/interesting art will only be a fusion of the most unnapealing/ non commercial/ interesting art the AI tool maker has fed into it. Now, maybe a whole art movement will come by making art fusions of interesting/non commercial art or by generating images of popular figures in surreal situations, but, I feel to get the most out of AI you need to use generative tools like midjourney in tandem with your paint brush, digital or not, to make truly interesting art and art that will have a profound message. A full embrace of AI art tools on its own isn't going to make anything too interesting and in fact it could further the speed to which contemporary artists will lose their jobs and give further power to those not interested in art to create more generic shlok to oversaturate the commercial art space. Yeah, maybe contemporary commercial artists already create generic shlok but in order for them to even make that generic shlok they needed to put time and effort into developing a skill and the type of people to do that are the ones interested in the arts, and so even the generic shlok we see today is the most artist generic shlok. AI art tools open the floodgates to everyone moreso to those not interested in the arts thus, at least maybe in the short term, a lot of what you will see from AI art will be underwhelming generic shlok even more generic shlok that is being made by contemporary commercial artists, and or only used to screw over contemporary and up and coming artists, if its fully embraced recklessly.
@@user-ct8cj9xo6s "The way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience?". I strongly disagree with what you said here, but if you have only seen the prepackaged sanitized version of AI image generation, I can understand why you may believe it. It's still early days, but I can think of many ways of truly expressing yourself and not the ideas trained into the AI. It is true that most of what has come out of AI art at this moment is porn, but if you want to create something out of the ordinary, there are tools that can help you achieve your goal. One of these tools is called ControlNet and combined with StableDiffusion it gives you ample possibilities of expressing yourself. The most boring use can already be considered fantastic for traditional artists: you can feed it a photo or a sketch and let it copy the pose, depth, style or a number of other things from it. Essentially, you become completely in control of the generation process. If you are more adventurous, you can even mismatch the preprocessor and the model and get extremely weird and experimental results. There is another aspect of AI art that can be explored: you can use it to expose the biases of our society by using it "as intended" but changing the context of where and how the generated images are experienced. Or maybe you can try to break it by feeding it tokens it doesn't understand and let it hallucinate something. Or you might experiment with negative prompts: what is the opposite of an apple to AI? Of course, if you want to use these last methods, you might need to substantially alter the results to retain authorship if that's what you are interested in. Just because it is made of some of the most appealing images humans have created, you don't have to lean into it if you don't want to. Sometimes constraints breed creativity.
I appreciate everything your saying. Also appreciate the correction on the personal models people have. There's a ton of adult content out there. But I hope you didn't spend a long time writing this because 3-6 months from now we might have a totally different landscape and probably more concern. The speed of all of this has me worried about AGI wiping us off the planet more than what's going to happen in the world of art. As an artist and musician myself.
You know the only similar thing I could think of was the invention of photography. Back then if you want a picture of yourself, you got to find someone to paint a portrait of yourself. Imagine a machine that could create a realistic protrait of you and be developed in a couple of hours instead of waiting for days for ones. All at a click of a button. Artists back then probably feel threatened as today artists are because creating protrait was a primary ways to earn money back then. However it didn't really take over the artist's job. Rather it went on to become a new art medium and have existed along with other traditional art medium. Another similar event was when Photoshop first come into the being. I have a art teacher with a background in graphic design and have say that back then you need to manually ensure that all the front size and everything was according to size ing length and width. Like need to uses a ruler to measure and that is was a skill to be able to see it without using any measuring tool. Another is probably 3D animation, how it properly used to be seen upsering 2d animation. Well it's kinda of did but there still to this day countless of 2d animation, especially anime. 3D more or less become an assistant or a new art medium Coming from an art background. I find it pretty disappointing that that online art community have been very against A.I. Yes I know how it negative impact on artists like people start stealing their art, put through A.I and uses it as their own as well undermine the amount of efforts and hardwork put in each artwork. As well no human touch to it. But I rather see it as a new and more accessible way to develop art as well as more of an assistant to help out with a more trining process in creating art. It should be uses responsibly and with common sense to it. And not starting to steal people's work and call it their own or pass in an art competitions and say yes I put tons of work into it when a.i was the one doing the work. Art done by human will continue to the end of humanity because all a.i can do it gather all the pieces from different work but mesh them up. But a human can create new pieces and works
photography kind of did take over the job of portrait artists though, like how many people have their portrait painted these days? everyone just takes their own pictures and for very special occasions they hire a photographer.
@@zwenkwiel816I would strongly disagree with this statement. Everyone's different, everyone has their own priorities and preferences. Some people like being depicted in different art styles,and there re still people willing to pay for a stylized portrait. It's much more interesting and fun to be represented that way instead of just hiring a photographer and snap a pic, but again everyones different.
@@anordinaryfellow2832 sure but I'm just talking numbers here. Like before cameras were invented everyone who wanted a portrait had to go to painter, so there used to be a lot more of them. then when cameras came along they slowly took over this role. First by proffesional photographers but now even they aren't needed for most situations since everyone has a camera in their pocket...
While I enjoyed watching this video, I found it overlooked some key points. Open-source projects already enable diverse and "shocking" AI art, countering claims of gatekeeping. Despite tech giants' resource concentration, AI democratisation is growing through affordable cloud computing, open-source initiatives, and accessible hardware. The idea that boundary-pushing is fundamental to art is a rather modern notion: throughout history, art has served various purposes ranging from self-expression and portraiture to decoration, religious devotion and historical documentation, to displaying personal skill, imagination, or revealing supposed universal truths about existence. Human-AI collaboration offers new forms of expression and innovation in art, akin to the impact and democratisation of new technologies like photography or mechanical reproduction. The scholarship of Benjamin, Manovich, Paul, Shanken, Ruskin, Duchamp, and others remains highly relevant, as new technologies raise familiar questions. Other, arguably more pressing concerns in AI art include disinformation and propaganda, intellectual property rights, innate biases, challenges adapting creative expression, and impacts on job markets. These present significant challenges for everyone, not just for artists.
So this entire is video is just you not being aware of Stable Diffusion and its finetuned derivatives? At 1:25, for example, _yes_ there is a perfectly good open version, and _yes,_ it's flooded with pornography (not so much violence, as far I can tell). It sounds like you should just stop playing with the "safe" versions.
not entirely. to put it more accurately, low level uncreative thoughtless morons are using and abusing the hell out of the ai tools to generate pretty girls because thats all their limited minds can conceive of. though to be fair, most traditional artists doing any sort of person or portrait are doing that as well.
It's like with 3d renders. If you want to showcase the tech, you sculpt an old face with lots of wrinkles and photorealistic, spotty skin, but when you actually need to sell a product, you will sculp a pretty model with flawless airbrushed skin and shiny eyes
Neil Craig. Wrote this in the comments and i want to re comment it. Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important. Ai art takes time and effort and experience Specially if you want to generate something good, not every one have a good hands to draw or have a drawing telent ! Yet we all want express our selfs with art and Ai makes it accessible for our ideas to be generated as we like and wish.
Anyone standing up against the unlawful use of other artist's work need to continue to push. Don't let it become normal for companies to use the hard work of traditional and digital artists in their AI generations. The fuel that these AI generators are burning comes from a source that is not theirs. This is digital theft, art laundering, masked as "technological advance." Again, to all those that refuse to let this happen, never let them burn fuel that isn't theirs. Angry people on reddit can continue to enjoy their use of AI generation and enjoy making artists mad with it, but let them do it with their own shit stock images, royalty free, and see how much fun they have then. They are using fuel that isn't theirs.
I fully agree. Theres so many AI bootlickers everywhere. The images that are given are impressive but the real beauty is in the hard work and years the artist go through to come up with art that come from their own pov
Only its not unlawful. unpalatable to some perhaps, but not unlawful. Our rights as artists protect our work from reproduction not learning, inspiration or transformation into new works. This is because the primary aim of copyright is to enable and encourage creativity and innovation, not prevent it to suit the narrow self interest of individual artists. Copyright only gives us a few rights in order to limit us and stop us monopolising what are actually wider shared cultural assets we all draw from.
@@PeterHollinghurst machine learning is not the same than human learning... and keep in mind that time ago it wasn't illegal to stone women if they were unfaithful, so the argument "it's not illegal" does not make sense, since if it is clearly unethical it should be regulated and made illegal.
Yeah nobody is stealing anything. AI understands what a pixel is and what color is, then it just builds a digital image by building pixels like legos. These are not someone else's pictures, these are pixels, with colors, arranged in a pattern, by using mathematical formulas. Nobody is stealing anybody's art. Artists don't have monopoly over color and pixels. I see a lot of artists complaining about this, but none of them understands how things actually work. Just because the programmer "shows" the AI your image and tells it to learn patterns from it, doesn't mean AI stole your image. Think of AI as a child that was shown a massive collection of images and figured out how to coherently create his own, from everything that it has "seen". You people live in delusions of your own hatred, just because you're jealous of something that is better than you. If you don't want your images to be seen by the AI learning process, then just don't upload them online, what's the big deal ? Stop uploading art online and your problem is solved, but don't start dumping your problems on others. Nobody is responsible for the way you feel about AI and nobody is required to change to adapt to you. But hey, you can continue to feel like you're entitled, like the world owes you something, but that won't change the fact that it is what it is and you can either deal with it, or keep suffering your own anger and resentment.
The human quote (1:00) is so powerful because it expresses something very human. There is no art without struggle, ejaculation, love, hate, doubt, blood, and tears. AI... is an empty shell. It is not yet even haunted by a ghost.
I couldn't disagree more. All the outrage coming from artist is exactly the result of learning how it works. They reject it because they understand how it was developed. Artists don't hate Ai either. They hate the developers creating it through unethical means. It's really that simple.
No, artists dislike AI just because it steals content and throws it in a blender. If the AI worked with public domain or licensed data, nobody would care because we could develop our own vision without fear of AI taking it and selling derivative version of our work as its own without even giving credit.
Ai art is an invisible flood. It'll saturate everything, but if you are able to distinguish it, or actuively push aganist it (something that might not last long) then the algorhythm will prevent you from seeing its effect. But the saturation stays, occupying a huge portion of the attention econonomy, pushed by the (also ai) algorythm on these social networks. And hands-on artists will see that effect in the diminuishing of likes, engagement, until it drops to near nothing, whilst also being expected of taking this second job of inevitable "promotion" on social media. Creaitivity is between a rock and a hard place.
True creativity will NEVER be between a rock and a hard place. Nowadays people and specially business throw the term 'creativity' left and right to the point it has become synonym of 'employee', 'task', 'process' and 'assignment'. No, working doing illustrations does not make you creative. No, hauling likes on your last speed paint Instagram post does not make you creative. No, feeling threatened by patter-recognition algorithms does not make you creative. You will become creative when you figure out why all that you typed is actually irrelevant for true creativity.
I don't care to have experience with these tools. These are plagiarism machines whose only goal is to allow no-talent bums to oversaturate the market and devalue the work of the authentic creators they betrayed to make them.
I love your videos. Your views on the use of AI in the artistic world are refreshing. I can tell you've been working on the subject quite a lot. I find art in your words.
Your video is of capital importance. As a digital artist, I've struggled all my life against the push for conformism enforced by online platforms. The result is a generation of artists drawing pretty girls or superheroes to get a couple more likes.
What's more, sharing ideas is very difficult: a person-to-person approach is what has allowed people to confront each other, critique and grow, while today's digital landscape is hyper-individualistic and opposed to the creation of an involved community of artists. The lack of "inherited spaces" is something I'd never thought about.
I would be tremendously interested in you expanding on the theme of the most popular trends in digital art not representing the human condition. I've never seen someone express this concept with such lucidity of thought.
I hope your next video treats the "Hyper-human fantasy art" and its pure aestheticism.
Every Human being artist is "unique", "original", and with a "heart". That is beauty and "art itself".
Yeah, & everyone is as good a musician as mozart & as good a physicist as einstein....& men are women & ur anything u want to be....i declare myself to be a billionaire & so can you...everyone is rich, no more poverty or hunger
@@vincentvancraig BRO IS ONTO NOTHING 🗣️🗣️‼️‼️🔥🔥🔥
@@vincentvancraigDon’t confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. Anyone can learn the skills to be an artists, even more so than ever with the internet giving free advice you once had to pay for or go to college to receive. And even with AI, you’re still not the one making the art. The Ai is which is saddening and defeats the purpose of self expression.
Never mind your take on the AI stuff, you're also on point that the online markets are stifling creativity, be that books made to be within amazons guidelines or even something as niche as table top role playing game where in the 80s and 90s new ground was being explored but now almost everything is just a skin of dungeons and dragons. Movies and video games are also obvious suffering from that safety net the companies are afraid to risk going out side of like they use to do.
loving this channel, keeps me inspired to make something new.
I don't mean this as sarcasm but there is nothing stopping traditional artists from doing things "the old way". If there is truly value there, then they will survive. As an example, you can buy kitchen cabinets that are machine made but there are still artisans that make cabinets. Which you choose depends on your budget and goals. Full discloser, I am an AI fan and I have worked with ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion a LOT. I have noticed that AI has big issues trying to draw something it has not "seen". I asked an AI to draw a ladybug from the point of view of a bacteria. It kept just showing me pictures of ladybugs, or ladybug type insects. It could not do this but an artist could conjure an image to mind in 1 second.
@@timhays2086 these will be the last steps, your question has the limit of changing frame reference, which is possible with GPT 5 (sapposedly). We are at the edge of the curve, that I think for certain.
@@timhays2086 Me and my friend were discussing the other day, that when we were kids there were so many carpenters and artisans. Now, it's almost impossible to find one. My friend wanted to restore some old chairs that she got from her mother and finally found someone. It was extremely expensive and did a very poor job. The chairs have sentimental value to her, but she should just have bought new generic ones from Ikea, lol
Art takes a lot of time and effort but people need to eat and have a paying job. There will be traditional artists in the future but not as many as today.
@@julimibz is ironic that machines are here to take the funny and expressive jobs,
forcing artists to make boring and repetitive works to make a live...
it's like a parody
@@Mente_Fugaz This. I think it's often ignored in the debate that we're not talking about mundane, soul crushing jobs which also ruin your health but generally jobs that are done by people which they genuely like and see as their calling. If those get "outsourced" to some algorithm, then it's going to definetly be a huge problem for those people that lose them. Now, one might say well tough luck! Progress yeah baby! But they overlook the fact that this will happen to many professions eventually. Even medical ones. We're talking about teaching, a lot of administrative work, basically anything that's intellectual but also in many ways subject to repetitive tasks which can be learned by machine learning algorithms. And I wonder, what are all those people going to do in the end? We might see a serious spike in severe depressions and other psychological issues in the future. Maybe a good time to invest in companies producting anti-depressants ...
I'm severely affected by this mentally. This is more of a personal thing, but I put a lot of baggage to 'oh, i can draw cartoons' as part of my self-esteem, so when anyone can simply 'create' art, means my value diminishes. I need to learn to detach myself emotionally from art to pick myself up.
Objectively though, it's still sad that it comes to this. Pro-AI art will obviously be happy with this no matter what. It's like magic. I can imagine being excited with this if I can 'create' my own art, without learning how to create it conventionally. Imagine what you can do with it. Exploit it in so many ways. I've seen tutorials on TH-cam on how to make money making AI generated sticker designs for example. I refuse to see AI artist as 'artists'. A new term/tag/category should be made for them. Like creative prompters, or AI maker, AI Art Creator, or something, anything. Just not artists.
Update Edit:
Hey everyone, I appreciate all the comments and I've read most of them. Some of them are information that I already know, some are an eye-opener, some are leaning more towards tough love, which I appreciate for being real. There's some comments that I disagree with but you know, agree to disagree. I do see the potential of AI art, it's an amazing and Powerful tool. I appreciate creatives or artists who use AI art to elevate themselves, as in, using AI art with a human touch. Like 20% AI, and 80% human skill, an AI-Human fusion. There are those who uses AI very productively as part of their creative workflow instead of just simply using AI art exclusively without any human touch (100% AI generated art, direct text to image only). And of course, obviously I don't have any right to define who should be considered as artists or not, this is just my OPINION.
AI art is here to stay. It will be the norm in the future. And there's nothing that we can do about it but to adapt and find ways on how we can leave a space for AI in our everyday creativity. Hope you guys have a nice day. God bless our AI overlords.
How gatekeeper of you to displace those who make you unconftable. I'm a traditionally trained artist who became digital artist for it ease of use. I have given everything to be an artist. I have learned every too and medium, digital and traditional. So let me tell you, AI can be art, It's a new medium, even more disruptive than photography was, but it's just a medium to express and create. I've been using it for a couple years now, well before it was this good and popular. The process is the same, the mind space you enter wile doing it is the same. You have to engage on an artist state to use this tools to their maximum potential. I encourage you to try midjourney, go for the unlimited plan and go insane, you will find the limit's of your own creativity, you will find out a lot about yourselve and the things you seek to create. Pay great attention to the process and you will find yourselve experiencing that great joy of creation, of exploration you get while painting or sculpting or writing.
Also It makes a big difference to know how to paint, to know about art when making an AI image, your taste, your knowledge, everything ads up.
Not every photo is a piece of art, same with AI. I is in you the artist to make the art.
I very much agree with you.
I feel your pain. I too dedicated my entire life to becoming a great artist and now, it is something that literally anyone can create. That said, I do believe niches will emerge that require these skills in the same way that playing an accoustic guitar is more valuable that playing a MIDI. Keep doing what you love.
Firstly, you shouldnt worry about what others think of you in terms of how you value yourself. Youre not any less valued because there were already a billion other artists out there who can cartoon as good or better than you. Secondly, are your cartoons even unique? Fresh? Are you doing something new with them? Or are they just ... another cartoon. Is your style unique to you? If not, then how can you attribute any value to something that isnt in short supply? It seems like maybe youre confused on what makes you valuable as a person, and as an artist.
Just keep your ideas and concepts and imagination raw, spontaneous, and thoughtful, and you'll be fine. If all youre doing is cliche garbage then you were already doomed to oblivion before AI art was even a concern.
Try making art with ai….it’s a very tedious process to get what you want and it’s 100% breaking new artistic ground. Sure, there’s the ones that type up something random on mid journey and sell it oaks a sticker…fine by me. But running stable diffusion on your own rig, experimenting with prompts, models, vae, and the numerous different extensions….then taking it to photoshop to correct and edit things, and then bring it back and keep tweaking it. It’s an art form. That’s what art is. You’re still making it, just using patterns. Give it a genuine try before you write it off. Being an artist is being creative and open minded, but I think your feelings about it are what many artists feel. They’ve deeply attached their sense of selves to their ability to create art…and why shouldn’t they? Im an artist myself that attended art school, and I know how painstakingly laborious making artwork can be and training your hand and eye. But just know that this is a new movement, and many classical artists im sure would’ve had the same negative sentiments about the art we do today. A few of us enjoy pioneering in this space, and nothing is going to stop that lol. I know many ai artists have already trained models on their own specific tweaks, far removed from the models source.
Imagine if... instead of working out, proper nutrition and effort, you could just describe what body you want and it would happen overnight? What do you think would happen to sports or beauty standarts of society? They would stop existing and wouldn't be appreciated anymore.
This will happen to art. Nobody will care about what you painted or generated anymore. It's dead.
Maybe you could have a new body every day. Maybe one day you could be a woman, next day man, next day something else. Maybe you could dive deep into what a having a body is and means. I have always dreamed about it, being able to change form. I'm not a trans person by any means, but this idea of changing bodies is aboslutly fasinating to me, bodies is a topic i have explored plenty in my own art. I'm not sure bodies are a thing of apresiation, bodies are so much, having this power over your own form would maybe make us all much more unique, a true expresion of ourselves and our values in our flesh. I feel like everyone should have power over their own bodies, and I hope we find the way in the future.
What would happen to sports and beauty stanrdts? Beuty standrs could get much more variated and diverse. Sports could be acessible to much more people, only people with certain body types can participate on certain sports, imagine using diferent bodies for diferent occasion.
I feel like you are mising the point in life, it is not to be more than eveyone else, I dont paint as much as I do to be better than other people, to feel pride on my hard work. I paint because I love it, I paint because I can express. AI art is one more way you can express. And I wish one day I can pick my body because I don't care about beein more than someone else I care about deeper things. I have been doing callistenics for about four years and even if i could chose my body I would keep doing it, because I dont do it to look a certain way, I doit because it makes me feel good, I helps me with my mind and I can share it with other people.
@@zershuan I think you don't understand what my point is at all.
You are looking at this from a purely individual perspective, yet I am concerned about social and comunal implications. In a way, it is sad that we only think about ourselves anymore.
The internet is and will be even more flooded with AI generic portraits of girls wearing glasses, houses and such. Deviant art is already plagued with it
Health care costs would plummet as people would be healthier. Everyone would live fuller lives without the limitations of their current frail bodies. Beauty standards would change, but they do that now. Society as a whole would be undoubtedly and unbelievable be in a better place.
We're slowly becoming an advertiser friendly society. That should give us pause.
"where are these unrestrcited models" *raises my stable diffusion web ui hand up
As long as people typing prompts to create art don't call themselves "artists", I don't mind.
You will have a lot to mind then
@@USBEN. you are a client, like someone who asks for a comission...
it doesn't matter how specific you are on what you want the artists to make for you,
you didn't make it...
but if you build a story about it,
you are an artist,
a writter maybe
I’ve seen people arguing that they didn’t have time to learn “how to art” when they were young- presumably because they were doing other stuff.
So now AI art entitles them to become artists without any effort.
Can you please start using "Old artist" We just getting with the times! Joking but your ask sound as silly, just because you came first doesn't mean much.
@@Juan_laudathat's the same as saying:
I always wanted to have a lot of money, but I never had the time to work for it,
now with this tool I can steal other people's money and feel productive,
Well, those models only generate derivations of stolen content, that's why you can't ask for anything that hasn't been drawn before, or a style that is not in the model yet... (because it wasn't housed within a tag for the AI to react to said word)
Before watching all of your video and knowing where you go with this issue, I would like to give my two cents, because the topic is very dear to me. First of all: I got a fully unlocked AI-Art-System running on my own GPU and there are just no limits and it is growing better by the minute, rather than by the day. But what I wanted to tell is: I am an Artist from Germany, am 44 years old and have Multiple Sclerosis and went from a fully able ArtDirector in Advetising to being not able to work anymore, with two partly paralyzed hands, severly disabled. I still can draw, but I am slow as fuck and most likely will lose this ability sooner than later. For month I play with AI-Tools, from Disco Diffusion with its more abstract styles to the now photorealistic Models or totally artful models. I can express myself creativly thanks to those tools, like I was able before my MS. I take AI-Art as a better Version of stockfootage, that I can incorporate into a final picture, or I can tweak a little a abit too wonkey work by my shaking hands and make them more as I envisioned. And when I can‘t move my hands anymore, I still will be able to produce visions out of my head onto the screen and this is amazing. Sadly there are some artists, that love their precious gatekeeping or simply don‘t understand what AI-Art does, or use their fanbase to create outrage, to generate more clicks and earn more money from the masses that now cry Theft and Ethics and bs. Ok, now back to your video. Stumbled across it and up until now it seems, that I found a new interesting channel with you. :) Cheers! Chris
Any form of AI requires us to give up control of a process. I am trepidatious of a future where everyone is dependent on AI instead of their own creativity. But hey... it's just a tool right? Yeah... for now.
Exactly, thank you. AI supporting persons aren't thinking far ahead enough. Right now it might be a tool, in the future it'll be able to replace artists completely. The way developments are going in like the next 5/10 years
@@creativecipher I honestly believe that illustrators, graphic designers and people that do post production should start thinking about what comes next for them. But artists? Can AI develop something approaching creativity? It's ironic, but I think we're about to enter an age where artists have job security.
@@creativecipher are you saying they'll make non-Ai art illegal to make? Because that's what it sounds like.
@@_loss_ What?? That's not at all what I'm saying, why would the make non-ai art illegal? That makes no sense
It really doesn't require giving up control. It just enables and empowers people in a new way. You can still craft art to your specific vision with AI, not to mention supplement it with more traditional digital art techniques.
the only problem I have with AI image generation is the use of copyrighted work in training data, I think we should have a degree of control over use of our art, we have a copyright as a contract between artist and society, Artist shares art for free with people, in ecchange he can control the use of this art. AI breaks it all, we shouldn't push boundties just to push boundries.
If you posted your art online (which benefits you in a lot of ways) then you automatically consented to any artists using any tools to use it as inspiration and practice material .. you literally can't ever stop that, if you don't want people to do that just stop posting your art online or post it only in online private pay-to-view galleries.
@@AscendantStoic This is just really dumb to say.
@@AscendantStoic everything online isn't free real estate. don't pretend you care for artists when you clearly don't.
@@rynsart typical ai bros and their bs.
@@AscendantStoic That's very unstoic of you. Just because something is exhibited publicly, it doesn't give you any ownership over it or any inherent right to profit off it. There is a deep lack of morality on how AI companies keeps using copyrighted work, with no compensation to the original creators, while they profit highly from appropriated work. Quoting the legal team handling the class action lawsuit against Stability "value of this misappropriation would be roughly $5 billion.". That's a lot of food taken from someone's table... I am yet to hear of a serious artist who has issues with AI tools, other than their abusive, unauthorised use of copyrighted work.
People simply prompting an AI are Art Directors, not artists.
Artists who use AI as a tool to expand their vision are no different from artists who manipulate stock photos, use photoshop filters and such.
Art is whatever conveys a message.
P.S. it's totally open already, I make my own models using my own material, everybody can.
Person using AI art: "Imma get famous"
pro art test: "You cannot use AI, here are some traditional tools and we want to see you put work without any cheating"
Person using AI art: "Uhhhhhhh...... uummmmmmm but.... errr..... (begins mumbling).... I cannot draw well"
Or when asked to do certain edits like change colours by layer
Person using photoshop: "I'm going to get famous"
pro art test(?): "You cannot use computers, here are some bottles of paint, select number of brushes, canvas, palette and an easel.
Person using photoshop: "Uhh... err... I cannot mix colours well and there is only one layer..."
Person using Ableton with synth "I'mma get famous" (Because that is the only goal of art to you posers)
Pro mmusic test "You cannot use ableton, only analog instruments since I arbitrarily have decided it's ch eating if it's not difficult enough"
"Person using ableton" Oh no, I won't get FAMOUS! Oh my gosh!
Franz Kafka didn't seem so fucking concerned with fame but you couldn't get that you human AI.
@@sevret313 lmfao
Two words: Stable Diffusion
It's already open, and free on the internet. Anyone can run it locally on their personal computer as long as you have a GPU.
12:55
"But savvy people knew what was going on, and those really interested in the arts knew where to find it"
I think you may just not have the savvy when it comes to AI art... yet. Stable Diffusion is not limited by morality as you posit. I recommend looking up Lynn Cole, who is a modern day dadaist working with generative AI.
As an artist Ai really has effected my income immensely
Chat GPT will not allow shock content. What I do is, I tell it to write something politically correct and then I simply edit that script in an inverted way or swap out mundane names with famous names. That's what I do with my A.I. videos. Chat GPT has great writing structure, I just use it to my advantage by warping the text to what I want the computer to say, not what it said.
"Everybody is an artist...everything is art" Joseph Beuys
Just a matter of time indeed. The haughty types will never disappear, all we can do is drown them out, but in time, the knee jerk response so many people have right now will go away. The history of automation tells us so.
Very well done video. It's the first one I've seen from you, and i look forward to more.
This is something I've been struggling to articulate for some time now and you just put it into words beautifully. Cheers from Flindand!
Open versions of stable diffusion are actually very easy to find and install. The biggest limiting factor is your local GPU. the share part is ofcourse harder.
There are dark spaces, and AI unbound and available. Once the porn makers grow bored, I hope we will see some interesting results from those spaces.
it's still from theft and non consensual AI training from the original artists.
It's kinda funny how people still don't realize Stable Diffusion is open source meaning there are no constraints. People think of AI art as Dall-E and Midjourney which ban you for asking for a sexy woman. Living under rocks.
And it's completely locally run as well.
running stable diffusion is slightly more involved than typing in a URL though (only slightly cuz Github can be kind of confusing for noobs XD)
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, companies rarely need artists, they mostly need illustrators. AI can create illustrations, icons & co. faster and cheaper than humans. Those who adapt will flourish, those that don't will go under.
I'd argue illustrators are artists as well.
Ai art doesn't understand art at all. There I said it lol
Do you?
the same as a brush does not understand art
@@nicejungle Brush is controlled by a living sentient with real intelligent brain. Thus is the person who used it
@@toututu2993
and a generative model is controlled by a living sentient with a prompt.
Thanks for proving my point : you can create art with an AI
@@nicejungle Prombt got nothing to do with control because the person who type words understand what he want but the image generated machine doesn't so the person doesn't control anything he/she just using image generation which doesn't understand what it generated because is more of images it found on the web that react with the prombt not controlled by any person.
Sam- I also want to reference McLuhan- his idea of "Looking in the rearview mirror" how we go forward by looking back - instead of Lowery
Really interesting talk. Thank for that. Hope to hear more.
I totally understand what you are saying. But I think that the problem is one of distribution. If you have a strong enough computer you can run models that are like DALLE2 but are not moderated like Stable Diffusion. The only problem is that there is a big barrier of entry if you are not tech savy. Aside from that I totally agree that we are going to see AI be made into it's own medium.
Give it time, we could bro generate images with 4gb of vram months ago
The barrier to entry is smaller than you think, you may be intimidated by the look of a terminal, but if you follow a step-by-step tutorial you will be up and running in about 10 minutes. Pretty much the entire process has already been automated. What is left is having a powerful enough PC, but the performance requirement has been steadily dropping and PCs will get cheaper in time. In the meantime, you can rent a server time for pretty cheap nowadays. It's not like art classes and art supplies are that much cheaper (you may still want them, tho).
Adaptation is key to survival. In the game of life, you must evolve or face extinction. The only constant in life is change.
I has viewed a few channels with AI girls art and to me they seems very generic.
It is basically the same woman with different clothes and hairstyles on all of those images.
Such a fantastic, and concise, take on the matter.... Part of the problem with AI is that in previous anti establishment artistic movements, there was no immediacy to the wave, and the establishment as well as other people were able to shift and grow accustomed to the new paradigms. AI is coming fast, faster than anyone knows, and there isn't time for society to adapt and incorporate. I agree, though, that Art needs to be able to explore all the ranges of human shadow and light, but fear the ones making the rules won't see it that way.
After watching dozens of videos on the challenges posed by ai art, I convinced myself that the main (unrecognized) problem is.... the self-esteem and social esteem of the artist or of those who simply consume art. Each of us always wants to appear "young" "in step with the times" and "projected towards the future", consequently we are all terrified of saying or doing things that may seem "nostalgic for the past" "worthy of your grandfather" "old fashioned" (in the language of the Italian futurists "passatisti", since you quoted a passage by the Italian futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti).
This fear of appearing old and scared of the new things afflicts many youtubers. In fact, if they invite artists "not to be afraid of ai art" they look good, their self-esteem grows, the algorithm loves them and, who knows,maybe Holz of midjourney and the other gnomes of silicon valley who have massacred art will quote their videos etc.
With all due respect to the calm and kind landlord, well this is the hundredth "don't be afraid" video in which a vlogger talks about 1) cars against old horse carriages, 2) photography against painting, 3 ) Luddites who destroyed machinery, 4) revolutionary artists who have broken with tradition throughout history. Stop it for once! Invent something else!
Anyone who has completed high-level university studies in art history and criticism and aesthetic philosophy knows that each of these four topics is used inappropriately.
I've always been a "futurist" at heart. I have always loved science fiction, I have been using photoshop at the highest level for fifteen years ( only for my pleasure, I'm not a professional artist ). But loving the future also means always being on guard against the dangers that can make the future worse than the past (the dystopian literature help us to recognize those dangers). Being a futurist also means criticizing Laion, Open Ai etc. without being blackmailed as "passatisti", "worse than my grandfather" etc. and without having to hear the little lesson on carriages, photography, Luddism etc. for the hundredth time.
And now I get to the point: the idea itself (described by the quote in the video at 0:39) that through a prompt written on midjourney I can get my "creative idea" out of my head in its purest form, without "fighting" against the material means, plus the idea that thanks to prompts everyone can finally be an artist (because manual talent is now superfluous) are lies worthy of Huxley's dystopia.
No guys, get over it: the only means to give shape to creative intuition are HANDS. If you have the innate talent refined by exercise to use your hands well, and if you have deep poetic inspiration, you can be an artist otherwise there is no prompt that can help you. In fact, Ai art seems "terrific" at the first sight but at the eyes of educated people of good taste it is empty and ugly.
Get over it: it's not enough to want to be an artist. There are very few artists, even less than those who consider themselves artists and who will be swept away by history.
But this is too deep a topic that cannot be covered in one comment. Maybe to shout to the world the truth that I think I understand (but I'm willing to change my mind if someone explains to me where I'm wrong, without mentioning carriages, Luddites and photography again) I'll be forced to open another channel and make a video on this topic, which of course will have less than 10 views because the algorithm does not love those who say things that are too far from the common mentality (and also because I express myself in Italian). But I don't have time anyway.
How about this angle- Ai art helps people who do not have the physical means to make an image into reality, but have an image in their head. Example, the very hands you mention. There's something called an "essential tremor" (along with many other physical and neurological conditions) that makes your hands shake, even with stability-assisting programs or plugins, this at best helps mitigate SOME of the condition to be workable, and for others still isn't enough... especially if you're doing detail work. Worse, let's say you do not have working hands, like, at all. There are head-mounted devices that can try to replace the limbs, but these tools often have a difficult learning curve on top of the already difficult task of learning the foundational aspects of Making Art.
... Now imagine that you understand how computers work, how to translate the beautiful human mind into commands a piece of machine learning knows just as fluently. Are you going to shame that artist because they take the image from their head and make it into reality in a way that doesn't make them jump through fifteen ableist-approved hoops of fire? Are you going to tell that artist they're not allowed to make a living because they refuse to do the cripple-dance and suffer nobly and quietly... the way that greater society wants them to do? You may say this is a hypothetical, but as someone who both lives with someone who has an essential tremor, and as someone who's physical issues kept them from learning the fundamentals well... this is is a reality for us.
@@basilmemories In a comment I could not say everything there is to say about the relationship between brain and hands (which is why I feel the need to make a video) and in any case I partially agree with you. I believe that progress means above all inventing ever more perfect tools to alleviate the suffering of the sick and the disabled. A tool is good or bad depending on how we use it: for example, a knife can be used to kill or to cut food. Similarly the extraordinary technology of Midjourney Stable Diffusion etc. it can be used to destroy art or to help disabled people express their ideas. I also think that this technology could be very useful in the field of psychiatry, to help psychotic individuals shape the monsters of the unconscious and face them.
But in absolute terms, if you don't have any disabilities and you want to be an artist, if you learn to develop your manual talent you can make better works than you would by writing sentences on an ai art generator. What I'm trying to say, The Art mentor just said perfectly in his new video: "In 1-2 years AI Art will be dead and here's why." I highly recommend watching it. Greetings.
P. S.
A curiosity: Dante also speaks of a true great artist with a "trembling hand" in Paradise (XIII).
Many people have an image in their head but it’s not until you sit down to actually realize the idea in your head do you realize how unrefined and vague that idea is to begin with and you basically had the AI do 99% of the work.
@@EliteNz3 Really? because I have a very specific thing that I want when I ask something like: "an ancient eyeless wormlike draconic beast, clutching at it's own neck and vomiting up neon light, as it writhes on rain-slick concrete. In the background are the time-faded ruins of a once-great city, it's own neon signs now broken and dark" That's a very specific thing. Soon to be followed by the ai giving me the equivalent of "I don't know half of what those are and could you please tone down your edgelord bs for like, a single femtosecond. I'm begging you here."
@@basilmemories Yes I know you have a strong idea, but translating it from your mind onto paper is more than just a mechanical process of your hand. Your mind likes to fill in gaps. Your mind REALLY fills in gaps and it's only through great effort can truly realize your idea. Art isnt as much about being able to use your hands perfectly but it's about being able to simplify your understanding of visuals data. There's a reason newer artists struggle with "symbolic drawing" and that's because your brain takes shortcuts and fills in the gaps and it's only through observation and effort that you can start to understand the world through an artists lens. Over the past few months learning art I havent felt like I got "better" I just feel like everything has gotten easier. It's not about climbing a mountain it's about realizing there is no mountain. It's an incredibly rewarding process of learning.
Sorry about the wall of text.
Ai art is often paired up with word “automation”, by those defending Ai art. Can you imagine the outrage by your local GPs if tomorrow, an app is released and it tells you your symptoms and it also has the rights to prescribe you medicine. Do you really think lawyers would keep quiet if people could settle their differences through a $2.99 app??
No, but as the long history of automation will tell you, complaining about it wont stop it. What I take issue with is when people blame the technology even though their complaint is about the broken economy, or when they start spreading misinformation about it.
so very eloquent. thank you for the thoughtful presentation.
Your videos always make me think in directions I haven't before.
AI isn't niche, it's boy bands, it's a manufactured product, by people who neither care nor have any interest in art, it seems amazing and slick, but it's incredibly homogeneous. It draws from trawled content and since it can produce at an exponential rate, it's not going to be able to refine anything, it's visual incest. Most of the AI art already looks the same. We're told that self-proclaimed creators/prompters are "finally" unleashed to create, unfortunately without having developed any visual aesthetic and apparently they all must think the same things are impressive. Someone a while back raved about how in one month they'd produced 20,000 pieces of AI art, but when I looked at their social media, their curated feed looked like boring psychedelic art, all of it basically the same. It wasn't "Most Advanced", it was aggressively regressive. This is not where any meaningful or insightful or dangerous content will come from, because most people participating have nothing to say and if they do they can't control the visual language cause they don't know the history and so they don't recognize how dated what they do looks.
Art is just coming up with a vision you have and then bringing it to life to share your imagination with others. If you make it easier to do thats a plus not a negative. Especially if you make art more accessible to many more people.
That's fine in self but not when it trains off of artist's that can't opt out or have their identity stolen when someone purposely imitates their artwork. The art that ai is making does not result in the prompt writer's journey of learning different brushes traditional or digital and learning about each individual stroke what they can do and how exactly they like it. AI art is beautiful in itself especially when you pay premium to target professional artists and use them to your self gain, but that's taking someone else's experiences and pretending they are your own.
@@pikapurin1865 isnt that what humans do i look at a copywrite photo and train off it, and what about tracing, or photo bashing?on top of that you can use ai responsibly with control networks and an image you hand create to get an image which is more original. it cn be used for good or bad just like anything else and mostly depends on the actor.
Additionally it's about the new access of people who would use AI to create pornography of their friends and family or others to harrass them, real artists who love their craft don't use their art to sexualize their irl friends or just to harrass someone online.
@@pikapurin1865 that is true. not too far in the future we will not be able to distinguish real from fake based on content of the internet. i think people will just have to get used to that.
@@domenicperito4635 Also, the only thing AI can do is make new art based off of concepts and art styles that already exist. People started off making cave wall art to drawing anime. If AI only had pictures of cave wall art and everything the world had and looked like thousands of years ago, it still would not come up with the concept of cartoons and Vocaloid characters or smth. Real artists are always going to be needed. I would say AI Art would mainly eliminate the artists that do not have a real sense of creativity and make the same things that the AI does, and the AI will continue to only be able to make what it is given. If most artists begin to use this as an "advantage" there will be a dramatic slowdown in the culture and new findings itself, this really just hurts everyone who says they love art while using AI and encourages artists to use it too instead of hand drawn. So that's why AI Art is not the same thing as humans learning from other humans, we have eyes and opinions on ways we see the world, the AI can only ever do what it is ever given. Even children who have not experienced anything yet can have dreams for imagination and creativity, this is not true for AI.
It's funny, many years ago I made concept art for my novel with bitmip paint. Now I'm feeding my own sketches and crude drawings from a lack of time to be invested in drawing, and using mid journey to improve an ideal result. I wonder how those results can be refined by a professional artist. The problem is how the world views art and how monetized it is. Imagine if we never had to worry about money, I wonder how much more open the avg view on ai art will change.
This was the most non-ASMR ASMR video ever.
I watched this totally prepared to formulate my counterarguments as you went along, but I came away feeling this was a refreshingly balanced and thoughtful take on some of the deeper issues at play. I will quickly point out though that, safety rails or not, it is remarkably easy to summon deeply disturbing and edgy works with DallE and Midjourney as is -- and not just gratuitous horror show imagery. In fact, with the right kind of prompting (and/or blending, in the case of Midjourney), it is frankly difficult to avoid seeing subtle and not-so-subtle scenes that are nothing short of haunting testaments to the human condition. It would be hard not to be a Jungian archetype-churning machine once fed with hundreds of millions of human-created training images.
My family and friends are about 50% traditional artists of one stripe or another -- not of the sticker-making variety, but committed, principled, and possessing of critical eyes for quality and integrity in the artworks of others. As a lowly non-drawing urban planner, I've always felt a bit like an outsider in terms of expressive ability. While I've dabbled in photography and a little woodworking as my own means of visual expression, it's not until the very recent advent of the aforementioned tools, that I've had a personal explosion in my ability to bring forth (I hesitate to offend people by saying create) personally very visually intriguing and complex images that I would consider genuine reflections of my worldview and unsorted inner conflicts. If that is not "art", then I may be confused as to what that word means. The images I've prompted, blended, and carefully curated, are utterly unique to the world and would simply never have existed without my intentional interventions.
So far, I am batting 1.000 (an Americanism) in my slow-moving but dogged evangelical quest to convert one artist friend at a time over to the side of fully embracing AI as a potential form of art. We still universally deride the proliferation of "hot anime mech commander girls", "fantasy dwarven swords", and similar creations that completely dominate the digital media sharing spaces you rightly criticize, but we are not fooled into thinking that that is where we should be looking if we're expecting to see emergent art anyway. I agree that the spaces for sharing the edgy stuff have not yet really emerged, but we may need just a little patience. After all, three years ago (maybe two?) I had literally never heard of text-to-image AI models, and now I'm obsessed and enriched because of it. My family has never had so many intellectual discussions about art or read more about art history as we have in the past year.
Anyway, screed halted. Surprisingly great video, and I look forward to seeing more and hearing how your thoughts on the subject evolve in the coming months. Thanks!
oh yeah art movements, the part of your life where you lose skill and start getting more and more abstract and treating them as beautiful because of age
yeah fuck old people and their opinions, theyre almost inhuman.
I am an artist - and a programmer. I think I have a fairly good idea of how "AI art" is generated (it's basically captured from humans, mainly without their consent). From what I have seen so far ca. 99,999% of the "art" generated by AI models is neither in any way revolutionary nor interesting. The rather small part of AI generated artifacts that have some artistic value do have this value because there is a meaningful and interesting human oncept behind them. So I truly do not see any sort of paradigm change coming along with AI created artifacts. AI powered artifact generation has as much do to with art as, for example, brute-force chess programs have anything to do with humans playing chess.
Your thought process is quite outstanding
I've seen astonishing AI art already.
Last pieces I loved were the richest people on Earth depicted as villagers of the poorest corners of the planet.
Magnificent.
As for the the tool itself, you should look up at how install it locally and create new models, without any restrictions, so you can see for yourself how "dark" it can be :)
Search for A1111, a new world will open in front of you.
The whole reason they are already talking about shutting down AI is exactly because of the 'fringe' art that you are talking about. It is happening and they don't like it because it doesn't conform to their world view. It is only a matter of time before the chaff of 'surrealism' and anime fantasy burns off. We will start seeing some truly groundbreaking, and shocking work come out and they won't be able to censure it. They will try.
This was a wonderful video, however I feel your premise that AI art is sanitized and controlled by a few AI companies is completely wrong.
The technology behind modern AI art is called stable diffusion and it's open source, meaning it isn't owned by any entity and, therefore, is open for unlimited public use. Notably, the technology is lightweight enough to be used with high-end hardware available to consumers (anyone with a decently powerful graphics cards), but this is still a relatively high barier of entry for most people (the bare minimum GPU for generating ai art in a reasonable amount of time would still cost hundreds of dollars, not to even mention how much a GPU capable of creating it's own AI models would cost). Anyone with the required hardware can run stable diffusion on their computer and generate images. As for the models themselves, there are countless models, specializing in different styles and subject matters available online to use for free that provide as good, if not better, outputs than what these AI companies provide on their websites.
AI art companies provide a service for the people who cannot run stable diffusion themselves or for those who don't know they can. These companies often claim ownership of the art generated and add content filters that are not present in their original models. These, of course, aren't concerns for the AI art enthusiast that generates all their images locally. On top of this, other Ai art open source technologies built on top of stable diffusion that allow for further control and freedom in both the generation and model creation aspects are constantly coming out (such as LoRAs and hypernetworks), many of which these companies don't offer as options. Overall, the AI art world is much more broad and free than what AI companies offer and tell their users. I personally only have a passing interest in AI art, so I haven't dwelt too much into it, but I have dwelt enough to roughly understand what is possible and I feel that once propper workflow tools are developed, AI art has a bright future ahead.
Thanks so much for taking the time with this comment, I learnt a lot from it! Really appreciate it, thanks mate - edit - if you know how to get involved in what these private communities are sharing that would be great!
He ain't wrong. The Community is stuck in Stable diffusion 1.5 because later models are hampered by Artist Sueing Stable diffusion for "copyright" so they afraid to use such images as celebrities thus making inferior models.
@@arnowisp6244 Why should anyone just give up copyright in a capitalist system where you are forced to enter a competition to earn a living for yourself? People show such opportunistic naïvety when it comes to machine learning and data. No one has uploaded/created data knowing that suddenly in the early 20's it will all be fed to machines with the ideal outcome in mind being the total automation of everything that can possibly be automated. Cases like Adobe with Adobe Stock may have legally crafted their terms of conditions broad enough to now utilize their communities data for these ML purposes (how that will be perceived morally we shall see) but the same can't be said for SD or Midjourney or even Github Copilot. Hence why these issues are already brought to court and rightly so. All of these people who created so much of the data that made powerful algorithms possible in the first place are shit on by opportunists for simply demanding their basic commercial rights within capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
This is disinfo.
Please elaborate.
Elaborate. If your criticism is valid. You would be doing everyone a favour by sharing it
@@zeroconnection Mark may be a bot. Which would be ironic.
@@mjt1517*Zizz-izz-dizinfo*
Putting "AI" and ART" into the same phrase is where all of this goes wrong. What is missing is the word: "GENERATED". The stuff is generated from other stuff that already exists. Re-Rendered from previously imagined imagery. The biggest problem is that there is a LOT of it generated VERY QUICKLY. Basically - a giant cess-pool of visual SEWAGE from the toilets of failing human artistic endeavor. Not "CREATED" - just spewed and vomited. Quickly seen and just as quickly forgotten, as soon as the next piece of shit arrives.
Im sure that in due time there will be a lot of open course AI of all kinds made by users for users, without any restrictions. That would be a turning point imo.
generative art is art, traditional art is art, 3d art is art, even weird liberal sus art exhibits are unfortunately art. the bar for calling something art is as low as a making a dot on a medium. painter's tears are art too, so ai art generators are creating even more than we realize.
we shall see. i played around with this and got bored in a month. i tried it again, because everyone was saying how far the technology advanced. again, i got bored in a month.
If AI art was just a new medium, it would be really cool, and in some ways it is. But if it in any way diminish the amount of artists, it will be a great loss for the art world as a whole.
Keep in mind that AI only recycle the work already done by a living, breathing being. As it do not walk this earth and lack emotions, it can not create something that is not a mix of what it was trained to do. New techniques and styles, appear only if you do not solely rely on old work, like AI do. It can mix and match, copying countless styles. But it can never combine it with something new, something it was never trained for.
If art is going to be interesting in the future, we still need those people, expressing themselves with hands and eyes. It is an utterly different way of expression than asking a machine to make something for you using your words.
You use different parts of your brain.
As for the limits the companies have given, you are right about how the web would have been flooded with porn and violent images. I see how the prompters are so desperate to make porn already. I have seen how the face of a ten year old are glued to scarcely clad bodies of fully grown women, and it recieves praces by drooling men, wishing that character was real. It is disturbing to say the least.
The only interesting AI generated images I see, are when bizarre humour is involved. This at least has involved some amount of creativity.
I wonder how long it will take for the web to be saturated with recycled art, and people start craving something real and fresh instead.
You speak wonderfully
Ah yeah, you could just use a model you can run at home, where you are solely responsible for what the models outputs are. I'd say the relationship between a hosted models proprietors and the people using it is more like that of a really overbearing patron to an artist in their "care".
Artists who do not use AI tools with their own aesthetic point of view in mind are letting the tool be the artist. Either the artist's creative vision is stronger or the machine's is. This is the difference between people making art with AI and people making shiny objects.
You are making some good point! Got me thinking for sure.
This is on point" Sir, you've got yourself a subscriber.
Great video. So many interesting things covered. Subscribed!
A montage is a montage whether it's clipped from magazines and pasted together in preschool daycare or puked out of an AI Computer !!!!
When I am able to, I will train A.I to imitate your voice and use it as text-to-speech to read my novels on my ebook reader. I hope you don't mind.
Yes, they aren't artist, they're designer. Ai designer
I don't think ai art is a medium, people who type into prompts are not artists, they're more like clients, that person who paid you to make a painting is not the artist
It really is this simple. Thank you
Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important.
People select what AI art they like and don't like and that is what makes it art.
Eh i think it's a scale, I wouldn't consider the people that just type in a prompt and get a shitty result an artist. Just like that one insta girl who is just feeling cute isn't a photographer. But if you watch a video on how good ai art itself is made it actually takes up a decent chunk of time. You go through multiple iterations of the same image constantly choosing the result that results in the image you want, shift the different prompts and sliders around, etc. The artpiece that one that one random competition took like 86 hours to make or smthn, and if that ain't art idk what is.
@@masontoy1976 forgive me, but i cannot rationalize your logic. You seem to be conflating (for lack of a better term) pain-stakingly producing every line,shade,color and effect on a piece which (in my case is at least; im fairly slow) can take upwards of 6-10 hours of actual work with sifting through hundreds of prefab images. I do not understand.
@@ZakuBlk i guess you don't have to be skild to be an artist that's the point. If you are skild, good, most people aren't. But for me the term doesnt matter, if is unethical is other discussion
The problem I see with AI art has more to do with capitalism - take automation, in it self a good thing, ppl need to work less, could have more free time etc, but in our capitalist world it means a loss of jobs, ppl without money etc. With AI art unfortunately it will be the same, of course there will be ppl who will use it to make fantastic new art, but on the other hand, for corporations it will be another tool to get rid of „the cost factor of labour“…
To get rid of cost factor of labour, unfortunatly in this case means getting rid of the people creating something of value.
It will mean an infinite amount of images, recycled past copies of something that was once unique. At the same time it will diminnish the development of new expressions.
We need artist, not only something ordered from a machine using words. It involves totally different parts of the brain.
I do not want a machine trained on the past, to dictate the future of the visual human expression.
I think we can find a way around it though. At least I hope so.
a new form of surrealism, the use of dreams and automatic image conjuration. uncommercial, unpopular, uncouth
It’s true. On one hand it’ll cost jobs, on the other it opens paywall doors to others (like self employed or small business) who can now use affordable AI to boost their own income, so, morally gray I guess 🤷♀️
The problem is than "capitalism corporation" will don't bother hiring a guy if they can get what they want in two clics. Yeah. Midjourney, ChatGPT, Leonardo, all those things cost less than an Artist and give the expected product at the end. :/
In one day of try, i believe an AI can give you what you are looking for without passing by an Artist.
NO.... real art will skyrocket in price because the demand for it will be higher than ever because of all of the ai stuff...
As an artist who creates mural-size oil paintings, I see the potential of AI-produced art, but it's only pulling from whatever information that's been made available to it. Many artists pull imagery from inside their unique, self-aware consciousness which can result in new styles of art. Until A.I. can *"pull something new out of its own self"* it will remain as random assemblages of images that mimic art.
wrong. because the images it creates are totally new, original, and unique. its not collaging, its using pattern recognition and language recognition. it recognizes patterns based on the way those patterns are described by the people who did the training (or software). the images themselves havent existed until they do. the interesting thing about it, from my perspective, is that it gives the average person the ability to bring their ideas into the visual space without having to have a complex talent. this doesnt, in my opinion, devalue those with talent and skill. but its not really any different than paying a concept artist to create an illustration for you based on your ideas and descriptions, other than we simply dont have to pay a person or business. the concepts and ideas that the users of these tools have are coming from the same self-aware consciousness that the artist uses. Some artists, though talented, cant bring their mental images into reality through their given skill set. Some can do it perfectly. to say that an image cant be art simply because it wasnt hand made by a human is preposterous. the other side of that coin is to say that every image made by a human is art. no one person or group has the right to say what is or isnt art to anyone else. any attempt to do so defies what art is and destroys the concept. i know several ai artists whos images and concepts are way more 'art'sy (to me, and thats what matters here. or to you, if you're looking at them) than a bunch of the hand made 'art' i see across the various social media and digital art spaces. but it doesnt matter what i think! The only thing that anyone should care about when it comes to art, is what they personally feel about a given work in their own world. No ones opinion of/on art should matter to anyone else.
@@pookienumnums ok chat gpt
@@Vizible21hes not wrong tho.
You know that's coming don't you? We're literally ABOUT to enter that era.
No, you're wrong because even humans are conditioned, we overrate our own creativity, can't compete with AI, also arti is so subjective, someone can draw bullshit painting or extremely simple painting that'll be considered a masterpiece, it's all weird, story telling is the best from of art
I really enjoyed the two videos of yours on this topic that I've watched so far. I found the channel just when I became really fed up with all the angry or plain ignorant rejections I encountered on the one side, and the mindless hype on the other.
And while I don't agree with all of your takes, the new perspectives are very much appreciated. Thanks, I'm looking forward to more :)
Ai is not just another tool , or another just movement , it is pointless to make these comparisons , and fundamentally downplays what is about to happen.
It's another medium. Is your argument against it that you will be negatively affected by it a reasonable argument?
@@_loss_ my argument is:
Everyone is used to seeing change. Normally that change happens at a rate where everything can adapt. Its reasonable to a normal rate of change 'just another tool' , or 'just another movement '.
However there is a limit to the rate ecosystems adapt. Rapid change is like a bomb going off , or years of drought . Here ecosystems die and never come back.
A normal rate of change needs a 'don't worry it will work out attitude' ... its just another tool
This does not work for extreme rates of change . Its like standing in front of a forest fire and hoping your house will be ok.
'the just another tool' attitude is not going to work because all creative industries are about to be burnt from the bottom up.
@@kenzorman ai output images with no soul and creativity according to most artists, creative industries should have nothing to worry about
@@lappwv This is absolutely not true. Industry is business. Clients buy things based on desire and cost. It you flood any market with stuff that is a thousand times cheaper than human effort you devalue the entire market to the point that human effort no longer pays the bills.
Illustrators are already losing there jobs to Ai because publishers are ultimately motivated by profit not soul.
The German language distinguishes between artists and artisans, although their works are not always easy to distinguish from each other for the average spectator. Within these semantics, AI is merely an artisan and no artist. It still can, in cooperation with a human instructor, create works of art. This has happened in history before, where artists instructed other people to physically manifest their vision. There are also parallels to photography, which is now recognized as a tool for everyday use as well as creation of fine art.
I'd say most people online, including myself, are artisans. Very few craftsmen are artists. Most create products to be consumed. In Norwegian, we usually only consider artists those who mainly use their art to express themselves. It usually only relates to high art, and it's kind of has to be exhibited in a gallery to be acknowledged.
Bravo.. you help define something I’ve been wanting to convey for a while.
Yes you can use AI as an artisan and has its uses obviously it’d be blind to deny or reactionary to just trash it.. but AI work is like artisan work with its merits but not the unique value of pure artistry the beings that bring forth an unknown out of nothingness.. should not be underestimated, undervalued or ignored… It’s an absolutely different story to create something that is pleasing using AI than wrestling alone in front of the Blank page
Ha! My words and thoughts exactly, when it comes to "AI art". So many artisans consider themselves artists.
@@JoiskiMe That's been the status for decades and has been debated up until now. Artists are usually well aware of the gatekeeping some "prestigious" galleries partake in. A romanian (so, as you can imagine, quite shocking for someone in Eastern Europe, shortly after the fall of communism there, as compared to what you say is "the nordic status quo"), on his quest to become an artist, after he uprooted and went to New York, became at the time famous for establishing his own museum. The institution was himself and he was walking around, close to those prestigious galleries, carrying works of his fellow artist friends - he hung them onto himself and went on exhibiting them on his own 2 legs. If "being in a gallery" is most of your (your local area, the apparent mass culture there, I presume) argument for what passes as "high art", you might not be talking to the right people. If art is of no interest to me, of course I wouldn't know how to differentiate types of art and whatnot. What about your fellow citizens who 'consume' art? What about those who create it? Do most of them agree with that? I doubt it, in 2023. We might have to move onto defining what "a gallery" is. Agreed?
@Ioana read "usually" and "kind of". Those words were placed there for a reason. My point still stands.
A few people have commented that you can get Ai generative tools locally, where the morality of big business does not hinder what you make. I should have made this more clear in the video, my point is more regarding the gatekeepers of how the average person accesses these tools, eg midjourney and where they can share their work without censorship. I'm learning loads from comments as I'm a traditional artists trying to keep up with whats happening, so i really appreciate everyones input!
There are also tools that go beyond a text prompt and allow various kinds of image recognition input, allowing it to function more like a complex image filter, with more functions making it more of a standard digital art tool rather than a simple "make cool picture" button.
Some digital artists use these tools as mere steps in our process, with manual human stages as well.
The capabilities have expanded fast in just the past few months.
While you are absolutely right about how the average version uses the tools, there is still some hope in the local model space. While nothing that requires a user to use Git can ever be truly called accessible, more user friendly 'download this .exe and go' programs have been in development and several plugins for photoshop are currently available. A future where local usage is the 'standard' is still very much possible although at least a year out still.
Furthermore developments like LoRA's have allowed users to explore the training aspect of model making without the need of prohibitively expensive servers and gpu clusters. [it's hard to explain but in short, there are ways to staple additional subnetworks on top of an existing model to allow for that model to learn and express new ideas without having to remake the entire thing] It's not all as dire as it might seem, although you are absolutely correct that ultimately it is in the shared spaces where our ability to express new art is most limited. As it is now, many traditional art sites are actively hostile to AI work and the most productive communities often end up being discord servers that are difficult to find and distressingly insular. I'm not sure what the solution could be on that front beyond waiting for time to cool hostilities towards AI. eventually Adobe will cram AI into everything and people will have to cope, maybe then the rest of us can come back out into the light.
@@peterbelanger4094 Well said. I've been failing to explain this to people, thank you.
@Spirited Stay that’s a great point, thanks!
I was going to add that but the comment section is quick. You had some good thoughts. There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding AI and how it works but I personally could not turn down the opportunity to be a part of the next paradigm shift in creativity. I'm currently working to push it in ways that I don't believe anyone has thought of, just yet.
I see AI "art" as just decorative art, like those prints you purchase at a supermarket or wallpapers you use on your pc screen. They can be stunning, but they are not the real thing. What I mean is that a work of art is something unique, that exists in the real world as an object produced - crafted - by a human being after careful planning, reflection, introspection, exploration of own limits and hopes. A human being who has knowledge and the will to break boundaries and find ideas then put them on canvas or any other medium the artist uses as his tool and mode of expression.
Art is NOT typing a bunch of words in Midjourney and call it art, unless you are happy to call art an "human-inspired imagery fully created by Artificial Intelligence"
So art is what appears on my blank canvas after many hours of work, brushes and oil paints as my tools. Maybe my art is crap, maybe I'm a unskilled artist but what I paint is on my walls, unique and tangible, the product of my soul.
I'm already sick of the deluge of AI "art" that is now everywhere, smothering the work of people who spend countless hours in their studios until it's like they cease to exist. Too much background noise will kill human creativity, or just make it inconsequential
If you define art as something humans do, then AI imagery is not art of course. If you don't define it that way, it is.
This will sound strange and maybe totally irrelevant. Apologies in advance due to the possibility that I might've missed something, my English is still not at the level I'd consider to be good enough for deeper conversations about art in genereal.
If I understand correctly you're saying that AI will fundamentally change what we know and think about art now. My biggest fear about AI is the infinite possibilities to take away even more value from art than how much it was taken by consumerism in general, until every form of human expression is going to be replaced with a piece of content that fills the same space, but is being created and curated by corporations. Fair enough 9 out of 10 people already don't care about art and about the artists who make them beyond knowing the name of the company who produced that piece of art or knowing the general name of the medium or artstyle, but I'm afraid that the 10th is about to be converted into that too.
According to how I see art now, it is something that is either partially or entirely a product that is used commertially or it is the more classic version which is an act of communication.. that sounded strange... the "piece of food for the soul" as you said it before in the other video. Now if I understand and interpret what you said correctly, are you saying that what you predict is that AI is going to fundamentally change this view of art and transform it into something that is so alien for all of us that we can't even comprehand it with our current understanding of the word? That art as we know it is going to be abolished to open up the way for something we've never seen before.
If that is the case can you honestly say that the reason why I think about it the way I do is because I'm unable to comprehand what comes next? Because the only possibility I see is that corporate AI created content is going to destroy art as a whole until everything in the world that could be created by a human is replaced with an entirely machine made product. If I understand correctly, you are claiming that this way of viewing it must be false due to the fact that I simply don't even know what the future of art is going to look like? I just can't convince myself that there is any sort of place for a human creator of art of any kind in the society of tomarrow. I feel like I wrote down this whole comment to cope with this fact and to seek comfort in someone's approval who thinks otherwise.
I understand your thoughts, your English is good! I'm addressing your points in my next video. I think you are focused on the utility of art in a commercial frame, or as a communication tool. These are just two ways art is used. Ai may take over these but it will never replace the human desire to make art, therefore it will never replace art. People make art for many reasons, but ai will never be able to take away WHY we are drawn make it. Ai will be able to replicate the output of artists sure, it will never kill the desire. Its not about the output, - its about understanding ourselves in the process. Thats the power of art. I think people worried bout Ai will find a lot more hope in making art themselves, especially people who previous looked for answers in science and never thought art could help them. I truly believe this will lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the arts. People just need to be reminded of its potential.
My worry is more or less limited to the commercial art world (a world I used to be part of as a successful illustrator) I think many commercial artists may become obsolete, and worse still the ‘image’ may become almost obsolete: since literally anything can be produced by anyone in a photorealistic way we will constantly question images and their value or truth. I think this is a huge shame. The death of the image kind of already happened with Instagram, but I think this will go further. When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? What will happen to that feeling you get when you see a great image? Maybe we’ll become ever more jaded.
However, I predict a return to the real. People still paint and make sculpture. In fact when the AI discussion constantly refers to ‘artists’ and ‘art’ I think it would be slightly more correct to refer to illustrators and illustrations. Because AI cannot paint with oil on canvas, or sculpt with clay or bronze - I think the artifact will retain its value. But that’s not to say I’m ok with thousands of illustrators/designers losing their careers. I think the push for efficiency is a huge problem for the world, the only people that win in the efficiency/productivity/profit race are the shareholders.
Budgets for illustration are way lower than they were in the 90’s and pretty soon there will be no budget, because ad agencies will have art directors who can just prompt an AI to come up with an ad campaign. 🤷♂️ Elon Musk is right, we need to hit the pause button immediately before we get into deep water without thinking about it properly.
@@jaspergoodall3206 One of the... nope, the single one moment I agree with Musk on this one. :D
Yes, I'm sure the whole illustration industry is about to be disturbed beyond words because of it. I personally was in the first wawe of people getting slapped by AI becuase I'm a still low-tier intermediate artist and I mostly took bottom feeder jobs since 2021.. doing digital pet portraits on Fiverr for the most part, which is I'd argue are the objectively best representaional works pretty much all image generators can do in the moment, but it's a great motivator for me to get better and not get stuck at that level.
The only thing I'm really worried for is that the whole society's value assigned to art already seems to be dropping on an unpresidented scale in favor of endless content consumption. You say that "When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? " I'd argue that there is still value in a thing that you produced by any means (including AI) exactly the way you wanted to express what you want to express, but social media has been suffering for long for groups mass producing content, just how long is there gonna be a single place on the internet where you can display your work and share them with others you could never meet in real life due to.. you know, geographical issues?
And if the digital space is filled AI mass produced art, how long until certain people will start to fill even the phisical space with the same thing? Create tomarrow's hologram museums where "fictional AI powered artists" will display their works, who won't just not ask for payment, but their owners will be the ones paying for their displays in a strange McDonaldification of art, where you can go into a "Future Museum" in any city of the world to see AI Bob Ross (licensed AI artist lol) and his artworks instead of even looking at a human's art instead. You can already see that the most watched art streamer on Twitch is Bob Ross, who's been dead for 28 years, but the owners of his painting episodes are still broadcasting him, and people watch that instead of living artists.
I'm just worried about this endless spiral of mass production that might be coming that won't even leave any space even to AI art maker individuals, then a few generations later there will only be consumers and no creators. I know... I'm far into my nihilist artdoomer ark... :_D I just hope some people in some hidden corner will still be making art a 100 years from now if my predictions come ture.
It is a turn in the events, but if AI produces something we cant comprehend, we will not care about it. As I see it, as of now, AI art generator are trained on the past, and if the real artists are getting fewer the future expressions of art will sadly be a Frankestein made entierly of bits of the past.
Art is in itself an human urge to express how it feels to be alive, wanting to share their experience with others.
Can a machine be ordered to give me the exact way I see a dear face, or the light spilling through my fingers? Can it make the exact thing I want it to, something utterly unique to me?
An artists style is like their DNA. A machine can not make that exact error or focus on the exact line that a individual do.
I think we will tire of it, and crave something, real and raw, made with the part of the brain, wordprompters seldom use.
I think people will find ways of expression the machine would never come up with on its own. Because we are biological, whimsy, wierd creatures, and we try to make a machine be us. But it will never be.
If its any help I do come across people who are finding using AI as a first adult experience of creating images to be something thats inspiring them to look deeper and wider than just AI. People who have been encouraged by it to learn to draw and paint, or are exploring art history for references to create from in new ways. There is a sort of common idea of what happens with AI pushed by hype around it and peoples expectations from that which is missing a lot of what is actually happening in pockets within AI art communities.
commissioners are not artists, if I request a painting with such and such requirements, that does not make me an artist, the same way an art critic or curator is not an artist, a person commissioning A.I. To generate images for them is not an artist.
Also A.I.generates imagery is not art. By definition art is a human activity is not just about the end result, but the cultivation of the skills necessary and the process that goes into the production of one piece, also the artist's thought process required to create the artwork and the message and story.
So yeah what makes art 'art' is human labor. But not just the hours that it took to create one piece, but all the hours that took to learn the skills to make that piece as well. Because of this, Ai generated Imagery cannot be copyrighted... So it has no comercial value.
Art is not just a pretty picture.
Thank you. I believe the commission analogy is perfect for this. People are genuinely just comissioning the AI to create their art, that does not make them an Artist. Like what?
THIS. Thank you.
But if someone is commisioning you to create a artwork with a specific message and story, are you still an artist? Are people who are fast learners when it comes to art less of an artist because they didn't cultivate their skill as someone who spent longer to reach the same level of skill?
And when it comes to copyright, you're wrong. Copyright is about human input and not about time spent creating the artwork or the time cultivating the skills. If I with only a few hours of experience with waterpainting in school years ago painted something distinct it would still have copyright protection. As the field develops, AI-generated art will get better protection as the early decisions where made based on old rules and lack of presedence in how to handle the subject matter.
Besides, even if AI-generated images are not protected by copyright, it still doesn't prevent the product as a whole that contains the images to be copyrightable. Just like Disney movies are protected by copyright, but not the elements borrowed from the public domain.
@@sevret313 If someone comissions you, yes. you are an artist.
I think you misunderstood that part. We're saying that a comissioner (the person that is comissioning the artist) is not an artist.
@@sevret313 yes I'm still the artist.
The issue is that it’s akin to ordering food at a restaurant, you can give the order but it doesn’t mean you made it
Exactly.The same way a washing machine cleans up clothes for you or a dish washer washes up your dishes... Did you actually do the job? Well nope, you just gave the input, the machine gave you back the output. Simple as that
I know this is just one example but it might help to explain why you don't see the fringe artists for AI atm. Me and a group of friends have been playing with it making art sharing ideas and experimenting for months now but we're all anxious introverted nerdy types and we would be terrified and unprepared to publicly share anything we make as there would be backlash. I'm not trying to point fingers, it's understandable at the minute, this is new to everyone. As I said it's just one example but maybe it points to the type of people who are generally experimenting with AI art atm
nah, man, I'm pretty certain that Max Headroom is timeless and will always be cutting edge.
is ai art even art or is it a vending machine that is no more art than vending machine is customer service.
the art is in the concept, not constrained to the execution. so, yes. it can be. but it can also be mindless garbage. there is also a lot of mindless garbage that is considered art. so... again, yes.
It is art but when you use it you are not an artist but an art director. A director that need to explain to a really dumb and stubborn computer what to do.
if everything is art nothing is. therefore i can claim my 15 year old shitty toilet is art because i have the money or persuasion to say that it is
@@leucome I think that's a actually a quite complicated and pretty deep debate what ever if the content created by algorithms is "art" or not. Think about it. Do we see it is art because it's amazing? Or because it involves a sort of creative element? There are some (legal) definitions regarding art which require a human element to it. For example, a painting done by a dog, wouldn't be considered art because there was no human involved as creator. At the same time, we also don't consider a beautiful scenery art. Under such strict circumstances, AI generated content is not really considered art.
There are at the same time also other definitions which do consider it art however. So there really isn't an answer to it that's as clear as one might think.
If you would consider a great orator or a skilled writer to be an artist, then you should consider AI art as real art.
What everyone seems to be missing in this AI vs. art discourse is that art, decent wall hanging art, is no longer rare or precious, it is not a scarcity, it is a surplus. Quality art and craft is bursting the seams at Etsy and other creative online outlets. This fact alone is what is going to make the segue from human made art to computer made art pretty effortless. The glut of art in the market is driving artists who want to "make it" into stylistic quirkiness. In order to do something fresh, the tendency is to unleash one's eccentricity in a realm of imagination that is already a dimension away from reality. The other problem artists are faced with in the world of surplus is that the insights art creates in the mind of the spectator are less than spectacular. As one steps into an art gallery from the street, the immediate impression is one of a "mismatch" between the tactile milieu of the street and a room filled with oddities that puzzle and confuse with bizarre juxtapositions, little isolate universes often surreal to the point of meaninglessness. The age or artistic "isms" is long gone. Trends or fads in art become impossible when the intensely personal aesthetic of the artist explores their subjective psyche for money. An AI made "photograph" has already won first prize in a prestigious photo exhibition. Art as a spectator sport is dead.
My main problem with AI art is the fact it draws from other artists' works to create something without any short of talent
It's basically just stomping on people's hard work to create whatever you want with the same effort a Google search would take
Like if I were to copy a piece of art by drawing it myself I at least put down the effort to do so and it will have my touch since it can't be the same since well I have my own art style "you get what I'm trying to say"
in the stuff ive made (computer backgrounds) I use 2 AI Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, I input a crude sketch of the scene i want into midjourney, and refine the prompts and variations until i like it, i will do the same on diffusion, as it has more customization then i bring it back to midjourney and blend them together, it is very much unique, however if you do the bare minimum prompt like Mona lisa in the style of the mona lisa of course its going to be similar, it still takes a tiny bit of creativity. I used a ying yang tatoo, blended with a picture of a black rose, and a suflower, got a ying yang sunflower and rose, looked pretty cool but not unique, i then blended that result with a picture of the moon and sun, endend with a wierd hybrid, combined that back with my sunflower, and rose, and it came out spectacular a sunflower with the sun in the heart and vines curling out forming yin, a black rose with a heart of the moon and vines w/thorns making up the yang, surrounded by a halo of fire with stars in the background..... does that sound like someone elses work?
AI art is not art. Don't care what anyone says. Art is defined as human made, it is literally in the definition. So no, AI 'art' is not art, no matter what your opinion is.
This says more about your definition of the word "art" than about text-to-image diffusion-based neural-networks. One might just as easily say "art is defined as stuff I think looks pretty," and it would be less retarded.
@@ShankarSivarajan Um... look up the dictionary definition of art, then come back and call me a retard again. Education is key here, might wanna obtain some.
> "Art is defined as human made"
The prompt is human-made. Art is about new ideas and new thinking process. Not about skills and tools
@@ShankarSivarajan retarded is not knowing the actual definition of art. Get educated before you insult others' intelligence.
@nicejungle a prompt is not skill. Telling something to do a task is not art, it's delegating.
Sam Hamper, thank you for your thoughtful & thought provoking video. I agree with many of your observations & abstract analysis of the way (art) things were, & are. As an older artist who worked as an illustrator & fine artist in the 1970s to early 2000s, I returned to film, or rather video in 2004. Today I use AI technology to restore & enhance scanned analogue film, along with improving blurred or low res’ still images. Sometimes the results are astounding. Sometimes the results are rubbish, or at best negligible. It is an exciting age to be living in technically, yet a disturbing age to be living in socially & politically.
What a brilliant comment. It really isn't so much about new technology threatening us, it's how modern tools slip into benefitting the few instead of the many. We really should be heading towards a universal basic income, where artists could create art without the fear of starving.
I'm at 1:41 and, with all due respect, I think you didn't do your research enough. This AI "art" explosion happened when open source models started to compete with closed ones.
Everyone can use any stable diffusion model on google colab for free with no restrictions whatsoever, absurdly easy.
Ever since the introduction' of streaming service, it's always struck me not only what is online, but what is not... a simple example of this is how the 'category or Art' simply does not exist... something which has influenced so much and taken so many forms, simply seems to been assigned to history...
On one hand I agree with you. However current AI models are trained on almost "all" existing images on the internet - while training, the AI remembers the proportions and parameters most commonly used. The next stage is users (people) training/telling the AI which of the AI images work and which don't, training it further on what is important in an image - since most people who use it have no interest in art , it basically train it to be as commercial looking as possible .
The reason I find this problematic is because visual art is a universal language, not dependent on the era you live in or the location - you dont need that to connect with another human though out centuries or cultures. Its one of the earliest ways humans communicated and it deals mainly with existence and the human experience. Automating one of the earliest and most human activities really makes no sense to me, it seems very of cynical. What I've seen is mass producing stuff in the style of someone - commercializing further the voices of existing artist's, but not making something new. AI might be the newest and most complex medium ever, but at the same time its the only one in the entire human history which doesn't feel like it produced something which wasn't done before by other mediums, unlike any other medium it has no unique quality which distinguishes it - like marble from wood or digital from oils. Even the art movements you mentioned - they started with an idea which made them different and interesting from their very begging , AI image generators were funded by people who wanted to mass produce NFT's or overtake the most commercial sectors in the entertainment industry. In a sense AI art gives you ONLY the choices that were made so far by others, while robbing you from your own - which in itself is very anti-art on a level which punk or dadaism can't be compared to.
That's completely the wrong way round from beginning to end, and badly fuzzy in all the important places...
Visual art is not universal. It is a realtive language, completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. You need that commonality to connect. If you don't have that, you see art so foreign that you are untouched, or touched in ways that are way, way removed from the artist's intention.
You don't get cave paintings. Sure. You and I admire them for various reasons. But you can't ever possibly get their intended meaning and emotional significance, as those things were completely dependent on an original context long lost.
The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many.
AI art also is not "a medium". The medium AI generates art in is "digital art". So far very few people have used image generators to actually work in marble, wood, or oil (an idea which immediately tickles my fancy).
A good comparison to AI art as it is now, is the printing press. It was used by religious fanatics to bring their favorite texts to the masses. Then it spread to uses in administration, business, and enabled the rise of stuff like "the newspaper" and "the novel". Each of them were, right from the beginning, operating in the grey area between craftmanship, art form, and business that we nowadays call "mass media".
I think AI art is similar to that. It's not a syle. It's not an art form. It's not a movement. It's a tool. And that will enable the creation of something new, just like the printing press enabled new things. That those new things the printing press created could have an artistic dimension worth exploring on their own? Took a few hundered years, till Andy Warhol, for someone to really explore that artistically. So it might take a while until we have the distance to grasp what "generative tools" are doing.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d Thanks for the comment :) ,I politely disagree. Your definition of universal doesn't mean anything tho, like absolutely nothing works
whiteout any context, even simple things as colors.
Art is not completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. If you
look at it anthropologically you see how ideas develop, commonality between cultures, religions etc. Most art expresses
the most basic human needs , fears etc. to the point that many cultures have the same symbols for something begin good or bad
whiteout being directly connected. In that sense art isn't alien to different cultures than themselves and civilizations didn't just emerged out of nowhere
with their unique language and symbols.
Like cave paintings for example, you don't need much context to realize
that usually the artist puts tons of care drawing 1 big animal and the crowd of humans is drawn like stick figures, just to realize that may be they(the artist and their tribe) lacked the concept
of individuality and saw their selves as a collective etc. and the focus of what is important in this life style is what is begin hunted, the magnificence of the animal
which provides food and cloth to the collective - like that is the point of life for them, you don't need crazy amounts of context to get that.
"You can't ever possibly get their intended meaning" is also not true, sure I wouldn't experience Babylonian art in the exact same way as a bronze age peasant from 1000BC would, but that is because
my perception of the world is different, not because the meaning of their world is lost - this creates a fundamental difference. To be fair, no 2 people ever experienced art the same way - not now, not then.
"The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many."
Well there is one visual language, that is why anthropology and psychology work, we express the same things but with different words that's why its universal. It might look a bit different visually , but that
is because individuality and choice - what is our stance in the limits of the human experience. This is why AI art by principle doesn't work from me - on one hand it robs you from choice, which is the most important
thing you have as an artist, on the other it puts a machine to make believe what a human might produce or want to see. Sure as tech is very impressive, but as art I think its vulgar to invade an activity which deals with
human expression and replace parts of it by something which imagines - what being human might be like.
" AI art also is not a medium", "It's a tool" - in my opinion often a medium and a tool are the same thing. In that sense I don't feel AI art is part of digital art, I feel AI art is in the digital realm.
The reason i call it a medium is because of the context of the video , but also the difference AI art is treated by galleries vs how digital art is, but also the way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every
level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and
can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed
by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience? Idk for me AI art creates mainly visual pollution, that is why its biggest fans are people who make p0rn with it.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying AI art has the potential to be used to generate impactful and interesting art just like how the printing press was used to generate interesting art as well as it being used for commercial pieces?
In that sense I mostly agree AI art does have the potential to generate interesting things, however, the very nature of AI, or more accurately algorithms, is to generate something that is palatable you can even ask an AI to make something interesting but it will still suggest to you the most visually appealing one of the interesting prompts you typed down. Now, does that mean someone can't make their own AI model to purposefully be trained to make unappealing/interesting art? No, but even so then AI art in order for it to function is entirely reliant on the preexisting images and data you fed it, meaning the most unnapealing/non commercial/interesting art will only be a fusion of the most unnapealing/ non commercial/ interesting art the AI tool maker has fed into it.
Now, maybe a whole art movement will come by making art fusions of interesting/non commercial art or by generating images of popular figures in surreal situations, but, I feel to get the most out of AI you need to use generative tools like midjourney in tandem with your paint brush, digital or not, to make truly interesting art and art that will have a profound message.
A full embrace of AI art tools on its own isn't going to make anything too interesting and in fact it could further the speed to which contemporary artists will lose their jobs and give further power to those not interested in art to create more generic shlok to oversaturate the commercial art space. Yeah, maybe contemporary commercial artists already create generic shlok but in order for them to even make that generic shlok they needed to put time and effort into developing a skill and the type of people to do that are the ones interested in the arts, and so even the generic shlok we see today is the most artist generic shlok.
AI art tools open the floodgates to everyone moreso to those not interested in the arts thus, at least maybe in the short term, a lot of what you will see from AI art will be underwhelming generic shlok even more generic shlok that is being made by contemporary commercial artists, and or only used to screw over contemporary and up and coming artists, if its fully embraced recklessly.
In real that technology was created by curious scientists who just wanted to know what is possible to create with a computer. 🤷🏻♂️
@@user-ct8cj9xo6s "The way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience?".
I strongly disagree with what you said here, but if you have only seen the prepackaged sanitized version of AI image generation, I can understand why you may believe it. It's still early days, but I can think of many ways of truly expressing yourself and not the ideas trained into the AI.
It is true that most of what has come out of AI art at this moment is porn, but if you want to create something out of the ordinary, there are tools that can help you achieve your goal. One of these tools is called ControlNet and combined with StableDiffusion it gives you ample possibilities of expressing yourself. The most boring use can already be considered fantastic for traditional artists: you can feed it a photo or a sketch and let it copy the pose, depth, style or a number of other things from it. Essentially, you become completely in control of the generation process. If you are more adventurous, you can even mismatch the preprocessor and the model and get extremely weird and experimental results.
There is another aspect of AI art that can be explored: you can use it to expose the biases of our society by using it "as intended" but changing the context of where and how the generated images are experienced. Or maybe you can try to break it by feeding it tokens it doesn't understand and let it hallucinate something. Or you might experiment with negative prompts: what is the opposite of an apple to AI? Of course, if you want to use these last methods, you might need to substantially alter the results to retain authorship if that's what you are interested in.
Just because it is made of some of the most appealing images humans have created, you don't have to lean into it if you don't want to. Sometimes constraints breed creativity.
I appreciate everything your saying. Also appreciate the correction on the personal models people have. There's a ton of adult content out there. But I hope you didn't spend a long time writing this because 3-6 months from now we might have a totally different landscape and probably more concern. The speed of all of this has me worried about AGI wiping us off the planet more than what's going to happen in the world of art. As an artist and musician myself.
Great video Sam - perhaps the most thoughtful and nuanced take on the space I've come across yet (though it shouldn't surprise me it came from you!)
You know the only similar thing I could think of was the invention of photography. Back then if you want a picture of yourself, you got to find someone to paint a portrait of yourself. Imagine a machine that could create a realistic protrait of you and be developed in a couple of hours instead of waiting for days for ones. All at a click of a button.
Artists back then probably feel threatened as today artists are because creating protrait was a primary ways to earn money back then.
However it didn't really take over the artist's job. Rather it went on to become a new art medium and have existed along with other traditional art medium.
Another similar event was when Photoshop first come into the being. I have a art teacher with a background in graphic design and have say that back then you need to manually ensure that all the front size and everything was according to size ing length and width. Like need to uses a ruler to measure and that is was a skill to be able to see it without using any measuring tool.
Another is probably 3D animation, how it properly used to be seen upsering 2d animation. Well it's kinda of did but there still to this day countless of 2d animation, especially anime. 3D more or less become an assistant or a new art medium
Coming from an art background. I find it pretty disappointing that that online art community have been very against A.I. Yes I know how it negative impact on artists like people start stealing their art, put through A.I and uses it as their own as well undermine the amount of efforts and hardwork put in each artwork. As well no human touch to it.
But I rather see it as a new and more accessible way to develop art as well as more of an assistant to help out with a more trining process in creating art. It should be uses responsibly and with common sense to it. And not starting to steal people's work and call it their own or pass in an art competitions and say yes I put tons of work into it when a.i was the one doing the work.
Art done by human will continue to the end of humanity because all a.i can do it gather all the pieces from different work but mesh them up. But a human can create new pieces and works
photography kind of did take over the job of portrait artists though, like how many people have their portrait painted these days? everyone just takes their own pictures and for very special occasions they hire a photographer.
@@zwenkwiel816I would strongly disagree with this statement.
Everyone's different, everyone has their own priorities and preferences. Some people like being depicted in different art styles,and there re still people willing to pay for a stylized portrait. It's much more interesting and fun to be represented that way instead of just hiring a photographer and snap a pic, but again everyones different.
@@anordinaryfellow2832 sure but I'm just talking numbers here. Like before cameras were invented everyone who wanted a portrait had to go to painter, so there used to be a lot more of them. then when cameras came along they slowly took over this role. First by proffesional photographers but now even they aren't needed for most situations since everyone has a camera in their pocket...
While I enjoyed watching this video, I found it overlooked some key points. Open-source projects already enable diverse and "shocking" AI art, countering claims of gatekeeping. Despite tech giants' resource concentration, AI democratisation is growing through affordable cloud computing, open-source initiatives, and accessible hardware.
The idea that boundary-pushing is fundamental to art is a rather modern notion: throughout history, art has served various purposes ranging from self-expression and portraiture to decoration, religious devotion and historical documentation, to displaying personal skill, imagination, or revealing supposed universal truths about existence.
Human-AI collaboration offers new forms of expression and innovation in art, akin to the impact and democratisation of new technologies like photography or mechanical reproduction. The scholarship of Benjamin, Manovich, Paul, Shanken, Ruskin, Duchamp, and others remains highly relevant, as new technologies raise familiar questions.
Other, arguably more pressing concerns in AI art include disinformation and propaganda, intellectual property rights, innate biases, challenges adapting creative expression, and impacts on job markets. These present significant challenges for everyone, not just for artists.
So this entire is video is just you not being aware of Stable Diffusion and its finetuned derivatives?
At 1:25, for example, _yes_ there is a perfectly good open version, and _yes,_ it's flooded with pornography (not so much violence, as far I can tell). It sounds like you should just stop playing with the "safe" versions.
This is really eye opening. Ai art bends towards the norm, especially with beauty standards of faces.
not entirely. to put it more accurately, low level uncreative thoughtless morons are using and abusing the hell out of the ai tools to generate pretty girls because thats all their limited minds can conceive of. though to be fair, most traditional artists doing any sort of person or portrait are doing that as well.
You can make some really ugly faces with it. But yeah a lot of what people show off is generically ‘beautiful’.
no shit, bc people only want to generate stuff they think is visually pleasing, so the images mostly fed into ai are conventionally beautiful
It's like with 3d renders. If you want to showcase the tech, you sculpt an old face with lots of wrinkles and photorealistic, spotty skin, but when you actually need to sell a product, you will sculp a pretty model with flawless airbrushed skin and shiny eyes
Neil Craig. Wrote this in the comments and i want to re comment it.
Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important.
Ai art takes time and effort and experience
Specially if you want to generate something good, not every one have a good hands to draw or have a drawing telent ! Yet we all want express our selfs with art and Ai makes it accessible for our ideas to be generated as we like and wish.
Anyone standing up against the unlawful use of other artist's work need to continue to push. Don't let it become normal for companies to use the hard work of traditional and digital artists in their AI generations. The fuel that these AI generators are burning comes from a source that is not theirs. This is digital theft, art laundering, masked as "technological advance."
Again, to all those that refuse to let this happen, never let them burn fuel that isn't theirs. Angry people on reddit can continue to enjoy their use of AI generation and enjoy making artists mad with it, but let them do it with their own shit stock images, royalty free, and see how much fun they have then.
They are using fuel that isn't theirs.
I fully agree. Theres so many AI bootlickers everywhere. The images that are given are impressive but the real beauty is in the hard work and years the artist go through to come up with art that come from their own pov
Only its not unlawful. unpalatable to some perhaps, but not unlawful. Our rights as artists protect our work from reproduction not learning, inspiration or transformation into new works. This is because the primary aim of copyright is to enable and encourage creativity and innovation, not prevent it to suit the narrow self interest of individual artists. Copyright only gives us a few rights in order to limit us and stop us monopolising what are actually wider shared cultural assets we all draw from.
@@PeterHollinghurst machine learning is not the same than human learning...
and keep in mind that time ago it wasn't illegal to stone women if they were unfaithful, so the argument "it's not illegal" does not make sense, since if it is clearly unethical it should be regulated and made illegal.
ip theft is ethical
Yeah nobody is stealing anything.
AI understands what a pixel is and what color is, then it just builds a digital image by building pixels like legos.
These are not someone else's pictures, these are pixels, with colors, arranged in a pattern, by using mathematical formulas.
Nobody is stealing anybody's art.
Artists don't have monopoly over color and pixels.
I see a lot of artists complaining about this, but none of them understands how things actually work.
Just because the programmer "shows" the AI your image and tells it to learn patterns from it, doesn't mean AI stole your image.
Think of AI as a child that was shown a massive collection of images and figured out how to coherently create his own, from everything that it has "seen".
You people live in delusions of your own hatred, just because you're jealous of something that is better than you.
If you don't want your images to be seen by the AI learning process, then just don't upload them online, what's the big deal ?
Stop uploading art online and your problem is solved, but don't start dumping your problems on others.
Nobody is responsible for the way you feel about AI and nobody is required to change to adapt to you.
But hey, you can continue to feel like you're entitled, like the world owes you something, but that won't change the fact that it is what it is and you can either deal with it, or keep suffering your own anger and resentment.
The human quote (1:00) is so powerful because it expresses something very human. There is no art without struggle, ejaculation, love, hate, doubt, blood, and tears. AI... is an empty shell. It is not yet even haunted by a ghost.
I love your videos. You are able to explain the concepts that I feel in my mind, with such clarity and detail. And you have a very soothing voice.
I couldn't disagree more. All the outrage coming from artist is exactly the result of learning how it works. They reject it because they understand how it was developed. Artists don't hate Ai either. They hate the developers creating it through unethical means. It's really that simple.
Is it though? They keep talking about it automating their jobs.
No, artists dislike AI just because it steals content and throws it in a blender. If the AI worked with public domain or licensed data, nobody would care because we could develop our own vision without fear of AI taking it and selling derivative version of our work as its own without even giving credit.
If you think writing a prompt makes you an artist then your Willfully Deceiving yourself.
Ai art is an invisible flood. It'll saturate everything, but if you are able to distinguish it, or actuively push aganist it (something that might not last long) then the algorhythm will prevent you from seeing its effect. But the saturation stays, occupying a huge portion of the attention econonomy, pushed by the (also ai) algorythm on these social networks. And hands-on artists will see that effect in the diminuishing of likes, engagement, until it drops to near nothing, whilst also being expected of taking this second job of inevitable "promotion" on social media. Creaitivity is between a rock and a hard place.
True creativity will NEVER be between a rock and a hard place. Nowadays people and specially business throw the term 'creativity' left and right to the point it has become synonym of 'employee', 'task', 'process' and 'assignment'.
No, working doing illustrations does not make you creative. No, hauling likes on your last speed paint Instagram post does not make you creative. No, feeling threatened by patter-recognition algorithms does not make you creative.
You will become creative when you figure out why all that you typed is actually irrelevant for true creativity.
@@anameyoucantremember i think you need to realize that the state of the world also affects the individual
It's called glaze, which defends learning
It's not a perfect defense, but I hope the artists are protected.
It sad how ai is making talentless people create beautiful art
Apparently, can’t even tell if that is sarcasm.
art is not about beauty since 2 centuries
Spend 100+ hours in Dream Studio or Midjourney, tell me you're not making art. Everyone claiming what it isn't, has zero experience with these tools.
I don't care to have experience with these tools. These are plagiarism machines whose only goal is to allow no-talent bums to oversaturate the market and devalue the work of the authentic creators they betrayed to make them.
Thou shalt not Steal! Thou shalt not allow AI to live. Those that live AI will certainly die by AI
The commandment you seem to be trying to reconstruct is "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."
'Good artists copy, great artists steal' - Picasso
@@nicejungle The best artists do neither
@@ShankarSivarajan never head of that one.
I love your videos. Your views on the use of AI in the artistic world are refreshing. I can tell you've been working on the subject quite a lot. I find art in your words.