8 ms·

They should also ban creating digital art, as digital art takes less effort than paper.

by DefineOutside 4y ago

matkoniecz 4y ago
And art using paper rather than doing proper stone carvings.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  All those are segregated...
shishy 4y ago
I don't think that's really fair... I can see the argument for removing AI generated stuff in part because it doesn't require technical artistic skill (whereas digital art still does, in your ability to observe, draw with perspective, etc.)
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  But that can easily lead to a slippery slope since it requires more technical skill to make physical art than digital (for one, you can't "undo" anything in physical world.) Where do we draw the line? Secondly, it will just become more and more subtle as art softwares will subtly repackage such AI tools into their art software packaging. I am willing to bet anything Adobe is already employed an army already to figure out how to do so. How would you tackle that?
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  So if I skillfully combine multiple AI generated images it's stops being art? What's the difference between someone only using that vs. someone taking parts form random images found in Google image search? The latter very common among digital artists.
nottorp 4y ago
> as digital art takes less effort than paper. Hmm I've seen someone draw/paint on both paper and an iPad. It didn't look to me that she was much faster on digital. But then it was original art not copies of something.
- DefineOutside 4y ago
  probably should have said photographs, as photographs are more similar to AI art than computer generated art is
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Photographs are a great analogy. If you work to learn about how to take a good photo, and learn all the techniques around framing a shot and how different shutter speeds affect things you can take beautiful pictures. However, if you tried to submit that picture to someone as a painting, they will cry foul. Also most people don't consider your candids on vacation to be in the same "category" as a carefully crafted (or not!!!) photograph of a landscape. In much the same way, sure you could dedicate your life to learning the craft of prompting an ML model to produce unique, novel, and interesting art, but these communities are saying "we want these to be considered a different class of art" and as mostly self organizing communities they are well within their rights to do so.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  To be clear: I fully think that digital art is art. But it is a lot less effort in a lot of ways. If I'm painting in Photoshop or Krita, I have layers. I can adjust blending modes. I can move them up and down. I can easily ctrl+z a mistake. I can rotate my workspace quickly and easily in ways that would be difficult with physical media. I can easily find the color I want without having to purchase more paints and blend them, or colored pencils, or whatever. I can create brushes and variations on them to match my style. I can go on with dozens of other things. I happen to think all of that is a good thing, and don't know that comparing digital art to AI generated art is a good analogy, but digital art 100% makes many things you do in art easier.
nurbl 4y ago
If you are a "digital art" community, clearly you have already accepted some digital tools. I do think it makes logical sense to try and ban "AI" art if it is not what the community is interested in. It's likely not just about pretty images. They might value the mental process, the individual's style, progression, techniques, and yes, the effort. Someone coming in with generated images expecting to be treated the same is to me a bit like commissioning art from someone else, and then presenting that as your own. The images might be great, but it's not in the spirit of the community. There must be tons of "AI" focused communities for that. I suppose they will eventually fail at resisting this, but that's another matter.

They should also ban creating digital art, as digital art takes less effort than paper.

matkoniecz 4y ago

And art using paper rather than doing proper stone carvings.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
All those are segregated...

shishy 4y ago

I don't think that's really fair... I can see the argument for removing AI generated stuff in part because it doesn't require technical artistic skill (whereas digital art still does, in your ability to observe, draw with perspective, etc.)

polygamous_bat 4y ago
But that can easily lead to a slippery slope since it requires more technical skill to make physical art than digital (for one, you can't "undo" anything in physical world.) Where do we draw the line? Secondly, it will just become more and more subtle as art softwares will subtly repackage such AI tools into their art software packaging. I am willing to bet anything Adobe is already employed an army already to figure out how to do so. How would you tackle that?
tiborsaas 4y ago
So if I skillfully combine multiple AI generated images it's stops being art? What's the difference between someone only using that vs. someone taking parts form random images found in Google image search? The latter very common among digital artists.

nottorp 4y ago

> as digital art takes less effort than paper. Hmm I've seen someone draw/paint on both paper and an iPad. It didn't look to me that she was much faster on digital. But then it was original art not copies of something.

DefineOutside 4y ago
probably should have said photographs, as photographs are more similar to AI art than computer generated art is
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Photographs are a great analogy. If you work to learn about how to take a good photo, and learn all the techniques around framing a shot and how different shutter speeds affect things you can take beautiful pictures. However, if you tried to submit that picture to someone as a painting, they will cry foul. Also most people don't consider your candids on vacation to be in the same "category" as a carefully crafted (or not!!!) photograph of a landscape. In much the same way, sure you could dedicate your life to learning the craft of prompting an ML model to produce unique, novel, and interesting art, but these communities are saying "we want these to be considered a different class of art" and as mostly self organizing communities they are well within their rights to do so.
cthalupa 4y ago
To be clear: I fully think that digital art is art. But it is a lot less effort in a lot of ways. If I'm painting in Photoshop or Krita, I have layers. I can adjust blending modes. I can move them up and down. I can easily ctrl+z a mistake. I can rotate my workspace quickly and easily in ways that would be difficult with physical media. I can easily find the color I want without having to purchase more paints and blend them, or colored pencils, or whatever. I can create brushes and variations on them to match my style. I can go on with dozens of other things. I happen to think all of that is a good thing, and don't know that comparing digital art to AI generated art is a good analogy, but digital art 100% makes many things you do in art easier.

nurbl 4y ago

If you are a "digital art" community, clearly you have already accepted some digital tools. I do think it makes logical sense to try and ban "AI" art if it is not what the community is interested in. It's likely not just about pretty images. They might value the mental process, the individual's style, progression, techniques, and yes, the effort. Someone coming in with generated images expecting to be treated the same is to me a bit like commissioning art from someone else, and then presenting that as your own. The images might be great, but it's not in the spirit of the community. There must be tons of "AI" focused communities for that. I suppose they will eventually fail at resisting this, but that's another matter.