4 ms·
That's a really good question, and it's key to the issue at hand I think. Any competent artist can create a lookalike style of another artist at will. It's jus
by jaggs 4y ago
That's a really good question, and it's key to the issue at hand I think.
Any competent artist can create a lookalike style of another artist at will. It's just a matter of looking at the paint type, brushes, materials, strokes, composition, etc and copying that.
In fact, here's Vincent Van Gogh copying other artists of his time - https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/van-gogh-copy/ https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/van-gogh-copy/ .
How does this differ from a machine doing the output? Apart from speed and flexibility?
- diemes1 4y agoVan Gogh's studies of existing works of the time still maintain his 'style', his brush strokes, use of color, rendering of form. No matter how many times he copies another's work he's still Van Gogh and his work expresses and reflects who he 'is'. There is no existing model from which we can accurately imitate the human creative process, so it begs the question, what is the nature of the imagery generated? Think of it like your hand writing and signature style. Even if it may appear similar to others, it's still uniquely identifiable as yours. If someone copies your writing style and signature to forge documents, it wouldn't just become ok as long as they forge new documents, in any case it would be immoral and illegal without your express consent. That is the nature of algorithmically generated imagery, complex forgery, but instead of the forgery being of an individual, it's modeled from billions of images scraped from the internet. This is entirely different from the human creative process.