5 ms·

As an amateur artist (oil painting), coder, and user of generative AI. I find people's rejection/revulsion of the use of generated images in art odd for several

As an amateur artist (oil painting), coder, and user of generative AI. I find people's rejection/revulsion of the use of generated images in art odd for several reasons: - art has always been about taking existing images and ideas and tweaking them to make them your own. As Grayson Perry says "I believe in the Chinese whispers approach to art, I see something, copy it and then I make it a little better" - very renowned artists such as Peter Doig use 'found images' i.e. a photo of people in a boat as the prime subjects in his paintings. Yet if I generate 100 images with my own prompts then that is somehow cheating? - as the article says, artists have always used whatever tools they can find to make better art. If a trained random number generator helps me produce the image I want to produce then how is that any different?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mecsred 3y ago
I definitely like this perspective as a personal take, AI should not stop anyone from pursuing their own artistic goals. The problem comes from a societal scale. Peter Doig would get a very different response if he showed off someone else's picture of a boat to a crowd or tried to sell it. The inspiration and the painting he created are clearly two different things and are recieved differently. If you use AI, very few people, if any, could tell if you or an AI emulating you made a certain painting. I think this is a key source of the rejection, it's saying "Even if you can't tell, you can trust my paintings were made by me and not an AI, I stake my reputation on it."
mkaic 3y ago
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I personally find generated images completely uninteresting from an artistic standpoint is that they are low-effort. I appreciate art because a human sacrificed time and effort to make it. As a general rule of thumb (with exceptions, of course), the more time and effort an artist sacrifices to make a piece of art, the more I find that art interesting, especially if the artist is highly skilled. I don't think that AI art is fundamentally uninteresting (I am a machine learning researcher, so I think it's rad), or that it can't be used as a tool to make great art. I just think that the final image is not the point of art. The point is that a person practiced for hundreds/thousands of hours to develop a creative skill and then spent several more hours painstakingly applying that skill just to create the image. If AI is incorporated into a high-effort, high-skill process, I don't have an issue with it.
- 1auralynn 3y ago
  People have varying definitions of art. Mine is more about communication and changing perceptions, I couldn't care less about time spent. I know artists from both camps.
  - jack_riminton 3y ago
    Also interesting is the time spent making marks vs. thinking about it I know Matisse kept several works in his studio for many many years pondering and struggling with what to do with them and the actual mark-making was very rapid e.g. The Red Studio painting
  - mkaic 3y ago
    And this is why I began my comment with "I can't speak for everyone!" Art is so subjective that it would be rather silly of me to try to make a bold, authoritative statement about its nature. I definitely understand your perspective to some degree, and wish you the best :)
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  I suppose that's the crux of it, I'm a formalist (https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism) whereas a lot of other people appreciate the back story or narrative more
- gilleain 3y ago
  The problem I have with the 'effort' theory of value - which I also used to use! - is that you can take it to absurd conclusions. For example, a beginner painter will take much longer to make the same painting as a master; so judged on effort, it should be better? Or if I make a minature cathedral out of matchsticks, then it might take me decades - is that therefore more interesting artistic output than a sketch that Picasso (say) made in one smooth line that took minutes? Of course, a reasonable answer is that it is some combination of effort, aesthetics, personal choice, and fashion. Maybe it's like a recipe where the balance of these ingredients has to be right.
aredox 3y ago
I think the problem is not for "art" artists, who will embrace it as they embraced everything, but more for "commissioned" artists, who paint or draw illustrations for money.
gilleain 3y ago
It occurred to me the other day that there are (at least) 3 different meanings when referring to the value of a work of art: * Aesthetically pleasing - often there is a traditionalist idea that only landscapes and portraits are 'real' art, and everything else is rubbish * Financially successful - the market sets the price of a work, and that is the value, no matter what your personal idea of it * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value Unfortunately, people using different definitions of value here will likely never agree when these values clash when considering a work of art. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I reckon some people have just defined generated images (or partly generated) as 'not Art' so will never accept them. I know I have changed how I think about some art/artists (such as single-colour painters like Rothko) from 'this is bad' to 'I don't care for this, I see that others do'.
- lancesells 3y ago
  > * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value I suppose I fall into this camp and why I find most AI generated images nothing even close to art. Art is truth, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer, good artists do things for their personal reasons. Generative AI is cold and unfeeling. If anything, artists that use AI should embrace that and stop trying to make so many airbrushed, Penthouse style renderings that try to mimic so much that has happened before. I mean you have the power of Gandalf, so why are you making images that look like something that's been done thousands of times over? Otherwise it's content and illustration, which both have their place in the world. Looking at the spiral image thumbnails used in the article look like something that an artist would have done 100 years ago. I don't see an artist there. I see a content creator. If they were painted by hand I would say the same thing, but be slightly more impressed by the craft of it.
kranke155 3y ago
I find AI art interesting and also automated mass copyright theft. It is not settled law at all anywhere that somehow using copyrighted data as training data is legal. The companies doing this assumed it was and moved quickly as fast as possible. They invented novel legal theories (“it’s just like a human”) to justify what they did, then spread it all over the internet to shut down artists questioning the legality. If you allow AI to skirt copyright law but humans have to live by it, then human labour becomes meaningless except as training data for the next AI model, and all profit making will become concentrated into AI, while humans make nothing or next to nothing. Any innovation made by a person will be copied by the next model, which being closed source will profit only a small number of people.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >If you allow AI to skirt copyright law but humans have to live by it Huh? At least from the argument you're presenting you're attempting to create "The Right to Read" world by RMS. Copyright is about output, not input. If I output something too close to your copyrighted content, that's the violation. Not me getting a book and reading it and sharing it with every one of my friends. Not looking by your art and being influenced by in in my artworks. > then human labour becomes meaningless You're 150 years late for the storyline of John Henry. The problem here isn't machines can do everything and make us meaningless, where you're breaking is thinking that capitalism can even begin to work under this paradigm shift.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    I don’t actually think capitalism can work under this paradigm shift. Unfortunately for me, that is a bleeding edge understanding of reality that hasn’t propagated to the billions of people who live under capitalism. That’s the tragedy. AI is a dystopian technology under current economics. If you change the economics AI is utopian. But we’re electing neoliberal governments, for the most part, in the West. Million $ question: what’s to be done ?
JohnFen 3y ago
It sounds like you're talking more about a specific art form, collage, than art generally. Regardless, I am in the camp that "art is what artists do". I think that a lot of the rejection about generated art comes from the fear that it would become the dominant artistic form rather than just another kind of art. I watched a YouTube video the other day that expressed a sentiment that I share and that may apply here as well. He was talking about Photoshop rather than generative art: (Paraphrasing despite the quote marks) "As an artist, I love photoshop for the power and flexibility it gives me. As an art appreciator, though, I would never hang photoshop art in my home because the aesthetic is not appealing to me."
blargey 3y ago
"Found art" is a niche that's irrelevant to most 2d-image art, as a producer or consumer. And that's all text prompting / inpainting / etc is at this point. Vague, overbroad suggestions to the AI that leaves all the interesting and meaningful decisions and choices in the hands of latent noise. I find illustrations, amateur or professional, interesting and engaging because people's style heavily reflects what they value in the imagery they create - deliberate choices made in pursuit of depicting or conveying an aesthetic, a theme, a subject-category, an idea, a notion. Paths taken in developing their skill = style. Current AI image generators are too blunt of an instrument to be a part of that process. The communication capabilities / concept space of image-gen AI needs a couple more paradigm shifts before it can join the pantheon of tools for "making better art". That means pursuing what they really want to depict, not filling space on the canvas with the AI's vague notions of it. Right now "style" in AI art is just a shorthand for surface-level LORA-ripoffs of existing artists, and attempts to statistically blend them together.
night-rider 3y ago
> art has always been about taking existing images and ideas and tweaking them to make them your own It's an open secret in the art world that modifying existing works and putting your own spin on it is a common technique. But blatant copies with no such 'spin' on the original need to be called out. Also there are places like China who do clean room reverse engineering of existing tech and make new tech in the same likeness, but the engineering is completely different from the original. It's how they avoid IP/copyright suits.
southernplaces7 3y ago
If you as an oil painter can't understand why AI generated low-effort dreck is unappealing to so many, i'm surprised. It requires next to nothing to create and anyone can do it with virtually zero effort. Even Jackson Pollock (hated on by so many non-abstract artists as creator of something that "even a chimp can do") on the other hand had to spend hours getting his hands dirty and setting up his enormous canvases. There's something about that creative work process that has appeal, which generating images by typing little bits of text absolutely doesn't. Or let's take your example of Peter Doig, whose art I happen to like. He may use found photos but comparing this to AI renderings is absurd. He takes those and then ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PAINTS THEM into a work of art. The difference is enormous. Now if someone incorporated generative AI into a complex composition of mixed media to construct a creative piece of art that required thinking, planning, some modicum of effort at least, I could understand it. Generating 100 copies of a certain style with a few prompts is definitely not that though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mecsred 3y ago

I definitely like this perspective as a personal take, AI should not stop anyone from pursuing their own artistic goals. The problem comes from a societal scale. Peter Doig would get a very different response if he showed off someone else's picture of a boat to a crowd or tried to sell it. The inspiration and the painting he created are clearly two different things and are recieved differently. If you use AI, very few people, if any, could tell if you or an AI emulating you made a certain painting. I think this is a key source of the rejection, it's saying "Even if you can't tell, you can trust my paintings were made by me and not an AI, I stake my reputation on it."

mkaic 3y ago

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I personally find generated images completely uninteresting from an artistic standpoint is that they are low-effort. I appreciate art because a human sacrificed time and effort to make it. As a general rule of thumb (with exceptions, of course), the more time and effort an artist sacrifices to make a piece of art, the more I find that art interesting, especially if the artist is highly skilled. I don't think that AI art is fundamentally uninteresting (I am a machine learning researcher, so I think it's rad), or that it can't be used as a tool to make great art. I just think that the final image is not the point of art. The point is that a person practiced for hundreds/thousands of hours to develop a creative skill and then spent several more hours painstakingly applying that skill just to create the image. If AI is incorporated into a high-effort, high-skill process, I don't have an issue with it.

1auralynn 3y ago
People have varying definitions of art. Mine is more about communication and changing perceptions, I couldn't care less about time spent. I know artists from both camps.
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Also interesting is the time spent making marks vs. thinking about it I know Matisse kept several works in his studio for many many years pondering and struggling with what to do with them and the actual mark-making was very rapid e.g. The Red Studio painting
- mkaic 3y ago
  And this is why I began my comment with "I can't speak for everyone!" Art is so subjective that it would be rather silly of me to try to make a bold, authoritative statement about its nature. I definitely understand your perspective to some degree, and wish you the best :)
jack_riminton 3y ago
I suppose that's the crux of it, I'm a formalist (https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism) whereas a lot of other people appreciate the back story or narrative more
gilleain 3y ago
The problem I have with the 'effort' theory of value - which I also used to use! - is that you can take it to absurd conclusions. For example, a beginner painter will take much longer to make the same painting as a master; so judged on effort, it should be better? Or if I make a minature cathedral out of matchsticks, then it might take me decades - is that therefore more interesting artistic output than a sketch that Picasso (say) made in one smooth line that took minutes? Of course, a reasonable answer is that it is some combination of effort, aesthetics, personal choice, and fashion. Maybe it's like a recipe where the balance of these ingredients has to be right.

aredox 3y ago

I think the problem is not for "art" artists, who will embrace it as they embraced everything, but more for "commissioned" artists, who paint or draw illustrations for money.

gilleain 3y ago

It occurred to me the other day that there are (at least) 3 different meanings when referring to the value of a work of art: * Aesthetically pleasing - often there is a traditionalist idea that only landscapes and portraits are 'real' art, and everything else is rubbish * Financially successful - the market sets the price of a work, and that is the value, no matter what your personal idea of it * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value Unfortunately, people using different definitions of value here will likely never agree when these values clash when considering a work of art. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I reckon some people have just defined generated images (or partly generated) as 'not Art' so will never accept them. I know I have changed how I think about some art/artists (such as single-colour painters like Rothko) from 'this is bad' to 'I don't care for this, I see that others do'.

lancesells 3y ago
> * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value I suppose I fall into this camp and why I find most AI generated images nothing even close to art. Art is truth, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer, good artists do things for their personal reasons. Generative AI is cold and unfeeling. If anything, artists that use AI should embrace that and stop trying to make so many airbrushed, Penthouse style renderings that try to mimic so much that has happened before. I mean you have the power of Gandalf, so why are you making images that look like something that's been done thousands of times over? Otherwise it's content and illustration, which both have their place in the world. Looking at the spiral image thumbnails used in the article look like something that an artist would have done 100 years ago. I don't see an artist there. I see a content creator. If they were painted by hand I would say the same thing, but be slightly more impressed by the craft of it.

kranke155 3y ago

I find AI art interesting and also automated mass copyright theft. It is not settled law at all anywhere that somehow using copyrighted data as training data is legal. The companies doing this assumed it was and moved quickly as fast as possible. They invented novel legal theories (“it’s just like a human”) to justify what they did, then spread it all over the internet to shut down artists questioning the legality. If you allow AI to skirt copyright law but humans have to live by it, then human labour becomes meaningless except as training data for the next AI model, and all profit making will become concentrated into AI, while humans make nothing or next to nothing. Any innovation made by a person will be copied by the next model, which being closed source will profit only a small number of people.

pixl97 3y ago
>If you allow AI to skirt copyright law but humans have to live by it Huh? At least from the argument you're presenting you're attempting to create "The Right to Read" world by RMS. Copyright is about output, not input. If I output something too close to your copyrighted content, that's the violation. Not me getting a book and reading it and sharing it with every one of my friends. Not looking by your art and being influenced by in in my artworks. > then human labour becomes meaningless You're 150 years late for the storyline of John Henry. The problem here isn't machines can do everything and make us meaningless, where you're breaking is thinking that capitalism can even begin to work under this paradigm shift.
- kranke155 3y ago
  I don’t actually think capitalism can work under this paradigm shift. Unfortunately for me, that is a bleeding edge understanding of reality that hasn’t propagated to the billions of people who live under capitalism. That’s the tragedy. AI is a dystopian technology under current economics. If you change the economics AI is utopian. But we’re electing neoliberal governments, for the most part, in the West. Million $ question: what’s to be done ?

JohnFen 3y ago

It sounds like you're talking more about a specific art form, collage, than art generally. Regardless, I am in the camp that "art is what artists do". I think that a lot of the rejection about generated art comes from the fear that it would become the dominant artistic form rather than just another kind of art. I watched a YouTube video the other day that expressed a sentiment that I share and that may apply here as well. He was talking about Photoshop rather than generative art: (Paraphrasing despite the quote marks) "As an artist, I love photoshop for the power and flexibility it gives me. As an art appreciator, though, I would never hang photoshop art in my home because the aesthetic is not appealing to me."

blargey 3y ago

"Found art" is a niche that's irrelevant to most 2d-image art, as a producer or consumer. And that's all text prompting / inpainting / etc is at this point. Vague, overbroad suggestions to the AI that leaves all the interesting and meaningful decisions and choices in the hands of latent noise. I find illustrations, amateur or professional, interesting and engaging because people's style heavily reflects what they value in the imagery they create - deliberate choices made in pursuit of depicting or conveying an aesthetic, a theme, a subject-category, an idea, a notion. Paths taken in developing their skill = style. Current AI image generators are too blunt of an instrument to be a part of that process. The communication capabilities / concept space of image-gen AI needs a couple more paradigm shifts before it can join the pantheon of tools for "making better art". That means pursuing what they really want to depict, not filling space on the canvas with the AI's vague notions of it. Right now "style" in AI art is just a shorthand for surface-level LORA-ripoffs of existing artists, and attempts to statistically blend them together.

night-rider 3y ago

> art has always been about taking existing images and ideas and tweaking them to make them your own It's an open secret in the art world that modifying existing works and putting your own spin on it is a common technique. But blatant copies with no such 'spin' on the original need to be called out. Also there are places like China who do clean room reverse engineering of existing tech and make new tech in the same likeness, but the engineering is completely different from the original. It's how they avoid IP/copyright suits.

southernplaces7 3y ago

If you as an oil painter can't understand why AI generated low-effort dreck is unappealing to so many, i'm surprised. It requires next to nothing to create and anyone can do it with virtually zero effort. Even Jackson Pollock (hated on by so many non-abstract artists as creator of something that "even a chimp can do") on the other hand had to spend hours getting his hands dirty and setting up his enormous canvases. There's something about that creative work process that has appeal, which generating images by typing little bits of text absolutely doesn't. Or let's take your example of Peter Doig, whose art I happen to like. He may use found photos but comparing this to AI renderings is absurd. He takes those and then ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PAINTS THEM into a work of art. The difference is enormous. Now if someone incorporated generative AI into a complex composition of mixed media to construct a creative piece of art that required thinking, planning, some modicum of effort at least, I could understand it. Generating 100 copies of a certain style with a few prompts is definitely not that though.