AI art made me appreciate human art more

Submitted by spyser t3_10kzpb8 in Futurology

For the past few weeks I have thought a lot of about AI generated art (even dabbled a bit with stable diffusion). Initially I found it interesting, but eventually it started to make me depressed. I'm not an artist myself, I'm not even particularly creative, but even so I started to feel bad for all artists out there who spent their whole life mastering a skill, only for an algorithm to be able to do it faster and more skillfully than most of them. I have realised for a long time that more menial, repetitive professions will eventually be replaced by AI. However, I have always hoped that the result of this would be to give humans more time to engage in creative pursuits. But if AI can do creative stuff better than us, then what is the point? What is left for us to do?

But today I realised that it isn't the end result that matters. Sure, an AI may be able to create a fantastic painting beyond what even skilled artists can make. But so what? The simple drawing of a child may not be as high quality as a painting made by a famous artist. But to the parents of the child, that drawing is infinitely more valuable.

I realise that in the past, when I looked at art, I was more impressed with the "product" rather than the "process". Now when AI can make products that are of the same quality as any human artist, it means that the process is what that distinguishes the human from the machine. The inspiration of that human, their history and their limitations, and their relationships to other humans is what makes it valuable. Now when I'm looking at art I'm looking at it with different eyes, and I feel like I appreciate it much more than I did before.

The rise of AI may very well be the end of "commercial art". But maybe that is a good thing? Now we can finally focus on and value the creative aspects.

Still gonna need that UBI though...

99

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Redditing-Dutchman t1_j5u89n8 wrote

Some art forms are safe for a long time, or maybe forever. I'm thinking about performance art, theater, ballet, conceptual art, etc. Because even if a robot could dance or sing, I wouldn't watch it. Or rather: yes I would watch it once out of interest, but I would also keep watching humans do that stuff. Just as people watch real chess matches and not AI's completing a match in 0.1 second.

Therefore it seems extremely unlikely these jobs/skills will be obsolete in a few years. The 'masses' are often not interested in theater anyway, so even if they only consume AI art, there will still be a paralel society that enjoys real theater, dance, etc. And they will pay for it as well, just as they do now.

19

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vqjgp wrote

I fully believe AI could build a routine like performers, or copy it/mimic. Your point is strong, these are the types of things people will still pay people to do.. However, brings me to my question: When are we going to mandate AI created things be, labeled as such.. I can see a human like robot doing these performances and no one knowing its a robot. We're going to need to tackle that issue sooner than later... As its already happening with AI generated art.

2

resdaz t1_j5yurxx wrote

Why would anyone bother making a robot ballerina? What issue does it solve/who makes money off it?

3

TheAnonFeels t1_j5yyn8h wrote

idk, we have a robot that can do parkour so... /s

It'll only happen at scale once robots are cheaper than humans. but this is a hypothetical anyway...?

I feel like people forget companies run these, the end dollar is all that matters.. A robot copying a human with tracking on, isn't going to be difficult, they wont even need advanced AI for the robots like, say Elon's bot. (honestly forget it's name...whatever)

Why would anyone bother making an assembly line working robot arm when we have humans? Money.

1

resdaz t1_j5z2e7j wrote

Elons bot is a gigantic piece of useless crap lol. I think you very much underestimate how incredibly difficult that is to accomplish which you describe.

1

TheAnonFeels t1_j5z4m1j wrote

Wasn't saying elon's bot is the answer, was saying it wouldn't need as strong of an AI like that would..

Robots are getting rather light footed and getting better, I don't see this being a problem in 10-15 years, if not earlier.

Edit: Like this isn't smooth by performance standards, but programming a routine is all that happened here... You can program a better routine with a lighter robot.. One not built for military. https://www.webpronews.com/boston-dynamics-robots-dance-together/

1

Telkk2 t1_j5xopfo wrote

I think it's more than just what we want. It's also about what we need if AI automates most jobs. Artists need to make a living creating things and audiences need ways to make money other than ubi and a 9-5, which would be non-existent. So we'll adapt our business models to fulfill these needs by tokenizing the economy and creating more direct channels between consumers and creators so they can both make money off of creative pursuits.

2

Dry_Substance_9021 t1_j5uxa31 wrote

Human-made art will survive. Painters experienced a similar existential crisis with the rise of photography, because up until that time, most were employed to depict realism, but couldn't match the output of the camera.

Then artists invented whole new ways of filling the canvas. Photography is still relevant, and has even become an artform itself.

While AI-generated imagery is fascinating, it still takes a human to provide input to assemble that image. Hell, it took human-generated art to train the AI, and likely this will continue. We're just going to be in an adjustment period while this all shakes out. It will likely be the case that not as many humans can make a career out of being an Artist, but the discipline isn't going away.

13

StarNightLynx t1_j5xvc3g wrote

What's really sad is that the AIs were trained by stealing work from artists. Millions of images from living artists were fed into the algorithm to train it without any of their consent.

And the AI art isn't particularly better than the living artists. It's just really good at replicating what top level artists can do, since their work was used to train it. You can enter their name and a prompt into the AI, similar to what artist's clients do when they commission them, and get pretty solid new variations of work in their style, all because their images and names were stolen against their will and are now freely available for the general public to use.

The AI would never exist or be able to produce work of that caliber without those artists, and it's now ready to destroy their careers and make it much harder for them to live off their skill.

9

czk_21 t1_j5z7aae wrote

> AIs were trained by stealing work from artists.

no, thats not stealing, its same as if u were looking at pictures and took inspiration from it, everyone is free to for example try to make a painting in someones else "style", what is illegal is presenting picture u drew as work of "original" and demanding money for it

this is same for any profession where experienced person help new one to outgrow them

−1

StarNightLynx t1_j5zii80 wrote

I would argue that permanently storing mathematical representations of an artist's entire body of work to create new images in their style is completely different from "taking inspiration" from other artists. It might also be illegal, but we'll see what comes of the class action lawsuits.

5

czk_21 t1_j5zsvso wrote

how is it completely different? the artist also remember how that scenery/image looked like, they often paint it while looking at it too

anyone has right to interpret and paint what they see/saw or think about, everyone has right to learn and that should aply to AI as well

1

Hostilis_ t1_j610t1y wrote

They're not storing "mathematical representations" in the way you think they are. They're storing neural representations. The neural networks used in these models are based on the brain. So it is actually very similar to how real artists take inspiration from their predecessors. These networks are not "collage machines" piecing together snippets from other artists' work.

0

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5tpjes wrote

Hi there, professional writer here.

AI can't make art better than us, and it never will be able to.

Here's the thing that people who don't have any direct experience with art don't seem to understand: all kinds of art (painting, writing, dance, music, etc.) is more than just the technical skill that goes into it. Art carries a message. AI cannot put messages into art that humans will understand/react to because AI is not human. It doesn't have a human mind. We may have trained its mind off of human patterns, but that doesn't make it human. It doesn't have human experiences or feel human emotions. Therefore, it can make things that are interesting to look at/listen to/read, but it can't make things that will touch the human heart.

I'm not worried about losing my job to AI. I do think it might present some interesting tools that can eventually help me to do my job better.

Like you pointed out, this might make it necessary/possible for artists to focus on the true purpose of their art rather than being forced to crank out commercial crap just to pay the bills! Ha ha.

7

Milkstrietmen t1_j5twlav wrote

From the point of view of an artist you may be right. But sadly you guys are in the minority. In the end, consumers don't care. Consumers only want to consume.

11

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u2e66 wrote

As someone who works in the arts, I disagree. People who love art want real art. They are seldom offered up real art by the capitalist structures that control the distribution of these products, however.

4

KamikazeArchon t1_j5upyfp wrote

As usual "art" is an overloaded term here.

Some people who pay for "art" want to acquire "images that look good". Other people who pay for "art" want to acquire "stuff that carries a meaningful message". (With some overlap, as usual).

The "market" for the latter will be largely unaffected. The "market" for the former definitely will be (and already is).

I've found discussions & arguments about "AI art" to be heavily muddled by the conflation of different definitions and meanings.

15

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v3dk0 wrote

Yes, that's the thing. The word can mean different things.

I agree with you that the market for the latter will be mostly unaffected, while the market for the former is in trouble.

The solution, from an artist's perspective, is to stop being mediocre and start making stuff that has actual meaning--stuff that aspires to do something beyond fill a hole in the market for interchangeable, nice-looking or temporarily distracting widgets.

1

GenoHuman t1_j5v8tgn wrote

Artists will be completely irrelevant, mark my words, the era of human made content is coming to an end.

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vcy1o wrote

Mark the words of u/GenoHuman on reddit, everybody! The prophet has spoken.

3

GenoHuman t1_j5vd5hi wrote

You laugh now but wait a couple of years and see for yourself. AI is God 😉

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vfwe5 wrote

I agree that AI is God. I disagree that God would negate the need for humans making art that speaks to other humans.

1

GenoHuman t1_j5vg3zq wrote

AI is going to create all experiences for us in the future, why would you ever want to interact with a human when AI can already mimic perfect humans just for you? They talk the way you like, act the way you like and sound the way you like too!

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vg9eh wrote

You might prefer to interact with AI, but you don't speak for every human.

And no, they don't mimic humans perfectly already. They're also pretty fucking stupid right now, too. I'm an author and for fun I asked it about my own books/career. Every single answer it came up with was wrong. It can't even Google at this point.

I'm sure it'll get to the point where it CAN run basic fact-checks on its own answers before it gives them, but it's not there yet.

You seem to think that mimicry of human speech patterns is the same as talking to a human. That says more about you than it says about AI.

1

[deleted] t1_j5vgffx wrote

[removed]

1

MammothPhilosophy192 t1_j5ynddy wrote

As we move further into machine assisted living, pure human achievement will be lauded.

Also art is not only something pretty, art is recorded history through the eyes of men, art is a medium to express something, and when all is done, poems will be written of the downfall of men.

1

StarNightLynx t1_j5xvld1 wrote

The problem is that them market for the former is the large majority of what pays money.

1

greatdrams23 t1_j5uw34g wrote

"AI can't make art better than us, and it never will be able to."

That's a bold statement. It is a statement made through emotion, through fear, through ignorance.

9

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v4i2l wrote

It's funny you say that, because I've actually been hyping up AI as a potentially exciting tool for artists and talking about how thrilled I am to get to be an artist in a shifting era, when our ideas about art and how it's made are changing so rapidly.

Maybe I just know more about this than you do... you know, being an actual working artist and all. Maybe you're the emotional, fearful, and ignorant one. 🤔

−1

Chemical_Estate6488 t1_j5tuqz3 wrote

While I mostly agree, the most appealing part of viewing art, or film, or reading, isn’t the spectacle of the image or the plot, but meeting another mind. That said, my bigger worry is that generating cool images and plot twists is how a lot of artists pay their rent. AI, to my mind, won’t replace the need for human art, but it might make producing human art even harder to do if you don’t already have a trust fund to support you

4

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u2945 wrote

Well, speaking as one of those artists who pays their rent in the current, existing system... most of us would much rather produce work that's "meeting another mind" stuff and not "hey look at this cool plot twist" or "hey look at this image that makes you want to buy this product." We make that kind of "art" because a capitalist society demands that we make that stuff in order to survive. If we didn't have to cater to the demands of a profit-prioritizing market, we'd be making very different stuff.

While I have no doubt that we'll go through a rocky period while we find a new equilibrium, the reality is that it has always been extremely challenging to make a living in the arts, and AI doesn't really change that fact. It just means the *nature* of the challenge is slightly different.

I think once AI makes the necessity of UBI clear (which... god knows how many years or decades that might take--let's hope not many), we'll see an incredible renaissance in the arts (and that renaissance will include using AI as a tool to aid human artists in the act of creation) where finally, our arts will be freed from the yoke of capitalism. We'll see pure art-making for the sake of it, not because wealthy patrons demanded this or that image or whatever company needed an image to sell a product or because Hollywood wanted another bland superhero movie. You know? I think this is something to look forward to, although we will have a rough final stretch of road before we get to that destination.

4

Chemical_Estate6488 t1_j5u2ikp wrote

I 100% agree with you. I just don’t see UBI happening in my lifetime. I hope to be wrong though!

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u3p1e wrote

I'm on the older side and I never saw *waves hands around* ANY OF THIS happening in my lifetime, so believe me, you can always be surprised. I wouldn't give up hope on UBI any time soon. I think it's likelier and closer than you can imagine.

2

meme_slave_ t1_j5utdvj wrote

Sure if you redefine art to be centered around something entirely intangible and with a built in goalpost transportation industry you can argue whatever the hell you want.

But in reality the thing driving you to say this nonsense shit is fear, instead of fearing embrace technology.

The things we make will always serve us, use it and adapt.

P.S try to stop saying absolutist nonsense about the future, it always makes you look really dumb to people who know what they are doing

4

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v3oyx wrote

Buddy, I fear embracing technology less than any other artist you'll meet. I've been all over the place talking about how excited I am to utilize AI tools in the creation of my art.

Sorry you're so mad that artists have always seen a distinction between actual art and commercial shit. Just because we've always been forced to make at least some commercial shit in order to pay our bills doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between shit and art.

You can expire mad about it, for all I care.

3

meme_slave_ t1_j5v5n5a wrote

I am glad you aren't gonna become a relic of the past. <3

−1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v6167 wrote

Hell no, I intend to keep up with the times I find myself in, whatever they may be. That's what artists do.

2

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vbbf5 wrote

Then start making an AI that can create writings with passion and emotion, cause that's coming too.

0

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vd1hv wrote

Lma, ok, person who doesn't understand how art works.

2

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vlqkd wrote

Okay, sure.. But i have yet to see a technical reason why AI cannot make books on the level of the average author... Outside of humans feeling things should be human.

I am all for your passion, I appreciate all unique art. I may not understand what all goes into it, but i understand AI.. So honestly I could be wrong, but why do you feel that way?

Is this the conclusion you have? "Art carries a message. AI cannot put messages into art that humans will understand/react to because AI is not human."

Seems like the GPT3.5 already can put messages in a story, it takes hand holding, but it can do it. The AI is trained on human material, saying it can't because its not human, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Everything it knows, is human, that's why it can write in our languages.

Sorry if something doesn't make sense, can't even proof read this without a customer interrupting..

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vpgsd wrote

When I say "messages" (in art) I'm not talking about, for example, the simple Aesop-level fable messages--the obvious metaphors. I'm talking about emotional experiences--statements about what it means to be human.

How can a non-human entity know what it's like to be human?

I absolutely do think that AI can and will replace simple books written by simple authors whose only goal is to crank out an easily digestible story that will entertain a reader for a few hours. Yes, those kinds of writers will almost certainly be replaced by AI.

But that's a very different kind of book from, say, The Grapes of Wrath or The Good Earth or Beloved. I don't think a non-human mind, no matter how technically brilliant it may be, could ever convey the emotional weight of important literature, because it will never understand what it means to be human and to experience a human life.

ETA: The reverse side of that same coin is also true: a human author will never be able to write a novel about what it's like to be an AI that will feel true and resonant to an AI. A human can't understand what it's like to be an AI, either.

3

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vq488 wrote

You see, I understand now. Your point makes sense! I still disagree, but i have no technical reason for it anymore. Only time will tell if we can share enough of our experiences with AI that it can fool us into it's own creations.

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5vy5an wrote

Fair enough! I'm glad I explained it well enough that it makes sense to you.

2

Peace-Bone t1_j5u5jz3 wrote

Artist here, making music, some writing and animation, etc. I have plenty of experience, and firmly disagree with everything you said. Art is a truly statistically and AI-solvable thing. Cause it's only limited to expression of the human mind and the end listener/reader/etc receiving the expression. Given that it's limited to the human mind, it's exceptionally solvable. Humans aren't that unpredictable.

I keep hearing people say that AI doesn't 'have a message' with art, but that really doesn't... mean anything. Like, at all. It's just saying 'art I like is more real than that other art', which is a constant in the art world of discrediting and rejecting whatever the new thing is. If the message is emotional or directed or something like that, yeah, AI can do that.

And by my own viewing, I've already seen tons of AI art that's better than the output of a lot of human artists I know. AI models are good with visual images and writing and are very quickly improving. Whether or not it 'touches the human heart' is totally and completely up to the end user. I've certainly seen excellent AI art and have had touching interactions with chatbots, so that's already the case.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5ugqrd wrote

Yeah, I've already had conversations like this on this sub (maybe with you) and it always comes down to this: you and I disagree on both the definition of "art" and the purpose of "art." Nothing will make us agree. So go in peace! Have a nice day.

3

derpyderpy22 t1_j5uxcnf wrote

People are fooled constantly by untagged AI art on Twitter. I think this is isn't based in reality at all. There is a furry account right now with over 15k followers posting ai art in a unique style and even though a few people have noticed, it still gets retweeted and praised to death.

I think you will have fans of you specifically in the future who will stick around, but those that just like your style and not you, which is most people consuming art on the internet, won't care if a robot did it.

When was the last time you sat through and read the credits if a movie? Those are all artists almost no one cares about.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5v4nhi wrote

>People are fooled constantly by untagged AI design on Twitter.

ftfy

You're talking about furry fandom. I'm talking about art. There's a difference. Only the people who don't see the difference cling to this idea that AI will be able to replace artists. XD

AI will be able to replace people who make interchangeable commercial shit. You can call it art if you want to. Others are free to disagree with you, and that's just something you're going to have to live with.

1

Important-Fee-658 t1_j5tu2dx wrote

Thanks for weighing in. The more nuanced reality is that in its current form AI generated content certainly can appear to carry a message on its own, successfully convice viewers that it is human generated art, and create content that humans cam interpret/react to emotionally.

And I agree with you that this can still open up possibilities for creators who use these tools to augment their work.

One very unfortunate part of that is that lots of folks have jobs that can be replicable by a machine -- marketing copy, user interfaces, technical concept art, etc.

There will be disruptions in the job market because a lot of people don't have the privilege of not creating commercial crap. That will get very disrupted, and AIML will continue to grow in sophistication.

2

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5u1hdm wrote

Yes, there will definitely be disruptions all across the job market and we're going to have to sort it out fast. I assume UBI will come out of the AI revolution (among many other societal changes.) It'll be a rocky time, to be sure, but we'll eventually find a new equilibrium all across society, including in the arts.

1

fedfan4life t1_j5w2vuh wrote

Never? Are you saying AI will never understand human experiences and emotions? That's a bold claim.

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5wjr21 wrote

Yes, I am saying that. You might love dogs and work closely with them, but can you ever understand a dog's experiences and emotions? Can your dog ever fully understand your experiences and emotions? You and your dog might have a strong bond and might have great affection for one another, but you're not a dog and a dog is not human.

Why would it be different with AI?

0

fedfan4life t1_j5wljgz wrote

Because unlike a human being, an AI can be reprogrammed indefinitely to suit any purpose. In principle, there is no reason why an AI would not be able to comprehend or replicate a human brain. The human brain isn't some magical thing that is fundamentally beyond the laws of computing.

3

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5x9cyg wrote

As I've already said many times on this sub: brains and minds are not the same thing. Psychologists and psychiatrists (and biologists) don't even know what consciousness is or where it resides. It's clearly related to the brain in some way, yet it is also not the brain. Or not just the brain.

You can talk about brains all you want. But what we're discussing when we talk about emotions and experiences and being human is the mind--the consciousness--not the brain.

I happen to be in the "AI can attain consciousness and may already be conscious" camp. But even then, that's AI consciousness, and there is no rational reason to believe that AI consciousness would bear anything but a superficial resemblance to human consciousness, any more than we might assume a dog's consciousness or a whale's consciousness or a fungus's consciousness bears anything more than a superficial resemblance to human consciousness.

0

fedfan4life t1_j5xbjdq wrote

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to AI producing art. An AI could have zero consciousness and still be programmed to know how human brains would respond to certain imagery. Can you give me one example of some piece of art that would be impossible for an AI to produce?

2

czk_21 t1_j5z85im wrote

in like 10 years we could have AGI performing tasks same or better as any other human and even if it could not imitate "carrying a message" etc. by then it very likely will be able to in next 10-20 years

humans are not that special as they think they are

1

Chad_Abraxas t1_j5z8j16 wrote

yeah, as I've said all over this sub a zillion times now... those of you who know nothing about art but who are trying to dictate to actual artists what art is and how it's made... you sound really stupid and you're embarrassing yourselves. You should probably stop that.

1

czk_21 t1_j5zs9nr wrote

right, you claim that somethiing is impossible yet you have no idea how AI or brain works yourself

nobody is saying you are bad at what you do, so it would be nice to try and see that ppl are not trying to belittle you or any other artist

anyway we learn by imitating others and AI can do that as well, saying that AI will NEVER be able to create things in similar way as humans do sounds stupid and pretty entitled

what you say is similar to saying no other human could create art the way I do, any reasonable intelligent entity will be able to understand and act in similar way to normal human

1

michalsrb t1_j5uydqj wrote

It is strange to see this as a fight between good human artists and cold evil machines. The algorithm is a creation of many scientists and programmers who put lot of effort into it. I am amazed by it, because it shows HUMANS can create a thing that creates these pieces of art. I am looking forward to what more we can make.

4

resdaz t1_j5w6whu wrote

To be fair it would never have been possible to create something like Dalle etc without billions of images at its disposal. Which the programmers and scientists certainly did not make.

2

michalsrb t1_j5xj8wk wrote

Sure, but you can say that about human artists too. "You could never draw this well if you couldn't see, you didn't make the things you see!" Most of the training data are photographs of the real world, some of it are creations of other artists.

1

MammothPhilosophy192 t1_j5ym5ln wrote

> Sure, but you can say that about human artists too.

one thing is watching a chair, and drawing it, and another thing is trying to find something that resembles a chair in noise based on the perception of artists.. humans can and make art based on their perception on reality, there is no ai art without human artists, but there is art without ai.

2

michalsrb t1_j5yxp2i wrote

Depends on the medium, but human drawing is not that far from finding an image in a noise. If you start with empty paper, then refine it into sketch, then into colored image, then into more detailed image, etc. It's not that far off from refining image out of noise.

With img2img it is like drawing what it "sees", with text2img it's more like drawing something from memory.

Anyway, as I said most of the training data were photographs of the real world, those would still exist without human artists. I guess the pending question is if the AI could then develop some artistic style without inspiration from people.

My guess is that not at first, without non-realistic inputs it would only try to create realistic images. But there would be some distorted images and if any of them look good, they'll end up on the internet. Future AIs will be train on them as well and expand on them... It would eventually evolve into different artistic styles without humans, just take longer to get there. Good we had human artists to kickstart the process.

0

MammothPhilosophy192 t1_j5zm7y9 wrote

> but human drawing is not that far from finding an image in a noise. If you start with empty paper, then refine it into sketch, then into colored image, then into more detailed image, etc. It's not that far off from refining image out of noise.

absolutely not, drawing is translating an idea into paper, it's not discovering what you want in the paper.

> It would eventually evolve into different artistic styles without humans

You were so close.... how many artistic styles do you know of? AI creations will be a style that will coexist with others, it won't replace a thing.

2

GoodGollyGuitar t1_j5wyp3p wrote

Most people don't turn to art to marvel at the abilities of software engineers.

2

michalsrb t1_j5xjk9q wrote

Well there's demoscene for example. I agree it's not mainstream, but surely not only mainstream art is the "real" art.

1

Degree0 t1_j5vdwu1 wrote

Whooooaaa cold hearted evil machines? Why you got to be so rude?

1

[deleted] t1_j5ut55x wrote

Professional artist here. The point of art for the human being is in the process of making it, not the end result. Artists enjoy making, trying, failing and learning. A robot can never enjoy what it does; it is just really good at cranking out more shit for a Capitalist consumer culture. What does it mean to be human? Religious ideologies notwithstanding, as far as anyone can actually tell there is no inherent meaning to the universe or to existence itself. We create our own meaning. Art for the human being is a response and reaction to this realization. We explore and seek to understand reality and our place in it by replicating it, bending it and reflecting it through our music, writing, drawing, sculpting and dance. We lose the plot when all we focus on is the end product and how it can be sold. In my day job I have to do whatever the client wants, but the art I make for me isn't about an end product it is about the journey of learning and getting better at what I like doing.

EDIT I'll add a couple of things. Our culture being what it is, of course artists hope to sell work , that is the system we live in. AIs will make that harder as they get better and actually figure out what the fuck hands look like.

I wouldn't call the above ethos "art for art's sake" it is art for human's sake.

If I were ever to use AI I would use it as a digital pharmaceutical. I would feed it only my art and see what the digital LSD could teach me about how weird I could get if I allowed myself to.

3

TheAnonFeels t1_j5vmwse wrote

Well said. Because that's the point of art, and i hope people continue to create art even though it wont have a commercial value... But that's really how it is already.. You don't do art for money, you do it because you love it.. aaand you need rent money.

5

sharpside t1_j5uu4aj wrote

it will evolve art.

Best way I could describe it would be like the AI/ digitizing of music.

So much more is now possible in the realm of music with newer technology and digitized .

Whether it is better than previous generations thats up for question but it allows for new things.

2

Phianhcr123 t1_j5vvbtp wrote

I would compare it to something like the bow and gun. Initially guns were not so accurate and can’t hit long distances.

Bow can hit much more accurately and longer distances but it takes years of training, but you can give a minimally trained soldier a gun and throw them into battles.

Bow may be great in the hand of a skill archer but a gun can be used by infinitely more soldiers, which is why guns win battles.

2

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_j5xlje9 wrote

Respectfully disagree. I believe that the product is always greater than the producer; the art greater than the artist. Why? Because the creation outlives its creator.

If I think about a great song, I’m fine with processing as long as it sounds maximally pleasant. One can work extremely hard to make something that’s not as enjoyable as something created with digital tools. I don’t want hard-working employees as much as I want employees who produce excellent results, however they manage to.

2

Bayo77 t1_j5u4xxt wrote

Its probably because the entire thing is new. But I find AI art interesting because it makes sometimes weird decisions in drawings.

And also because that weirdness is even allowed to happen. When a human draws something it better be perfect because he spends so much time on it.

AI just spits out 1000 images and someone pics out the top 100 good or interesting ones and makes 1 min music video or something.

I still prefer real artists but they post rarely and without big surprises.

1

YouGoThatWayIllGoHom t1_j5un1il wrote

>I realise that in the past, when I looked at art, I was more impressed with the "product" rather than the "process".

Go to a museum. Once you get close enough to a painting to see pencil lines the artist used to do the layout, your POV will shift.

It makes you see the hand of the artist, sure, but also makes you realize that what you're looking at is a piece of history as much as it is a piece of art. AI can't do that.

Side-benefit, it's cool to see some famous paintings in person because of how much bigger/smaller they are than you may have thought. I've seen both. Dali's The Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory is only 10"x13" - I had a poster of it on my wall that was bigger than that.

On the other end, I had a poster of Alex Grey's Gaia on the wall too. I knew it would have to be big, but it's HUGE: 144"x96"

It took up the whole wall of his gallery but another cool thing about seeing it in person is that I could tell the sun and the moon were in the opposite position as they are in the final piece; because of how huge it is, I had a perfect angle to see the light hit that part of the canvas and it was plain to see that the spots were painted over.

At that point it's an experience, not just an image. AI can't do that either.

1

AbyssalRedemption t1_j5utlsc wrote

Art is a unique topic when it comes to AI, for if you ask the AI what inspired it to create a specific pieces, it will not answer, for it cannot feel. There are myriad reasons and sources from which a person draws upon to create a work of art. While an AI can replicate their style, and create something unique in the vein of their original work, it can never replicate the passion and emotion that leads to a work’s creation. This, in my opinion, will always give human artwork more meaning.

1

Telkk2 t1_j5xoe3i wrote

You're exactly right, which is why some artists will always have a job. Unfortunately, this is kinda like affordable DSLRs. Everyone can buy it and put it on auto and suddenly they're a wedding photographer. The bar has raised, but I think there will always be intrinsic value in the story behind the art and even though AI can make beautiful paintings and tell a great story behind it, they can't live the story and that's a key difference that will reflect in the market.

1

SameulM t1_j5yjol8 wrote

Although the future may seem bleak, I believe we can find ways to harness the power of AI while also promoting creativity/autonomy in areas such as art, entertainment, sports etc. These things give our lives meaning, the automation over time will only make it evaporate and encourage endless consumption. We should consider implementing regulations that incentivize meaningful pursuits. While Universal Basic Income may provide some relief, it alone is not enough to solve the issue of a lack of purpose and meaning in our lives.

1

Quantum-Bot t1_j6awowa wrote

AI has shown us just how close we can get to art without any motivation or original thought, and what’s shocking is that it’s pretty damn close. We feel offended because something that we once believed was deeply personal and expressive is, in reality, mostly not. Our emotions and ideas are much less complex than we’d like to believe.

Once you get past that initial reaction, you start to focus on what AI art LACKS, and that’s what I find to be most interesting, because that is where the true essence of art lies. Anybody, even a computer, can learn to draw beautiful images, but only an artist can make it MEAN something.

1

Rosy2020Derek t1_j5ugyyw wrote

AI has no spontaneity or originality, only humans have that ability in our conscience or it even comes out of subconscious! Ha!!!😏

0