AI Art Is It Art

Yes it is art. But it's art that if you think it's awesome and can easily afford to buy it and hang it on the wall it will probably not be worth what you paid for it if you tried to resell it when you want something else.

Consumer art

Gotta remembah always why Van Gogh so inspires us.

He was worth so much kinda nuthin' in his time he cut off his own ear before influencah-centric provocation was worth evrythin'.

Tellya, fkr been born today, he woulda been worth billions!

What a frickin' chump!

That is why instantly, easily, & totally kinda access to any ('n all) purported Nirvana will always be worth zackly shit.

The ravagers of the noplacescape will forevah feed the maws of the uninquisitive.

Yeah FFS that sounds kinda fascisti!

tbh all our finest sensibilities bein' ruthlessly plundahed rn.

So I would wish always to be diligent an' zacktin' in all I speak an' devour an witness.

Figure I the ultimate stoopid kinda ditz?

Turntive, go listen to (& propulse out thanks to) AI.

Here's your future, zackly as you wished it to be -- like you walked into a wall an' miraculously passed on thru as if you were a specter!

Into a haze of hitherto unseen obstacles, rolling out eternally before your insubstantial steps into air!

Hey, but dontcha want always jus' to peel back on a banana an' chomp on onea natyoore's gloriest evah tips?

Kinda BITE THE END OFF?

Gotta figure this is zero algorithmszzz smoochiein' close on the evident yummyture of IRL hooman blendyjuicy.

Anywan kissed nowan on thuh ear knows this.

& prolly AI kisses nowan on the actschwl ear.

Unless you are spending substantial funds on 'real' art - most 'art' won't be worth what you paid for it if you resell it. Until recently most 'art generators' I've seen have been for the more 'out there' images like dragons and fantasy lands. I like the 'photo into art' sites that put your photo on canvas as some of those end up looking quite a bit like a custom piece of art.

"Consumer art" is what people actually hang on the walls of their homes - unless they are very high dollar folks.

Some artists are trying to 'fight back' - but I'm not sure they can stop progress...they would be better off considering how to compete with it or work with it.

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...appy-about-it/

There's now more than enough existing data for AI programs to:

Compose articles
Write sales copy
Compile books
Create courses
Design computer games
Compose music
Make videos
Design graphics
Create artworks
Design and Print 3D sculptures
Create virtual worlds
Cook dinner

All of which have until recently been the province of human creativity.

So all that displaced creativity gets channeled into ways of manipulating the AI. Until the manipulation gets automated.

No bumps. No peaks. Universal creative equilibrium.

Zzzzz.

In the Web3 Twitter community, this is a very recurrent debate, you can check Claire Silver, who is a reference there, she's been a full-time artist for a long time and recently she has moved to the AI art niche...I can't give an in-depth analysis on this, I don't know much about it, but my opinion is that the brain and the heart of the artist are still behind the pieces of art, this is just another change of channel, so yeah, still art...I mean, some people consider a t*** a piece of art hahaha how can an amazing painting be considered art?

Gotta wish always for flourish of troo touch to be catalytic beyond indivyool fingahtips.

[Remind Moi, anywan, this is title of muh next post ovah on Copywritin' Forum. Less'n you want I head ovah to the delightful quasispeakspace they gaht at Violence of Impossible Horses.]

See bcs I cain't square AI an' cookin'.

Franksy Don reminds us how AI flourishes 'cross all areahs where once we mighta sweated out real crool.

So, hey -- what ima do with the zillion & wan zucchinis I scoop up in the store like a madwumman an' nevah actschwlly eat?

Surely you can fry these ripplin' devils into a delightfully imbibubyool treat don't require you gotta lay back onya bed in the dark lissnin' to nuthin' mebbe rhythmickyoole.

They my pounce preventahs when I desprit.

Othawise I would impose muh boobies 'pwahn evry darn hapless wandahah aroundah in muh buildin'.

An' I must nevah do that bcs so many ovvum're frickin' crackpots, tellya.

AI be like nowan can evah pull up their pants straight again, which is doubly sensitive Downhome Moi, bcs plenny people actschwly cain't.

Mebbe this is the ultimate test for AI.

How much bettah you make I pull on my panties for actschwaahn evry mornin'?

To sit at my desk.

To write out all catalytic schwango.

To mebbe shave muh legs kinda femininely multitasko, plus also any othah areahs need attention bcs global proliferation of glories.

Et voila.

Gotta wish always for myootchly advantageous smoochie of an immediately exotic natyuoore.

AI always gonna break yuh heart this way, even if it compels all to believe I can reincarnate yr dead frickin' chinchilla merely by flexin' muh fannyflaps accordin' to your choice of rhullijyouarse ceremonay.

Will corpses now pile up as I take the elevatah to the streets below?

An' will they say, "hey, ima dead. Butchya know that already ..."

Huh, least they askya.

AI so presumptive you jus' wanna slap it in the fayuss.

Top chess players use advanced AI / neural network engines to train and improve their own abilities in all aspects of the game.

As AI and deep learn improve and match or surpass elite level human performance. The are then used to improve the skills of the elite. Without the AI the only way for elite players to improve is to play each other but that gives no advantage.

But AI and deep learning also improve the speed at which humans can learn new skills and gain proficiency. So human artists won't go away the AI will push artists to create better art.

IMO art is only art when it's drawn by a human.

Given that chess computer programs eventually were strong enough to beat any grandmaster. It is only a matter of time before all the principals of art creation could be programed in to produce work that is indistinguishable from the work of great artists.

There are some great artists in the world though but the majority of people who create artwork are trained to do so. It has principles which are learnable.

In the spring I love to see the dandelions...yes I know they are 'weeds' but the cheerful yellow flowers say 'spring' to me.


I think art should come without expectations....whether someone imagined an image and AI created it - or an artist carefully crafted it with paint and brush....I like it or I don't.


The 'starving artist' is a caricature because it's so common - but a friend of mine has made a living from her art for decades. She's very talented but she knew most artists barely scrape by. So she took commissions for cruise ships and for hotels and convention centers. She had two children to raise so, as she put it "I don't have the luxury of having an artist's ego".


When you think of the most famous artists, their reputation is more often based on their 'style and methods' than on the subject matter. I wonder if combining AI with their own talent might allow more artists to earn a living.

Some Americans call Marvel and DC movies art.



With such a low bar to clear, surely you can find it in your heart to make some room for something generated by a machine?

IIRC, Alphago zero (and subsequent models in its lineage) were trained with nothing but the rules of the game of go.

But ironically, it reinforces savidge's point. Boardgames are the exception that proves the rule: it's possible to create data for chess because its environment is so simple.

Say you put a high definition camera with wide screen on a tripod and framed a scene in nature including grass, trees, sky and perhaps a few buildings, people etc. A good cross section of stuff. Then you can tell software to render the image in the style of any artist or combination thereof. Or, a random single or multipule choice style.

The software would have previously scanned artwork from various artists as an example. Just a question of coding for the AI to be able to do this. The results could be silkscreened or inkjet printed. Many print firms use giant inkjet printers for shorter runs these days.

Well that is something, (l guess l won't be posting Winter in America is Cold anytime soon, sorry Dan).


No, chess computers that moved the pieces where all the rage in the 90's onwards, (you can only get them online now, probably because of them breaking).

I would say , YES
The concept of art piece is much more important than the appearence
Just like marcel duchamp the famous masterpiece "The Fountain"

In my mind...and my art expertise (which is nonexistent), I think the value of art is usually in the story behind it.

That's a Rembrandt, a Picasso...

that vase was used in the Ming dynasty...

that is a picture painted by xxxxx.

I don't have anything against AI in art or anything for that matter. I'm just not sure what type of value it would hold compared to a piece with a compelling story behind it

Agreed.

True, l read Ken Dones book, and how he succeeded and it is really his name and art exhibits and or sales that allowed him to do a painting in a day and get 100k for it.

The Sig, and what is behind it is what gives it value, since the materials probably doesn't add up to any more than $150, and sure there is experience, but most of his work, honestly a 5 year old could match his work, (and he said he would be flattered if someone said his work is just as good).

But l can appreciate his basic designs, (Koala, Opera House) since they do take a lot of effort, (l tried to break into that area, a while ago, with T-shirts and such but it was too hard to come up with a good design niche).

A machine may be able to do nice paintings, but it can't develop a reputation.

I think so that this is one kind of good art.

i think yes and i agree with this

Nice, thanks for the topic. I'll look it up.

Received a message today from Shutter Stock asking me to take a survey about AI. Guess they are looking into this?

" What do you think about art made by AI?

Thanks for being part of the Shutterstock community. We'd like to hear your thoughts on the growth of content created by artificial intelligence, and what it means for the future of creativity. The survey only takes a few minutes and we appreciate your feedback--thanks in advance!

Take survey

Best,
The Shutterstock Team "

No one has to know when you're selling it on a canvas print. lol

I think it is art, however I don't believe it should have been allowed as an entry in a competition among human artists. The point of competitions like this to celebrate the skill, time, and creativity these people put into their art pieces and reward the best with a prize. Having an AI create art is cool, however I don't think it should of had a place in a competition unless it was against other AI's.

Now this is a sample of my AI Art I did a little earlier this afternoon.
I was just messing around and put in a prompt into the software
and this is what it kicked out for me.

Click Here

I'm pretty sure that is my mother-in-law in her after life. Of course she
has been dead for 20 years. Just kidding! She was a nice lady.

Ken

I just did some more AI Art The more I play with it the more fascinated I am. I want to do some really out there projects of AI

Click Here to see more samples

Ken

I got to play with it a few times, it is scary cool. It then led me down the rabbit hole of AI becoming self-aware etc... I watched this awesome interview with AI and Elon Musk. SCARY.