06-23-2023, 11:39 PM
suspicious_owl, very suspicious indeed. Man I hate when I see an AI post and it doesn't even have a cleverly hidden advertisement in it. What's the point?
Objectively speaking, human-made images certainly beat AI when it comes to intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. Intrinsic qualities being how it looks and what materials were used, which mainly applies to traditional art, and extrinsic qualities being things like its historical context. To use a Captain Obvious sort of example, an AI-generated Da Vinci portrait could never be worth what an actual Da Vinci painting, or even a half-thought-out doodle would be worth, even if it looks nearly the same.
Subjectively speaking, and I can only speak for myself here, a big part of why I like to look at specific paintings repeatedly is a feeling of appreciation for the effort, skill, and unique vision of the person who made it, and for the period of time it represents (even artworks from a mere 20 years ago have distinct stylistic/technical cues). And I've only felt this more acutely since AI art has started looking passable.
Of course, what catches my eye initially is just the appearance of a painting, but whether I ever feel like looking at it again depends on a closer examination. I have yet to be fooled by an AI image, because they all still have a distinct "look", and usually contain mistakes like the uneven horizon in the Poseidon picture you mentioned, but I can imagine being initially intrigued and then losing interest after learning that an image was AI-produced. I mean, this has already happened many times when I've looked at paintings by human artists and seen that they're made with almost exactly the same style and techniques as thousands of others. (The Internet and the demand for conformity and speed in the commercial world has produced this state of affairs.)
Of course, none of these are things that will stop AI from displacing as many artists as possible in the commercial world. Michael Whelan speculates that there will be a glut of AI-generated commercial art, possibly resulting in people feeling fatigued by AI imagery, leading to some demand for traditional artists coming back, though things will never be quite the same. I think he's probably right.
Amen.
(06-23-2023, 04:06 PM)JosephCow Wrote: But maybe the process, thought, skill, labor, human life behind something matters after all? I used to not think so very much, but now I wonder if an image produced in seconds by AI is worth the same as a nearly identical image produced by a person?
Objectively speaking, human-made images certainly beat AI when it comes to intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. Intrinsic qualities being how it looks and what materials were used, which mainly applies to traditional art, and extrinsic qualities being things like its historical context. To use a Captain Obvious sort of example, an AI-generated Da Vinci portrait could never be worth what an actual Da Vinci painting, or even a half-thought-out doodle would be worth, even if it looks nearly the same.
Subjectively speaking, and I can only speak for myself here, a big part of why I like to look at specific paintings repeatedly is a feeling of appreciation for the effort, skill, and unique vision of the person who made it, and for the period of time it represents (even artworks from a mere 20 years ago have distinct stylistic/technical cues). And I've only felt this more acutely since AI art has started looking passable.
Of course, what catches my eye initially is just the appearance of a painting, but whether I ever feel like looking at it again depends on a closer examination. I have yet to be fooled by an AI image, because they all still have a distinct "look", and usually contain mistakes like the uneven horizon in the Poseidon picture you mentioned, but I can imagine being initially intrigued and then losing interest after learning that an image was AI-produced. I mean, this has already happened many times when I've looked at paintings by human artists and seen that they're made with almost exactly the same style and techniques as thousands of others. (The Internet and the demand for conformity and speed in the commercial world has produced this state of affairs.)
Of course, none of these are things that will stop AI from displacing as many artists as possible in the commercial world. Michael Whelan speculates that there will be a glut of AI-generated commercial art, possibly resulting in people feeling fatigued by AI imagery, leading to some demand for traditional artists coming back, though things will never be quite the same. I think he's probably right.
(06-21-2023, 03:44 PM)Lege1 Wrote: In conclusion, I draw and paint because I was a child of the 80's and 90's who was encouraged by friends and family to pursue what I enjoyed doing, the whole do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life dream, etc, etc. I do genuinely enjoy the process of drawing and painting though, so I continue doing and will continue doing if only for self, and while pursuing paid opportunities where possible, but it is obvious that dreams of being a commercial artist are quickly diminishing with the rapid advancements, and development of the visual AI when it comes to being more on track with the drawing and painting aspects. It amazes me to still see artist like Jesper Ejsing and Alex Ross, doing commercial work, but analog, although Jesper does occasionally produce digitally. Either way to each their own and we all have to make a living while also having things we enjoy in our very short lives.
Amen.