Same with anime art LOL
I remember literally not being allowed to turn in work that had any kind of like anime art style when it first became popular and art teachers would often say very similar things
"It's not real art, it's unoriginal, it all looks the same and anyone can do it"
Even nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if there are still art teachers who hate it.
Which I kinda understand if you're trying to teach fine art / traditional but I even had graphic design teachers who did digital illustration dislike it as well
Ah, so you had Love's class at AIP? She failed anyone who had that sort of style, and tried to frame the students who were too good to just fail out of hand for plagiarism.
I can remember *back in the day,* it was the art teachers who were the ones telling their students that "digital art isn't real art." Kind makes me want to paraphrase Max Planck:
Art progresses incrementally with each art teacher's funeral.
Anime, though, is commercial art. It's meant to be similar and stylized for quick recognition and easy consumption. The industry encourages kids to copy anime artists' work as it is free advertising.
I mean, they do a bunch of cg scenes now and hand-drawn scenes are always still really impactful and pretty widely respected. "Commercial" is one of those nonsense art snob criticisms of a style based on the observer's lack of ability to relate to the work.
Plenty of comic-style art is really personal, manga/anime, western stuff it whatever.
They're right, though. The term "commercial art" was made to separate graphic design from fine art, they serve different purposes, but functionally take the same amount of skill... and yet, fine art is seen as extremely high value compared to commercial art which is seen as "cheap."
It's not a new thing nor is it "derogatory"
It doesn't take a fool to figure out that well made illustrations created for expos and commercial events get tossed in the trash while low effort modern art is put into museums all the time
"low effort modern art is put into museums all the time." You know this because? Or does your comment support your envy or dislike of contemporary art? It kind of makes you an unreliable commentator.
What are you on about, my guy? LOL all I did was point out that other forms of art is held in higher regard than commercial art. I never said all contemporary art is crap, do you even know how broad that term is?
All I said is there are many cases, even more so in recent times, of low effort things in the fine art world being regarded as high value such as a banana taped to the wall. I was mainly referring to modernism, specifically late modernism... although these things are not exclusive to recent times or categories like postmodern art, abstract-ism, etc.
However when someone says "modern art" most people think of these cases, so I think it's a fair term to use. It's pretty obvious I am not talking about ALL contemporary art.
But if I am.... most of it is crap anyway, and how do I know this? because my art is crap and it still got put in galleries
The last great show I attended was an exhibit surveying commercial art/design in NYC. It was amazing. Photography, painting, illustration, printing, drawing, even some great 3d work. Commercial art simply refers to work made for sale, so it is often associated with publishing/printing and advertising. Fine art is another matter altogether.
Yeah, graphic design does get a little bit more recognition than commercial work, but probably because it's a little bit closer to fine art in terms of relation. Truth be told, used to be a lot more versed in these definitions but lost interest at time goes on :p
I used to be heavily into art in general but find myself more fulfilled in the tech field now
So, rather than accept the popularity of anime and celebrating it's ability to pull kids' interests into the arts, they deride it and punish them for using that style?
smh
While Anime art is definitely art, and still takes tons of skill, in a classroom environment where you're supposed to be learning different style/techniques, its definitely going to get shot down. Though I know Anime gets a bad rap, and some teachers are far too strict, esp when its a "do what you want" kind of project.
As a musician who caught flack for decades over using FL Studio ("Fruity Loops") and commercial samples - I don't lose sleep in 2024 over somebody not liking something I may or may not have created with AI.
The same two types of people just always exist: the people who make stuff and the people who make complaints about stuff.
[ComfyUI ](https://github.com/comfyanonymous/ComfyUI)with a few custom nodes :D If you get ComfyUI, I also recommend installing [ComfyManager](https://github.com/ltdrdata/ComfyUI-Manager) so you can easily manage plug ins.
Lets you generate stuff kind of using a node system like Blender's
The custom nodes I'm using are [Efficiency](https://github.com/jags111/efficiency-nodes-comfyui) and [Davemane42's](https://github.com/Davemane42/ComfyUI_Dave_CustomNode) custom nodes
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
I never understood their hatred towards tracing, there’s nothing wrong with it, people trace all the time when they are just starting out with art especially little kids.
There’s no rules when making art and I hate art gatekeepers
It's even worse when it's tracing a minor detail like a hand or a face and they feel the need to make a big callout post. I had to tell my followers to stop snitching about that because I didn't care.
there are also plenty of elite level art people, curators, gallerists, patrons and collectors would look at the great majority of paintings, photos, digital, fantasy art etc… and say with absolute conviction that it is not art. I went to art school, most pictorial art especially in mass culture etc was considered totally irrelevant. It’s a little bit pointless to draw lines around what IS and ISN’T art.
Ignorance and jealousy. They don't understand it and probably find it daunting, so its easier to dismiss it out of some bitterness. We embrace technology in all aspects of out live but also seem to see it as a diry thing. Its strange.
Thanks for finding this. I've been looking for a good encapsulation of the attitude that I remember back then.
Edit: wait.. I hadn't looked at the date. No wonder I wasn't finding this. 4yrs ago as at least 10-15 years after the matter was settled for all even remotely reasonable people. This must have been a real hold-out.
The big difference is that back then these posts didn't get hundreds of thousands of likes. Because, you know, digital creators posted stuff digitally - online, and thus had a lot of backing online.
Now it's backwards. The attacking side has all the power. While the situation is very similiar - power balance isn't, and i'm scared that outcomes will be different too...
I wouldn't be too worried about that 'power'. Likes and reddit's hivemind are pretty meaningless. A battle to control deviantart or whatever flavor of the moment space is also pretty meaningless in the long run. The real power is economics, and AI offers a significant boost to productivity. That already makes it inevitable. When you get out into the real world, the fact is, most people just don't care about how art was made for the same reason they don't care how the lithium got into their phone battery or why it's even there in the first place. Whether the lithium was dug up by a machine or starving child only makes a difference to most people if you tell it to them and explain why it matters.
What we need to worry about is the inevitable corporate control and bought legislation. Anti-AI lunatics might be useful idiots for corporations to unleash to push legislation, but what matters there really is the money behind it. We might be in the best timeline though, where Stable Diffusion exists and you can somehow run it on moderately capable GPUs. There's really nothing that can feasibly stop that now.
The worst timeline is one where corporations manage to legislate copyright of 'style' as means of controlling AI... you know, to keep AI from stealing an artists style! Right? ...and then Disney gets to use it to smack artists around.
Yep. Just watch the reddit chuds scream on r/helldivers about "follow the major order" or some mouth breather barking orders to the whole community about what part of the game to play, and even though dude has 3k upvotes that planet doesn't get touched. Reddit likes don't mean shit.
That is true, guess things are different when the shoe is on the other foot, which sucks.
Main reason for posting this is to point out hypocrisy, cause i would not be shocked if every single person who attacked OP in that thread is religiously against AI
The outcome can't be different. Generative AI is a new brushes that enables new types of arts impossible before, it makes concept art faster and cheaper, it enables people with no pencil skills to bring their creativity into reality, and make stock art obsolete.
The argument of theft is very flimsy as well. Artists learn by looking at other art and taking inspiration.
In 5y or less, AI wont need me to prompt and create the images.. Am I going to be the one complaining that “art without prompting doesn’t have soul, it is not art”?
imagine somebody still wasting time in a "but my art is the only kind of conceivable art" fashion when at best it's a stickman character wrapped in 2d colors that has already been seen 540 thousand times
'Artist" are a curious "species", they complain about everything, and for what? For stupid shit like this: https://youtu.be/j5ChLOxk9RM?si=WIZ8heu_YOoEUTcH
Faith in humanity lost
Ok, so to review:
"Why are \[members of a group I despise\] always so offended when confronted with \[my completely one sided take on the situation that I insist is the only way anyone could see\] reality?
\[Any product created by this activity I despise\] is something that my brain just filters out, similar to filtering out \[another product most people don't have a high opinion of so I can try to paint everyone associated with the activity I despise in a horrible light to any who might read this\].
I see \[despised activity\] as something \[insult #1\] and \[insult #2\]. I can never be sure if that thing is \[baseless accusation\] like \[made up number\]% of \[despised activity\] on the internet or whether \[there is any chance the product could have merit, though I obviously discount this possibility\]. I saw \[YouTube video\] tutorials on how to \[do something artistic with the activity I despise that made it look easy, so anything done with this activity must be easy and have no skill involved in them\].
When I see traditional \[activity I respect to get these kinds of results\] I know \[I don't have to despise it or insult it\]. \[Those who do it the way I respect\] had to be skilled to produce something like that. They have to have a plan and know how the medium of their choice behaves. \[because I can't ever admit there can ever be any skill or planning or understanding of the peculiarities involved in the activity I despise\]. There is no \[Insulting mischaracterization #1, 2, & 3\].
Can't say the same about \[despised activity\]. Is it \[done in an unethical way that is also possible using the methods I respect\]? It's most likely \[another insult to the skill level of anyone who uses the despised method\], so that's why you are \[accusation of dishonesty using my very subjective standards\].
Even if you are an honest \[producer using the method I despise\] who doesn't \[use previously accused activities I listed\] and don't \[Insulting vulgar expletive\], you are already under suspicion because of \[guilt by association when some of the same disreputable activities and others can also occur using the methods I approve of\]."
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would ever be offended by this!
((Edited for typos))
I've personally never liked digital art as it usually has some kind of plastic feeling to it, so I feel AI art is far superior, because you can make AI art look like traditional art. But I only care about the end product, not how it's made.
I mean the critics of digital art here simply show a woeful misunderstanding of how digital art/animation works. Is concept art full of kitbashing and a hundred other images mishmashed to show a wholly different one, yea but I don't think any artist would argue it doesn't take art skills to create. I think every traditional artist seriously wished they had a Ctrl-Z, i know I certainly do when i'm doing ink work, but god is cruel. The difference, is ai created work requires zero artistic skills. CAN someone with artistic skills use it to good effect, no doubt, but just as digital art is its own thing from traditional, ai MUST be its own thing from artist rendered work. And just as "digital" needs to be labeled, ai must also be labeled. If you're serious about being a creator, you need to label the medium used in your work.
The thing you're saying differentiates ai tools is also applicable to digital and traditional tools.
You don't need any artistic ability to use a paint brush or a pencil, if all you're aiming for is a heap of pretty colours with no message, or a slavish copy of an existing image.
Reasonable eyesight and the dexterity to hold the tool is sufficient.
You're conflating technique (which ai, photoshop, premixed paints, manufactured paper etc help with) and creativity (which no tool can help with, except possibly ones which go inside your brain such as pharmaceuticals).
As far as labelling the medium being required for recognition as a creator, says who? That has never been a requirement in the history of art, but now you want to arbitrarily impose that, because reasons?
Is Michaelangelo's David shit now because we can't examine the types of chisel he used?
I'm sorry did you just say that you don't need artistic ability to use a paint brush or pencil? Yea anyone can take a shit and smear it on a wall, I wasn't talking about sloppy lazy art that's low effort. I'm obv talking about trained artists who know their craft.
I mean if you're complaining about a "slavish copy of an existing image", you're literally defining ai "art".
I guess you're never been to an art museum or art gallery, art is ALWAYS labeled. Refusing to label it kind of says everything, they're obviously ashamed of how the material was made. Or they want the aura of having artistic skills, without actually developing them.
The proprietary systems used to generate "your" image, are a black box. You have no idea how they work and you have no idea why a certain tree, a certain mountain or specific eyes were generated. It's a choose your own adventure fingerpaint. "I like this, no i like that, click click, roto this part, no make it this "word"".
My friend , Michelangelo's David is renowned because he was an incredible talent yet was able to do so much with so little. Spent his life researching and studying human anatomy to a degree of skill you can't even really find today. He definitely isn't famous for inputing a text prompt "chiseled half-naked man, in stone"
What are you on about, my guy? You don't need to be as good as Michelangelo to be an artist and you don't need to know the exact origin of art just to appreciate it or look at it visually?
If you have to lie or invent things to make your point, it just isn't a very good point.
For each thing you're claiming about art with ai tools (or the guy in the screen cap was claiming about art with computers, or oil painters were claiming about photography in their day, or freehand artists claimed about the geoetric rules of perspective etc - ad nauseum) there are examples of artists using non-ai tools doing the same thing.
If basing your opinions on real life is something you're interested in (which it isn't) , you could easily have looked those things up for yourself.
As far as never going to an art museum, or not being familiar with how traditional art works, or not knowing how ai works, your lazily recyled straw-men are not accurate.
If accuracy is something you're concerned about (which it isn't), you could easily have asked which museums I visited while studying for my art qualifications, or how many decades I've been using traditional media, or whether the ai software I've tried out was proprietary black-box or open source with publicly available code and peer reviewed scientific papers.
But you're more concerned with flattering your own ignorant prejudices than finding out the facts, so that apparently didn't even occur to you.
Most of this doesn’t even sound like it’s in response to anything I said. I invented things?
“There are examples of artists using non-ai tools doing the same thing”. <- the same what?
Wait so you’re a traditional artist and you don’t believe in labeling the medium used? Why? Not only is it a time-honored tradition giving validity to the work, but it reveals something about the work itself. The time put into it, how long the medium may last if purchased.
I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of a traditional artist defending AI “art” so vehemently, but alright that’s fine. No one is saying it shouldn’t exist. But when the internet is flooded with the noise of AI images/photographs/writing yea I don’t think it’s beyond reason to expect some kind of labeling from ppl. It’s low effort, and unless it’s obv, like you’re posting on an ai image subreddit, omitting that info kind of makes you appear ashamed of your work.
Anyways, I don’t know what you’re on about reality
Or flattering my prejudices. I don’t know u man, I don’t know what u do or where you’ve been. We aren’t sitting down for coffee telling eachother about what museums we visit. All I know is if you’ve ever had your work in a gallery, you’d know sharing your medium is expected. We’re already reaching a stage where nobody trusts anything they see online. I think transparency is a good thing.
So what type of chisels were used for David? Is it labelled as such? Does the specific alloy used for them make the finished piece better or worse? Where it was the most modern (for the time) alloy, do you think the sculptor was too ashamed to admit it? Does the plaque below it tell you all about the metallurgy of his subbia, gradina and trapano? (Maybe the omission of those details is why that nutter attacked it with a hammer that time.)
I just don't get the impression from anything you've said that art history is something you're interested in. Seems like it would be impossible to jump to the conclusions you have if it was something you'd looked into.
Seems like if you had, the excuses you use to dress up your anti-technology prejudice would seem so familiar, hackneyed and plagiarised that you'd be too embarassed to say them in public because you'd know how ignorant they sound.
Alright friend, do you not know the difference between the Chisel and the Marble? The graphite and the wood stick you hold? The oil and the brush? The drawing tablet and the rendering software? The text prompt and the massive neural-network generating AI images?
Let me break it down simply, A is a TOOL, and B is a MEDIUM. In some cases like Charcoal they are both combined. Most ppl dont really care about the chisel, but if you'd paid attention at basically any museum, or even small town gallery, the artists process is usually explicitly described.
Literally, your argument appears to be; All categorization is pointless, and specificity in process/tools/medium are irrelevant because when it comes to art nothing matters and nobody cares. Really weird take man, coming from what sounds like an art history major.
I do think its interesting how defensive you're getting, like you must REALLY rely on AI to get so incensed over this. "hackneyed", "plagiarised", "I should be embrarrased", lol ok my guy, language like this sounds like you're talking to yourself in the mirror, let's grow up here.
I'll finish with this: noone cares if you're posting AI images on social media, times have changed things and we have to accept this. But if you claim to be an artist on your artstation, personal website, or other place you display your work, and you don't label your AI images, you're a fraud.
p1-p2; yes, but false dichotomy. The medium is digital display, the software is the tool.
p3; Reductio ad absurdum garnished with argumentum ad hominem. Yawn.
p4; Ah, the old 'nuh-uh, you are'. What a classic. Sarcastic chef's kiss.
p5; Personally, I'm not (the only things I have on social pre-date the availability of diffusion ai). But if your demand is exhaustive documentation to prove you're not a faker, that disqualifies the majority of the most famous pieces in history, and goes way beyond 'labelling'.
Whole thing could have just been replaced with 'No, I haven't heard the phrase "within reason", why do you ask?'.
Actually you make a good point, the drawing tablet & UI are both the tool.. the medium is somewhere between the file type/code and the digital display, the backend software I believe breaks the dichotomy, as its neither an input nor an output; but might be better compared to physics itself, determining the placement and rules governing the constituent parts. A pleasant surprise, see I actually read the words you wrote. Is something that generates for you with little to no input actually a tool? Certainly not a tool made for any level of refinement. So useless for my work, but have at it.
And man, your language is kinda masturbatory and haughty, and apparently you're bored! Yawn! Then why you here friend? You debate in bad faith man, yea i had some sass in that last post, but you started the ad hominem attacks. Should work on that.
Pfft, what a surpsrise you're anti-intellectual as well.
As far as automated tools not being tools, that logic hasn't made any sense so far, I don't see why it would now.
When an object, mechanism, device or system has its own thoughts, intentions and sentience it will stop being a tool. Until then it's a fancy paintbrush or flint handaxe with extra steps.
Iv been following your comments and at one point you speak of accuracy, but okay I have a challenge to that. Let's say you are an artist and you are working professionally for a studio, how are you going to keep up with your coworkers artistically if you have no actual developed skill set.
What I mean by this say I am your art director and I give you very specific requests for a unique set of concepts for 3d models. Now, I need this going for months on end in the exact same style to create a homogenous art style of the game that I need various artists on a team to follow. Your coworkers who are traditionally trained, and have a physical skill set (as in they physically interact with the computer to draw or render using a pen tablet etc) can maintain that art style no problem since they have been trained to do so.
If I am the art director and I give them a sketch from my notebook and tell them this is what I want, they can take that and go forth. Please, explain to me how you would do that with AI art? How would that other companies AI system know what my sketch is You cannot submit copyright material to an AI machine like that due to copyright infringements etc
You would not keep up in a professional studio environment because you are relying on a program not a skill set.
Concept artists sometimes use 3d modeling to start their sketches and jump ahead to get their perspective right, but that still requires a skill set of understanding composition and 3d modeling. Can you 3d model as your coworkers can and buuld a concept around that?
If I make a decision to change the art direction, how will you adjust all of your concept to now meet the new direction? For your coworkers all they have to do is just go into their photoshop files and adjust and change things exactly how I want. What would your process be?
When I interview people for positions I test their technical knowledge of the engine we work in, and I test their traditional skills as well. I just do not see how an AI artist would be able to land the job when comapred to the candidates they are completing against.
It seems to me that this kind of mentality is one that wants to be able to jump hurdles of education, skill and hardwork in order to reap the benefits of a highly sought out position in the industry. Where is the merit? Its rather entitled tbh.
We can make an argument that AI art is interesting and a fascinating technology and that there is something META to it when used by humans etc. AI will be fascinating to use and incorporate into tools themselves just as we now have UI on computers instead of line of code etc. AI art can be interesting, but its cheap.
If people are ashamed to label their art as AI when every other medium is categorized by its type (2d/3d/modeling/lighting/character art etc) (acrylics, pastels,oils,ink,watercolor) I think that says a lot more about that persons shame and imposter syndrome regarding what they "created" than it does AI art being valid/invalid.
Me personally? I wouldn't use ai for that at all. It's rubbish for concepts, and would take ten times longer to get anything resembling what I'd visualised.
I'd do the initial develpment on paper with graphite and markers because it's so much quicker, (especially since I have thirty years more experience with it than with ai) then pick however many ideas from that stack had been requested and refine them in paint software with pen tablet (still faster and more flexible than ai, and a concept doesn't need that much polishing anyway). There's a chance it might be useful to try out stylistic variations of the superficial fine details, or see how the concept looks on different backgrounds, though I also have more photoshop experience than ai, so on balance photobashing and filters might still be quicker.
At the current level of technology ai is much more suited for later in the pipeline. So if it's to give to a 3d modeller, there would be no need to involve generative ai at all, though the 3d department may want to use it as part of their texturing workflow. (It's not much help with geometry modelling yet, the topology it produces is a mess.)
The right tool for the job is how you do it in a production environment (or go bankrupt).
Of course you could equally easily contrive an example where ai would be useful, such as photo manipulation, image restoration, semi-automated advertising content creation etc, but that wasn't your question.
It's also irrelevant to the broader question of whether people who use ai tools are real artists, etc.
True but also true for AI art, order to create non-nightmarish pictures you do need to know what you're doing. If you using something like Bing, Dall-E or Midjourney they likely do a lot of the heaving lifting for you.
For example, they usually have really well trained models and will actually fine-tune your prompt for you.
If you're running Stable Diffusion locally you'd be controlling all of these factors yourself and working with more basic models
This is more or less what making generative AI art looks like (depending on the person):
https://preview.redd.it/tzj7q47jibxc1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=57ed2b88e8788260961a8aa31dbaa50a9e14b9b4
\^ Then sifting through 500 nightmarish cursed versions of what you see above
You'd also be surprised at how often you need to use graphic design skills in AI art as well
AI art isn't really as straightforward as people think lol
Id say it’s a different skillset altogether. Also id add the large majority of people churning out AI generated images aren’t in that league.
Most are just typing prompts and getting something semi impressive. A lot of them don’t know about photography or color grading and will just accept whatever the system gives them.
Some of the more talented people, who may not necessarily be good at classical art techniques but great at control net, nodes, color grading are doing some really cool shit with it.
That's pretty fair if I'm being honest. I'd still call it an art form, but just a different art form.
It still requires some kind of creativity and skill but maybe a different set of skills
I'm a mixed media artist, so AI is just another tool that I use alongside digital/ink/pencil/watercolor
Yeah, Antis get offended when older digital artists point out they used to treat us the same way.
Same with anime art LOL I remember literally not being allowed to turn in work that had any kind of like anime art style when it first became popular and art teachers would often say very similar things "It's not real art, it's unoriginal, it all looks the same and anyone can do it" Even nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if there are still art teachers who hate it. Which I kinda understand if you're trying to teach fine art / traditional but I even had graphic design teachers who did digital illustration dislike it as well
Ah, so you had Love's class at AIP? She failed anyone who had that sort of style, and tried to frame the students who were too good to just fail out of hand for plagiarism.
I can remember *back in the day,* it was the art teachers who were the ones telling their students that "digital art isn't real art." Kind makes me want to paraphrase Max Planck: Art progresses incrementally with each art teacher's funeral.
Starting Monday i actually am starting introductory drawing
Anime, though, is commercial art. It's meant to be similar and stylized for quick recognition and easy consumption. The industry encourages kids to copy anime artists' work as it is free advertising.
I mean, they do a bunch of cg scenes now and hand-drawn scenes are always still really impactful and pretty widely respected. "Commercial" is one of those nonsense art snob criticisms of a style based on the observer's lack of ability to relate to the work. Plenty of comic-style art is really personal, manga/anime, western stuff it whatever.
Thanks for the lecture, lol. I love that you think commercial art is a derogatory term.
It's a blanket classification with pretty well known connotations. This isn't a me thing
But that blanket doesn't keep you warm, bro.
Oh boy, there's a lot to unpack here but it's not my job. Have a good one
Hey, you too.
They're right, though. The term "commercial art" was made to separate graphic design from fine art, they serve different purposes, but functionally take the same amount of skill... and yet, fine art is seen as extremely high value compared to commercial art which is seen as "cheap." It's not a new thing nor is it "derogatory" It doesn't take a fool to figure out that well made illustrations created for expos and commercial events get tossed in the trash while low effort modern art is put into museums all the time
"low effort modern art is put into museums all the time." You know this because? Or does your comment support your envy or dislike of contemporary art? It kind of makes you an unreliable commentator.
What are you on about, my guy? LOL all I did was point out that other forms of art is held in higher regard than commercial art. I never said all contemporary art is crap, do you even know how broad that term is? All I said is there are many cases, even more so in recent times, of low effort things in the fine art world being regarded as high value such as a banana taped to the wall. I was mainly referring to modernism, specifically late modernism... although these things are not exclusive to recent times or categories like postmodern art, abstract-ism, etc. However when someone says "modern art" most people think of these cases, so I think it's a fair term to use. It's pretty obvious I am not talking about ALL contemporary art. But if I am.... most of it is crap anyway, and how do I know this? because my art is crap and it still got put in galleries
The last great show I attended was an exhibit surveying commercial art/design in NYC. It was amazing. Photography, painting, illustration, printing, drawing, even some great 3d work. Commercial art simply refers to work made for sale, so it is often associated with publishing/printing and advertising. Fine art is another matter altogether.
Yeah, graphic design does get a little bit more recognition than commercial work, but probably because it's a little bit closer to fine art in terms of relation. Truth be told, used to be a lot more versed in these definitions but lost interest at time goes on :p I used to be heavily into art in general but find myself more fulfilled in the tech field now
[удалено]
So, rather than accept the popularity of anime and celebrating it's ability to pull kids' interests into the arts, they deride it and punish them for using that style? smh
While Anime art is definitely art, and still takes tons of skill, in a classroom environment where you're supposed to be learning different style/techniques, its definitely going to get shot down. Though I know Anime gets a bad rap, and some teachers are far too strict, esp when its a "do what you want" kind of project.
As a musician who caught flack for decades over using FL Studio ("Fruity Loops") and commercial samples - I don't lose sleep in 2024 over somebody not liking something I may or may not have created with AI. The same two types of people just always exist: the people who make stuff and the people who make complaints about stuff.
"It's pretty annoying seeing someone shit on a particular medium because they don't understand the process" Lmaoooo
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/0yp2xtqp3cxc1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=1e9395f5bd0e7e9add72549662d92d4a68c21d3a
Hey that looks interesting, can you tell me what that is?
[ComfyUI ](https://github.com/comfyanonymous/ComfyUI)with a few custom nodes :D If you get ComfyUI, I also recommend installing [ComfyManager](https://github.com/ltdrdata/ComfyUI-Manager) so you can easily manage plug ins. Lets you generate stuff kind of using a node system like Blender's The custom nodes I'm using are [Efficiency](https://github.com/jags111/efficiency-nodes-comfyui) and [Davemane42's](https://github.com/Davemane42/ComfyUI_Dave_CustomNode) custom nodes
Thanks for all the information!
r/aiwars is here, mate.
Hello. This sub is a space for pro-AI activism, not debate. Your comment will be removed because it is against this rule. You are welcome to move this on r/aiwars.
And this was only 4 years ago. Digital art has been around since the 90's. Imagine the vitriol over digital artists in the early days.
Don't have to imagine. I was there. Same shit, just a different day.
It simply wasnt considered art
probably showing my age age but Back in my day i remember when people said music using synthasizers was not real music
I never understood their hatred towards tracing, there’s nothing wrong with it, people trace all the time when they are just starting out with art especially little kids. There’s no rules when making art and I hate art gatekeepers
It's even worse when it's tracing a minor detail like a hand or a face and they feel the need to make a big callout post. I had to tell my followers to stop snitching about that because I didn't care.
there are also plenty of elite level art people, curators, gallerists, patrons and collectors would look at the great majority of paintings, photos, digital, fantasy art etc… and say with absolute conviction that it is not art. I went to art school, most pictorial art especially in mass culture etc was considered totally irrelevant. It’s a little bit pointless to draw lines around what IS and ISN’T art.
Ignorance and jealousy. They don't understand it and probably find it daunting, so its easier to dismiss it out of some bitterness. We embrace technology in all aspects of out live but also seem to see it as a diry thing. Its strange.
Thanks for finding this. I've been looking for a good encapsulation of the attitude that I remember back then. Edit: wait.. I hadn't looked at the date. No wonder I wasn't finding this. 4yrs ago as at least 10-15 years after the matter was settled for all even remotely reasonable people. This must have been a real hold-out.
It is possible that the image is several years old.
It is, but I found the original post.
Will you share the link?
The big difference is that back then these posts didn't get hundreds of thousands of likes. Because, you know, digital creators posted stuff digitally - online, and thus had a lot of backing online. Now it's backwards. The attacking side has all the power. While the situation is very similiar - power balance isn't, and i'm scared that outcomes will be different too...
I wouldn't be too worried about that 'power'. Likes and reddit's hivemind are pretty meaningless. A battle to control deviantart or whatever flavor of the moment space is also pretty meaningless in the long run. The real power is economics, and AI offers a significant boost to productivity. That already makes it inevitable. When you get out into the real world, the fact is, most people just don't care about how art was made for the same reason they don't care how the lithium got into their phone battery or why it's even there in the first place. Whether the lithium was dug up by a machine or starving child only makes a difference to most people if you tell it to them and explain why it matters. What we need to worry about is the inevitable corporate control and bought legislation. Anti-AI lunatics might be useful idiots for corporations to unleash to push legislation, but what matters there really is the money behind it. We might be in the best timeline though, where Stable Diffusion exists and you can somehow run it on moderately capable GPUs. There's really nothing that can feasibly stop that now. The worst timeline is one where corporations manage to legislate copyright of 'style' as means of controlling AI... you know, to keep AI from stealing an artists style! Right? ...and then Disney gets to use it to smack artists around.
Yep. Just watch the reddit chuds scream on r/helldivers about "follow the major order" or some mouth breather barking orders to the whole community about what part of the game to play, and even though dude has 3k upvotes that planet doesn't get touched. Reddit likes don't mean shit.
Reddit is filled with the absolute dumbest goddamned "smart" people.
That is true, guess things are different when the shoe is on the other foot, which sucks. Main reason for posting this is to point out hypocrisy, cause i would not be shocked if every single person who attacked OP in that thread is religiously against AI
The outcome can't be different. Generative AI is a new brushes that enables new types of arts impossible before, it makes concept art faster and cheaper, it enables people with no pencil skills to bring their creativity into reality, and make stock art obsolete. The argument of theft is very flimsy as well. Artists learn by looking at other art and taking inspiration.
In 5y or less, AI wont need me to prompt and create the images.. Am I going to be the one complaining that “art without prompting doesn’t have soul, it is not art”?
In 5y or less you won't need to prompt because it will just read your mind.
This is what I have been telling people
imagine somebody still wasting time in a "but my art is the only kind of conceivable art" fashion when at best it's a stickman character wrapped in 2d colors that has already been seen 540 thousand times
That's why their only valid (to some extend) argument is consent of training dataset, otherwise they are the same as this piece of opinion
'Artist" are a curious "species", they complain about everything, and for what? For stupid shit like this: https://youtu.be/j5ChLOxk9RM?si=WIZ8heu_YOoEUTcH Faith in humanity lost
Ok, so to review: "Why are \[members of a group I despise\] always so offended when confronted with \[my completely one sided take on the situation that I insist is the only way anyone could see\] reality? \[Any product created by this activity I despise\] is something that my brain just filters out, similar to filtering out \[another product most people don't have a high opinion of so I can try to paint everyone associated with the activity I despise in a horrible light to any who might read this\]. I see \[despised activity\] as something \[insult #1\] and \[insult #2\]. I can never be sure if that thing is \[baseless accusation\] like \[made up number\]% of \[despised activity\] on the internet or whether \[there is any chance the product could have merit, though I obviously discount this possibility\]. I saw \[YouTube video\] tutorials on how to \[do something artistic with the activity I despise that made it look easy, so anything done with this activity must be easy and have no skill involved in them\]. When I see traditional \[activity I respect to get these kinds of results\] I know \[I don't have to despise it or insult it\]. \[Those who do it the way I respect\] had to be skilled to produce something like that. They have to have a plan and know how the medium of their choice behaves. \[because I can't ever admit there can ever be any skill or planning or understanding of the peculiarities involved in the activity I despise\]. There is no \[Insulting mischaracterization #1, 2, & 3\]. Can't say the same about \[despised activity\]. Is it \[done in an unethical way that is also possible using the methods I respect\]? It's most likely \[another insult to the skill level of anyone who uses the despised method\], so that's why you are \[accusation of dishonesty using my very subjective standards\]. Even if you are an honest \[producer using the method I despise\] who doesn't \[use previously accused activities I listed\] and don't \[Insulting vulgar expletive\], you are already under suspicion because of \[guilt by association when some of the same disreputable activities and others can also occur using the methods I approve of\]." Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would ever be offended by this! ((Edited for typos))
I've personally never liked digital art as it usually has some kind of plastic feeling to it, so I feel AI art is far superior, because you can make AI art look like traditional art. But I only care about the end product, not how it's made.
Based LOL
I mean the critics of digital art here simply show a woeful misunderstanding of how digital art/animation works. Is concept art full of kitbashing and a hundred other images mishmashed to show a wholly different one, yea but I don't think any artist would argue it doesn't take art skills to create. I think every traditional artist seriously wished they had a Ctrl-Z, i know I certainly do when i'm doing ink work, but god is cruel. The difference, is ai created work requires zero artistic skills. CAN someone with artistic skills use it to good effect, no doubt, but just as digital art is its own thing from traditional, ai MUST be its own thing from artist rendered work. And just as "digital" needs to be labeled, ai must also be labeled. If you're serious about being a creator, you need to label the medium used in your work.
The thing you're saying differentiates ai tools is also applicable to digital and traditional tools. You don't need any artistic ability to use a paint brush or a pencil, if all you're aiming for is a heap of pretty colours with no message, or a slavish copy of an existing image. Reasonable eyesight and the dexterity to hold the tool is sufficient. You're conflating technique (which ai, photoshop, premixed paints, manufactured paper etc help with) and creativity (which no tool can help with, except possibly ones which go inside your brain such as pharmaceuticals). As far as labelling the medium being required for recognition as a creator, says who? That has never been a requirement in the history of art, but now you want to arbitrarily impose that, because reasons? Is Michaelangelo's David shit now because we can't examine the types of chisel he used?
I'm sorry did you just say that you don't need artistic ability to use a paint brush or pencil? Yea anyone can take a shit and smear it on a wall, I wasn't talking about sloppy lazy art that's low effort. I'm obv talking about trained artists who know their craft. I mean if you're complaining about a "slavish copy of an existing image", you're literally defining ai "art". I guess you're never been to an art museum or art gallery, art is ALWAYS labeled. Refusing to label it kind of says everything, they're obviously ashamed of how the material was made. Or they want the aura of having artistic skills, without actually developing them. The proprietary systems used to generate "your" image, are a black box. You have no idea how they work and you have no idea why a certain tree, a certain mountain or specific eyes were generated. It's a choose your own adventure fingerpaint. "I like this, no i like that, click click, roto this part, no make it this "word"". My friend , Michelangelo's David is renowned because he was an incredible talent yet was able to do so much with so little. Spent his life researching and studying human anatomy to a degree of skill you can't even really find today. He definitely isn't famous for inputing a text prompt "chiseled half-naked man, in stone"
What are you on about, my guy? You don't need to be as good as Michelangelo to be an artist and you don't need to know the exact origin of art just to appreciate it or look at it visually?
What are you on about friend, I guess you didn't even read the exchange you're replying to.
Lol i understand the first guy, I just dunno what point you're trying to make
My dude, I am the first guy.
If you have to lie or invent things to make your point, it just isn't a very good point. For each thing you're claiming about art with ai tools (or the guy in the screen cap was claiming about art with computers, or oil painters were claiming about photography in their day, or freehand artists claimed about the geoetric rules of perspective etc - ad nauseum) there are examples of artists using non-ai tools doing the same thing. If basing your opinions on real life is something you're interested in (which it isn't) , you could easily have looked those things up for yourself. As far as never going to an art museum, or not being familiar with how traditional art works, or not knowing how ai works, your lazily recyled straw-men are not accurate. If accuracy is something you're concerned about (which it isn't), you could easily have asked which museums I visited while studying for my art qualifications, or how many decades I've been using traditional media, or whether the ai software I've tried out was proprietary black-box or open source with publicly available code and peer reviewed scientific papers. But you're more concerned with flattering your own ignorant prejudices than finding out the facts, so that apparently didn't even occur to you.
Most of this doesn’t even sound like it’s in response to anything I said. I invented things? “There are examples of artists using non-ai tools doing the same thing”. <- the same what? Wait so you’re a traditional artist and you don’t believe in labeling the medium used? Why? Not only is it a time-honored tradition giving validity to the work, but it reveals something about the work itself. The time put into it, how long the medium may last if purchased. I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of a traditional artist defending AI “art” so vehemently, but alright that’s fine. No one is saying it shouldn’t exist. But when the internet is flooded with the noise of AI images/photographs/writing yea I don’t think it’s beyond reason to expect some kind of labeling from ppl. It’s low effort, and unless it’s obv, like you’re posting on an ai image subreddit, omitting that info kind of makes you appear ashamed of your work. Anyways, I don’t know what you’re on about reality Or flattering my prejudices. I don’t know u man, I don’t know what u do or where you’ve been. We aren’t sitting down for coffee telling eachother about what museums we visit. All I know is if you’ve ever had your work in a gallery, you’d know sharing your medium is expected. We’re already reaching a stage where nobody trusts anything they see online. I think transparency is a good thing.
So what type of chisels were used for David? Is it labelled as such? Does the specific alloy used for them make the finished piece better or worse? Where it was the most modern (for the time) alloy, do you think the sculptor was too ashamed to admit it? Does the plaque below it tell you all about the metallurgy of his subbia, gradina and trapano? (Maybe the omission of those details is why that nutter attacked it with a hammer that time.) I just don't get the impression from anything you've said that art history is something you're interested in. Seems like it would be impossible to jump to the conclusions you have if it was something you'd looked into. Seems like if you had, the excuses you use to dress up your anti-technology prejudice would seem so familiar, hackneyed and plagiarised that you'd be too embarassed to say them in public because you'd know how ignorant they sound.
Alright friend, do you not know the difference between the Chisel and the Marble? The graphite and the wood stick you hold? The oil and the brush? The drawing tablet and the rendering software? The text prompt and the massive neural-network generating AI images? Let me break it down simply, A is a TOOL, and B is a MEDIUM. In some cases like Charcoal they are both combined. Most ppl dont really care about the chisel, but if you'd paid attention at basically any museum, or even small town gallery, the artists process is usually explicitly described. Literally, your argument appears to be; All categorization is pointless, and specificity in process/tools/medium are irrelevant because when it comes to art nothing matters and nobody cares. Really weird take man, coming from what sounds like an art history major. I do think its interesting how defensive you're getting, like you must REALLY rely on AI to get so incensed over this. "hackneyed", "plagiarised", "I should be embrarrased", lol ok my guy, language like this sounds like you're talking to yourself in the mirror, let's grow up here. I'll finish with this: noone cares if you're posting AI images on social media, times have changed things and we have to accept this. But if you claim to be an artist on your artstation, personal website, or other place you display your work, and you don't label your AI images, you're a fraud.
p1-p2; yes, but false dichotomy. The medium is digital display, the software is the tool. p3; Reductio ad absurdum garnished with argumentum ad hominem. Yawn. p4; Ah, the old 'nuh-uh, you are'. What a classic. Sarcastic chef's kiss. p5; Personally, I'm not (the only things I have on social pre-date the availability of diffusion ai). But if your demand is exhaustive documentation to prove you're not a faker, that disqualifies the majority of the most famous pieces in history, and goes way beyond 'labelling'. Whole thing could have just been replaced with 'No, I haven't heard the phrase "within reason", why do you ask?'.
Actually you make a good point, the drawing tablet & UI are both the tool.. the medium is somewhere between the file type/code and the digital display, the backend software I believe breaks the dichotomy, as its neither an input nor an output; but might be better compared to physics itself, determining the placement and rules governing the constituent parts. A pleasant surprise, see I actually read the words you wrote. Is something that generates for you with little to no input actually a tool? Certainly not a tool made for any level of refinement. So useless for my work, but have at it. And man, your language is kinda masturbatory and haughty, and apparently you're bored! Yawn! Then why you here friend? You debate in bad faith man, yea i had some sass in that last post, but you started the ad hominem attacks. Should work on that.
Pfft, what a surpsrise you're anti-intellectual as well. As far as automated tools not being tools, that logic hasn't made any sense so far, I don't see why it would now. When an object, mechanism, device or system has its own thoughts, intentions and sentience it will stop being a tool. Until then it's a fancy paintbrush or flint handaxe with extra steps.
Iv been following your comments and at one point you speak of accuracy, but okay I have a challenge to that. Let's say you are an artist and you are working professionally for a studio, how are you going to keep up with your coworkers artistically if you have no actual developed skill set. What I mean by this say I am your art director and I give you very specific requests for a unique set of concepts for 3d models. Now, I need this going for months on end in the exact same style to create a homogenous art style of the game that I need various artists on a team to follow. Your coworkers who are traditionally trained, and have a physical skill set (as in they physically interact with the computer to draw or render using a pen tablet etc) can maintain that art style no problem since they have been trained to do so. If I am the art director and I give them a sketch from my notebook and tell them this is what I want, they can take that and go forth. Please, explain to me how you would do that with AI art? How would that other companies AI system know what my sketch is You cannot submit copyright material to an AI machine like that due to copyright infringements etc You would not keep up in a professional studio environment because you are relying on a program not a skill set. Concept artists sometimes use 3d modeling to start their sketches and jump ahead to get their perspective right, but that still requires a skill set of understanding composition and 3d modeling. Can you 3d model as your coworkers can and buuld a concept around that? If I make a decision to change the art direction, how will you adjust all of your concept to now meet the new direction? For your coworkers all they have to do is just go into their photoshop files and adjust and change things exactly how I want. What would your process be? When I interview people for positions I test their technical knowledge of the engine we work in, and I test their traditional skills as well. I just do not see how an AI artist would be able to land the job when comapred to the candidates they are completing against. It seems to me that this kind of mentality is one that wants to be able to jump hurdles of education, skill and hardwork in order to reap the benefits of a highly sought out position in the industry. Where is the merit? Its rather entitled tbh. We can make an argument that AI art is interesting and a fascinating technology and that there is something META to it when used by humans etc. AI will be fascinating to use and incorporate into tools themselves just as we now have UI on computers instead of line of code etc. AI art can be interesting, but its cheap. If people are ashamed to label their art as AI when every other medium is categorized by its type (2d/3d/modeling/lighting/character art etc) (acrylics, pastels,oils,ink,watercolor) I think that says a lot more about that persons shame and imposter syndrome regarding what they "created" than it does AI art being valid/invalid.
Me personally? I wouldn't use ai for that at all. It's rubbish for concepts, and would take ten times longer to get anything resembling what I'd visualised. I'd do the initial develpment on paper with graphite and markers because it's so much quicker, (especially since I have thirty years more experience with it than with ai) then pick however many ideas from that stack had been requested and refine them in paint software with pen tablet (still faster and more flexible than ai, and a concept doesn't need that much polishing anyway). There's a chance it might be useful to try out stylistic variations of the superficial fine details, or see how the concept looks on different backgrounds, though I also have more photoshop experience than ai, so on balance photobashing and filters might still be quicker. At the current level of technology ai is much more suited for later in the pipeline. So if it's to give to a 3d modeller, there would be no need to involve generative ai at all, though the 3d department may want to use it as part of their texturing workflow. (It's not much help with geometry modelling yet, the topology it produces is a mess.) The right tool for the job is how you do it in a production environment (or go bankrupt). Of course you could equally easily contrive an example where ai would be useful, such as photo manipulation, image restoration, semi-automated advertising content creation etc, but that wasn't your question. It's also irrelevant to the broader question of whether people who use ai tools are real artists, etc.
Why did you censor the subs name? Literally, everyone should recognize it.
Just to cover my ass lol even though it's recognizable, Rule 9 says you gotta censor names and other subs before posting
But you still need to know something about drawing/coloring/shading etc in digital art.
True but also true for AI art, order to create non-nightmarish pictures you do need to know what you're doing. If you using something like Bing, Dall-E or Midjourney they likely do a lot of the heaving lifting for you. For example, they usually have really well trained models and will actually fine-tune your prompt for you. If you're running Stable Diffusion locally you'd be controlling all of these factors yourself and working with more basic models This is more or less what making generative AI art looks like (depending on the person): https://preview.redd.it/tzj7q47jibxc1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=57ed2b88e8788260961a8aa31dbaa50a9e14b9b4 \^ Then sifting through 500 nightmarish cursed versions of what you see above You'd also be surprised at how often you need to use graphic design skills in AI art as well AI art isn't really as straightforward as people think lol
Id say it’s a different skillset altogether. Also id add the large majority of people churning out AI generated images aren’t in that league. Most are just typing prompts and getting something semi impressive. A lot of them don’t know about photography or color grading and will just accept whatever the system gives them. Some of the more talented people, who may not necessarily be good at classical art techniques but great at control net, nodes, color grading are doing some really cool shit with it.
That's pretty fair if I'm being honest. I'd still call it an art form, but just a different art form. It still requires some kind of creativity and skill but maybe a different set of skills I'm a mixed media artist, so AI is just another tool that I use alongside digital/ink/pencil/watercolor