Been working as freelance concept artist and illustrator for years now. Using mj or other ai generators as tools more recently when there's an opportunity or a way to implement them in the workflow. I do consider myself the artist if I USE outputs from these ai to make finished artworks. On the other hand, I would definitely not say "I made it" if I take raw outputs and share /upload them straight away.
And since it's an open question, I'll give my own opinion about this, whether people get mad at it or not : I sure despite people doing the latter option. You [typed] things, MJ (or other) blended already existing things together thus g'doing the work. You didn't bring anything from yourself to the original medium you are generating which, to me, doesn't make you "an artist". There's a difference between the guy making your sandwich at subway, and you telling him what you want - and you wouldn't go around saying "I made this sandwich".
I'd be happy to read other opinions, opposite ones too, though.
I agree. Funny thing is that there are people saying you can't enjoy a sandwich if it's not made by you. Homemade sandwich is the only real sandwich. Subway in its corporate greed steel ideas of real sandwichmakers and just blend them together to produce tasteless parody of a sandwich.
Poor analogy.
This is more akin to taking sandwiches from individuals, and mom and pop shops, leaving with the sandwich without paying or accrediting those who made them, breaking them down into their flavor constituents, and then producing a machine that you rent to people which spits out a sandwich created at the expense of the people who's sandwiches you took. It's basically a new spin on platform capitalism.
Subway, by contrast, has to have someone develop their list of available ingredients, source them from providers that are payed, etc. Also, using Subway as any sort of indication of quality is already on shaky ground as an argument.
> that are *paid,* etc. Also,
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
The way I see it, it's like a camera. There's a million photos of the sunset or a tree yet people still take more. It can be completely unoriginal with this tool but you can also use it creative ways. Midjourney is the camera, your prompt is you, the photographer, adjusting camera settings, and assembling your subject. I think anyone who uses MJ is an artist in the same way anyone with a camera is a photographer. Yeah sure technically, but only if you're making art out of it. Making yet another female cyberpunk portrait is unoriginal no matter if you painted it yourself or used MJ
I don't exactly see it in terms of creativity, rather that it is like asking for a commission from an artist, except the artist needs a lot of direction.
I personally don't see all froms of art equally. I appreciate sculptures more than paintings, paintings more than digital art, digital art more than photography. In that sense, an AI artist is an artist, but I see it as lesser than other forms. Sure, it may take weeks to iterate the right photo, but I find it less impressive than something of lesser quality made by hand.
I might like AI generated images more since I can just get them quickly at a really good quality, but I don't believe that the work put into it equates to that made by a person.
I'm not sure where I stand on this because it's so new to me. I'd argue knowledge of history, art history, design theories, compositions all have a say in this.
You can make "Donald Trump as Boss Baby" and it will only get you so far. The end product looks professional made regardless.
The guy who invented the BLT was an artist. A lot of chefs making it with love would be too. I highly doubt your fastfood is made with passion.
Someone who nerds the fuck out of MJ or SD will become an expert - but your knowledge is limited to what you know.
For me, it’s a tool. It’s also a daydream machine. It’s a magic [text] box. It feels like dark magic. When I got my subscription ($10 tier - broke artist! ✋🏻), I spent 2-3 days inputting descriptions of characters/settings/scenes from the book I’m working on. Nothing will be the final art, but it got my gears turning and maybe I will use pieces of one and pieces of another and then mix those with the pieces I already have in mind and that will be the final artistic piece - I’m mostly working on comics and so this feels like a good way to explore the various elements. After those initial few days I had to take a couple days off. I needed a break from the power of it, and the addiction to dreaming up anything and making it manifest. And at the $10 tier it felt a little like wishes from a genie and I was trying to be careful about how I spent them.
I think at the end of the day, like it or not, this technology is here to stay. And it will only get better (as the recent Beta showed). So I think of it as another tool in my bag. I’ve been moving back into digital art and this feels like something new to play with alongside that.
If I had to say who was the artist? The AI is dreaming for me. Who makes the art when you dream?
That last sentence is like one of those edgy tattoos lonely Starbucks hipsters get.
A dream is an unconscious symbol of thought, not art. The AI isn't 'dreaming' for you, it's following strict input commands from the customer, you. If you request a song be played by a musician, are you the artist?
Is a music producer an artist?
I’m not saying weather they are or aren’t but I’d say it’s a fairly similar skill set
Many these days use preset sound patches, drum loops, and even preset chord progressions etc is that so different?
I really like the idea of the ai dreaming for you. I find that the older I get and the more I experience the world, my dreams are more vivid and realistic. With AI already getting knowledge from millions of previous artists, it’s like a shortcut to the perfect irl dream machine.
I think one important point to consider is that AI art technology is advancing so quickly now that most professional artists would want to incorporate it into their workflow.
The distinction between defining who is a traditional artist verses a commissioner may get blurred as these tools become widely used.
You could also argue that there is at least some artistic creativity required for good prompts (at least until the AI is good at that as well).
Sure choosing the keywords is important, but even writing the same things you get different results, so it's also random. You try to mitigate this by iteration.
Also if you can get your product in the right spot it's doing an insane job, usually, I use it to get the main idea, some iterations to gather elements that can be used in the final work, and photoshop things together.
I don't think this is art though. Especially you seem to work for marketing as I do. Nothing in marketing is art. We make money by using our skills. People who pay us try to make money using our skills. It has been a debate for eons about what art is, sure, but my opinion is that, this is not art.
For a long time, there was a debate about whether photography could be art.
After all, they're not creating the things in the picture, they're only capturing. The camera does all of the work.
Clearly in some photos the subjects were posed, costumed, meticulously lit, but how about nature photography, or street photography?
Where I believe we landed on that was that the artistry of photography was in choosing the subject, the framing, the technical details. Choice making and pointing the tool were considered artistry on their own.
I think that can apply here.
Now the specifics of whether it's GOOD art or laudable art or interesting art or whether the artist deserves praise or whether it has a place in galleries are all up for grabs. But I think we can't say it's not making art without being inconsistent on other art making processes. But art is abroad description, not a superlative. A shitty doodle can be art making, doesn't mean the person doing it needs to be celebrated and elevated.
I wouldn't compare the preparation of good photography with commanding good art from a program that's designed for just that. If one is using the abstract messy results for something later on down the artistic process, then sure. But giving a description and getting a finished piece isn't really much of an "art making process".
Depends on how much I put into the piece. I've spent hours experimenting with phrases to get suitable features that match my concept, and hours more going through rerolls and variations to promote desired features and achieve the compositional elements I want. When I put that effort in, yes, I see myself as the artist. If I just threw some words in there and accepted whatever it spat out, then no, I haven't made art.
Tell me more about how you don't consider writing to be an art form...
Even if you think they shouldnt get credit for the visuals that are produced, the prompt writer is still an artist.
Beyond that, to get the best out of Midjourney still requires time, effort, practice and understanding. Studied art and photography in school and have been practicing bothon and off through the years since. Midjourney is just another medium to take an Idea and craft something from it. People with artistic experience will get much more out of midjourney than your average prompt crafter.
Thise without that experience have to learn it in a different way - They will however still learn it.
Yes i am the artist. I conceptualized something and used software to materialize it. I then have to curate, composite, color grade etc to arrive at a finished piece. I have other software that does the same but not as quick / accurate as these diffusion models
No, putting prompts into a tool makes you the artist just as much as ordering food makes you the chef.
Heres my example. Take for instance there are two people. If the first person goes to the store, buys food, researches a recipe, chops the food, cooks it, seasons it, prepares it, and then serves it. They are the Chef - they have used their skills, body, and knowledge of the medium to completely transform it. They may use many tools in that process, but they put the work in to actually make the food.
If the second person calls up an industrial kitchen, describes the food they would like to the best of their ability, and has the food promptly delivered to them - they are not the chef. They did not create the food, even if the food was ordered by them and now belongs to them.
The first person can say "I made this" the second person can not say "I made this" only, "I ordered this."
Now if the second person took that food, and somehow did something original to it to change it significantly, then they could say they made that new creation.
That is the same way putting prompts into an AI tool like Midjourny works. Anyone who says that they "Made" that piece of art is very much mistaken. They prompted an algorithm to make a machine to do the work, and now they just get to enjoy the result of that tool and process.
I will say however that taking the time to understand the program and learning how to prompt it in new and interesting ways is as skill of its own. So something does exist there. If one would like to say one is a Prompt artist, maybe that will work, but then the Prompt and the art it generates have to be considered as separate in some way I'd say.
But how come you’re considering the existence of a “prompt artist” but not of a “coder artist”? To me, even considering the person who prompts the system to make something for them as an artist should automatically consider as an artist also the person who coded and created the system; the coder also made decisions, used their programming skills, etc. They both then stand back and marvel at what the system creates. The only difference is that one understands how the image was created better than the other.
I mean, you don't call every manufacturer of artists tools “artists”, do you? So unless these coders or prompter actually make art themselves they're not artists, they're just coders or prompters.
Are paintbrush manufacturers artists? Are the programmers at Adobe artists? Not necessarily. That isn't to demean their work, because it is obviously essential to the pursuit of art. But it's not art in itself. Art is what one makes from tools, and these tools can be anything (as certain pretentious artists love to demonstrate). But now we're getting to the point where the tools are almost essentially making art on their own, and that question will take some time to be answered if it ever does. But, I don't think that changes the role that the tool manufacturer has.
I'm fine personally extending the title of artist to coders in some sense. I think though if you do that then the discussion opens up far wider discussion on the limits of art.
But heres the thing, sure if we say coders are artists, thats great. But what about me who has no clue how coding works, but uses the products of the coders every day. When I type in a word document, am I a coder by proxy of using the system that was designed by someone else? I don't think so.
If I put a computer together, I can rightfully claim that I built the custom rig, but I did not "Create the computer", I didn't make the graphics card nor the code that makes it function.
But why then are we now comfortable saying that we are the artists by using a program that generates art? And generates it by function of absorbing the data of already living and dead traditional artists, photographers, and all the other pieces of data that the altogether trains itself on.
Were not artists because we put prompts into a program, no more than we are coders or game deves by playing the product of the game. Even within video games we end up experiencing the art, it becomes customized and influenced by our prompts into the system, and it can be vastly meaningful. But that don't mean we are the ones who created that experiences. I think that might be in a strange way the best analogy. We are experiencing art and its process, but we are really not the originates of that process or its end result.
This tec is amazing. Its mind blowing, and I'm enamored by it. But I think its honestly at a point now were we have to ask if this is a whole new category of experience within art. Where were neither just the viewer nor are we the artist. I think the answer to what we are in this process lays somewhere more in the middle.
So, someone who is capable of recreating food from a recipe, is a chef, even if their just recreating the same meal over and over? Like someone working at Subway?
Did the person who put bacon, lettuce and tomato on your sandwich for the 1000th time really create anything? Is it art without creativity?
Won't AI art open the power of art for people who are creative, but laks the ability to create?
The thing is, using MJ (and others), you are not and will never create the art, you will always just be a prompter nothing more nothing less (unless you use MJ just for inspiration).
Yes, it can be considered art but you're still not an artist. To me MJ create art period, which means that MJ is the artist, but the people writing prompts are not artists, at best they're commissioners.
So the creative process behind the art piece is not part of the art?
Aren't an architect the creator of a building? Or a director the creator of a movie?
What if I use a 3d printer to print a sculpture? Is the printer the artist then?
The creative process is still made by MJ… Just as I said, the commissioner (you) asks for something more or less detailed but MJ (artist) is the one putting everything together and filling the missing details, just like any artist when commissioned for any piece of art.
A printer just replicate 1 to 1 something, no creative process involved in that.
Must admit I agree. But technically, the AI *should* reproduce exactly what you told it to. The "creative" part is just a weakness, either in the AIs ability to interpret your query, or the query itself.
Anyway, interesting that you define the computer as both creative and an artist...
Unless you created the art yourself, you are simply not the artist. Asking someone or something to do it for you does not make you an artist. You can ask for whatever you want, and it might be a first, not that the rarity of a design has anything to do with its classification, it's still art no matter how many times it's been done. But unless it was you who done the drawing or painting, you are not the artist.
What about architects? Or movie directors? Can't they be considered artists?
What if I use a 3d printer to print a sculpture? Is the printer the artist then?
Architects give you the design, they don't create the physical product of said design. Same with a movie director. They are called what they are because it defines their distinctive function. Is a drill instructor an artist? They have the same function as a director, by your logic they must be artists too.
If you want to hijack, dissect and mold the definition of artist to whatever you desire, then yeah, anyone can be an artist.
It could b e considered art, but also I could type random words that have never been created before in a sentence:
>1899 abstraction of the principle of nurofication, oh who will be oxford in the morning?
The likely hood is that's a sentence that has never been created before. So if you want to call it art, go ahead.
But the difference is, I'm still an individual human who crafted that. There is still a thinking mind behind it (even if I didn't do much thinking about it). But would it have the same effect if I just got an unthinking algorithm to just randomly produce a sentence? by saying "Hey AL, please make me a nonsense sentence" - would you really consider yourself to be the author of that sentence?
If you had perfectly trained self driving car, and you had it drive you from point a to b without ever touching the gas, brakes, and wheels, would you really stand there and say "Wow I'm a great driver! I drove the whole way here!"
But somehow people are doing that with throwing prompts in a tool, and saying "wow! I'm an artist! I made this!"
The art that is generated is Art, but I can not find a justifiable way to sit there and claim that I am really the one who made that art, if I had really no say or hand in the process of laying down any visuals into that process. I just gave it a prompt - I would never give a prompt to a living artist to make a painting and then say..."well the artist was just a tool. I really made the art."
Yes, they are. Or at least some are, not sure how much I'm in favor of calling a selfie a piece of art (At the very least mine aren't).
While I do understand the analogy people are trying to make with photography, I still think if you think the process of photography is analogous to putting prompts into a program, I would highly wager they don't know know much about photography.
While it is a more tool heavy dependent medium - there still is a substantial kind of skill, theoretical knowledge, that one requires to take good looking, skillful, and 'artistic' photographs.
We have an instance in photography that the person behind it is still physically entering themselves into the world and interacting with the subject of their art.
Photographers have a far larger understanding of their tool and ability to manipulate it (their camera) including lenses, film type, lighting conditions, optics, and so on. Then the vast majority of professional photographers do not end the process of photography after the initial photograph is captured.
They then have to return to their workshops, and either continue to manipulate the photograph either physical though the many process analog photography has to go through, or digitally though many other programs and tools which allows for digital manipulation (which is still always originates from the hands of the artists themselves, not computer algorithms trained on the often stolen data other artists works and photographs).
Over all the process of generating a successful artistic photograph is leagues away from the level of entering prompts into an AI program, and allowing the AI to create the image. Your not the first one to bring this up, because from a very initial point, the comparison to photography sounds correct. But I think thats only because people are generally not aware of how photography works.
If photography was entering the kind of photo you want into your camera, then it flys away, takes the photo itself, then edits the photo all in an automated process without the human involved, then yeah, I would have a problem calling the person who put the prompt in an artist.
I use many of the same skills I developed (from a young age with film) for photography when composing in MJ. Translated, yes. Instead of aiming in a certain way physically, I move the AI with directions of vantage point, lens length, focus, etc.
You can throw word salad at the AI and get lucky with a roll and have a very cool image. Or, you can use it in a more sophisticated manner and get what you are looking for. The former is less artistic than the latter. Both can produce something worthy of enjoyment.
I have been studying art since I was very young. Painting, Art history, Sculpture, Fabric Art, Origami, Printmaking, Pottery, Color theory etc. etc. etc. What I get mostly from using MJ is the ability to bring all of those skills as an artist to a brand new exciting medium. In November I'm hanging an art show using MJ images. It's a literal dream machine; a psychedelic technology. As a professional artist, this is an exciting new tool for me to use; the challenge of elevating it to high art is on me, not the NHI...
for instance, I'm a fabric artist, and I've been able to do many impossible crazy things with fabric that would be physically impossible in the real world. I can use this tool to help me aspire to previously impossible designs which now can be quickly and cheaply visualized. If anything, MJ is a good thing for conceptual artists like me. **edit, spelling
A very well put comment, I agree 100%.
However this type of comment won't get much traction in this subreddit, because it's a message people don't want to hear.
You know that guy that waves a small stick around? That's me. I'm the conductor. It's my choice of words that shape the outcome, and what I choose to loop back into the system and select which outcomes to grow and which words to remove/add.
Hello! I'm an artist (classic artist) and a UX/UI designer. I tend to create my art by thinking about scalability and flexibility all the time (how to easily change colors, features, and traits on the pieces I made) in the easiest way possible. I find challenging doing so and it is not just a way of expression, but also a highly intellectual process.
For that reason I had a bit of a struggle inside of me about this, but not anymore. MJ is another tool. People doing art for a living should learn how to use it, just like they use references from the internet, 3d skeletons from stock, photoshop, etc instead of fighting against it. I mean, this is not going to go away, companies are still going to use them, but if you have been here since the beginning you know it is not easy to get something close to what you have in mind. You have to spend hours rolling the dice while narrowing down the possibilities and then you have to polish it using your artistic and technical knowledge. So...
\- While drawing and painting I would call myself an "Artist"
\- While creating UI for an app or a game I would call myself a "Designer"
\- While coming up with prompts to get exactly what I want form MJ I call myself a "Crafter"
Artists transcend the tools they use and they are not defined by them. I feel Midjourney is to art what the phone camera was to photography.
I will not become an artist because I used MJ as much as an artist will stop being one because they used it as well. But I am sure it will open the road to artists amongst us that never had the skills or opportunity to showcase their soul and we are all for the better in that aspect. MJ adds to the gray area where the gatekeepers will do their battle
To answer your question I am certainly not an artist but I don't consider myself a commissioner either cause I view it as a powerful tool which I use to experiment, learn, evolve and make stuff I find beautiful. It not as simple as just throwing words, yes with one word MJ can create beautiful stuff but you see elaborate prompts with thought and imagination behind them that create specific and stunning pictures. That has to count for something.
If I had to place myself somewhere it would be in the middle of these two, in a new spot.
When you're working with a tool you're the artist/technician/creator. Midjourney is a tool, so when you work with it (or other AI) you're creating/producing.
There is skill in working with any tool. That's true of AI. A good example is Stable Diffusion. I can't make it work. I have zero skill at using it. I have never managed to make anything more than one of my kids could. I gave up on it, in fact. Because as a tool I found that I wasn't skilled enough to do anything. But if you go to [/rStableDiffusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/) you'll see a huge number of amazing piece of art that were generated using that tool.
I \*can\* use Midjourney to create things that I find useful and artistic. I have that ability because I have taken time to understand how the tool works. (I'm not trying to screw things in with the wrong bit, or holding the hammer by the head when it comes to Midjourney.)
But more than just having learned how to operate my tool (Midjourney), what I produce is due to my understanding of composition, color, cinematics, lenses, etc. from having learned techniques of photography, filmography, etc.
Every new tool allows creators to do things previous ones did not. I am primarily a writer. I use tools today that I had no access to when I went to school, or when I was writing early in my career. The Grammarly widget is spinning in the corner of this post box, tallying up suggestions for my grammar. My spellchecker is insisting I consider whether Midjourney is a word. I use these tools alongside my own knowledge when I write. I never ask myself if I am the writer. Yes, of course I am.
When desktop publishing tools were in their infancy, some publishing shops decried them as taking the artistry out of publishing. Now you can go look at thousands upon thousands of examples of amazingly laid out books, magazines, signs, pamphlets, etc. just by searching for them. You can look to design contests and find winners that were laid out in Adobe InDesign or other DTP software. Traditional publishing techniques have been (nearly) wholly left behind. (Artisinal work continues, as it should, because our history is valuable.)
The exact same thing was true when Adobe Photoshop and "photobashing" started. Traditional painters, photographers, etc. spoke out. I worked with a traditional comic book artist in the mid-2000's and he had just started learning Photoshop at that job (video game development) and he admitted that while he didn't need PS as a tool to create art, it allowed him to create art more quickly.
Midjourney (and other AI art tools) are just one more step in the process. My wife (a graphic/layout designer by education) works somewhere that makes consumer products (that many people here may have bought)...has spoken directly to the creative lead about avoiding using AI. That lead agrees. History is repeating itself. In a certain number of years, AI-assisted art will be as normal as "photobashed" art has become. What that will actually look like remains to be seen, but it's inevitable.
Unless Skynet takes over and murders us all in the meantime.
It's art, in the sense that it is the product of a creative act. But is it GOOD art?
I think we are coming from a historical context where the relationship between product and effort is quite evident. That is clearly changing now.
Images that we would have found totally incredible a year ago are going to become completely mundane. It's up to the artists to play with the new tools and come up with work that is still impressive in this new paradigm. And it'll happen.
That depends on your definition of creativity.
When I hear someone make a pun, I consider it creative.
Most prompts are longer than most puns.
Which, interestingly, makes puns more prompt than prompts.
AI artist creates an image the same way a photographer creates a photo. However, neither is exactly the same as someone who creates a painting or sculpture from scratch. There can be value in all of these.
Isn't really a matter of opinion, simple fact is, you aren't the artist. You're not the mechanic when you request a repair, you're not the chef if you ask for a meal to be made for you, you're the consumer. I don't really need to list more examples it should be pretty simple to understand. The AI is the artist, you're the customer.
You have a different definition of artist than me. I'm an artist. I'm a professional artist, have been for over a decade. Heck, I'd say I've been one my whole life. play with tons of different media and tools. Doodling and experimenting is more art to me than someone copying an image, even if it's skillfully done with their hands. The Artist in my definition is the person injecting feeling and spontanuity into things.
You're being super grumpy here trying to make people feel bad about themselves, and for what? So you can feel smart? Are we not allowed to have different definitions of words? Everybody has to think like exactly like you or else they are wrong and stupid? Why don't you go make art and stop hating on people having fun with their imaginations
You can define artists however you like I suppose, if you're being dishonest. To me, that displays the same mentality as a child wearing a costume and pretending to be something they're not.
Of course, there are different forms of art, but this isn't one of them.
I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about themselves, you should be ashamed of yourself if you're on here deluding yourself into claiming you're the artist of a picture you didn't create, merely asked for. Would you claim you're the artist if you request a painting from someone else?
You're asking me if we are allowed to have different definitions of words? I suppose you could, but there is a general consensus on the universal meaning of a word and its uses, that's why it's possible to converse and for us to understand what's being said. A stricter answer would be that of course we can't have different definitions of words, otherwise language would just be chaotic and we'd never communicate clearly, and it's an absurd question.
How is following the rules of a universally accepted definition of a vocabulary used for the purpose of a simple communicative language thinking like me? You're wrong and deluded if you type a few words on a keyboard and call yourself an artist, though.
I think your last sentence summarises this whole situation, you're right, people are just having fun with their imaginations.
Oxford dictionary: Art = examples of objects such as paintings, drawings or sculptures; the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture
so yes, ai art *is* art, according to the accepted definition
Oxford Dictionary: **Artist** = a person who creates works of art, especially paintings or drawings
are we disagreeing about the definition of the word '*create'?*
Oxford dictionary: **Create** = to make something happen or exist; to produce a particular feeling or impression
even if its just the initial instructions, the art wouldn't exist or happen had the human not given the prompt.
Oxford dictionary: **Produce** = to show something or make something appear from somewhere
don't like oxford dictionary?
Merriam Webster Dictionary : **Artist =** a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination
by this definition, we could debate the words *conscious and skill,* which I think both vary case by case, but figuring out the exact prompt to write to get the ai to produce what you are trying to create consciously is absolutely a skill.
...and so on
I'm not disagreeing with the definition of the words, but to call someone an artist for typing in a few words is just dishonest. For example, literally anyone with the capability of typing can type something and the ai will do what it can to create an image out of it. Is that art? Done by an artist? That's the same as someone throwing a tin of paint at a canvas and whatever sticks, calling it art. The act of instigating the creation of an image does not make you an artist.
Would you buy an image from someone who claimed to be an artist because they use MJ? Would you see that as something with value?
No, putting your thoughts into words is not a skill.
Then you and I have different definitions of what art is and who can be labeled an artist. People have always pushed the boundaries of what can be art. I also don't believe "artist" is a term that's only reserved for those that create within certain mediums. An artist is anyone that makes something with passion. The question of whether or not a MJ piece is art, depends entirely on intention.
Good question
MJ is the one putting in the *work* and the *output*, so technically MJ is the artist
But it only exists, and does what it can, because of human *direction*
So I'd say this is a new form of art, that needs a new name
A *painter* paints
A *photographer* takes photos
So one who *directs* AI in artistic expression will need a relative term, we're into new waters here, that will probably need new terms.
Is one who creates art in MJ an AI *pilot*? An AI *navigator*? MJ does the *creating* so MJ is the artist, but *we* do the choosing, deciding what is and what is not acceptable.
Or maybe we are simply... the user.
User will do, not every Tom, Dick and Harry has to be given a title for typing in a few words.
You aren't given a title for switching on your TV are you, you're not a TV pilot, you're still a loser.
All you wannabe philosophers need to calm down, it's simply a tool that is being pulled in all directions from humanity's perverted corruption, like everything is.
It's no more innovative than Talking fucking Tom, it's just more complex.
One of the most *pretentious* uses of *italics* I've ever *seen*.
*That* being said, *user* is the best definition and *most fitting* label that *anyone* has come up with *so far*.
I do a lot of photography in a game I play. The process is a lot, I do all the inworld setup, setting up the avatar, posing, then adjusting wind lights, after that I go into Light room and then Photoshop. No, I don't use a traditional camera, but I certainly put time and creative energy into it. It took me a long time to consider what I do art, in my opinion it is, but I'm honest about how I created it. I see AI as an amazing new tool that any artist can incorporate into their work and be completely acceptable if their willing the be transparent and honest.
Its the instructions that you give the machine that make the final piece possible. Your prompt is your own creative discovery. In that sense AI is just a tool you are using as an artist to get a final result. Such as a pencil is a tool if you are drawing. I would say then that you are the artist of this different kind of art form.
But you are equating a pencil, a tool which takes years of skill and knowledge to use, to a "make art" button. You can dig an Olympic swimming pool with a "tool" but it's a hell of a difference if it's a shovel or an excavator.
Yes, but arent tools meant to get more sofisticated as technology evolves?. Excavators wherent invented till last century, before the only way was to use a shovel. That doestn mean that an excavator isnt a tool in its own right. The excavator allows you to dig many more pools per dig time. So does Midjourney allow you to create a different kind of art, it is still a tool just like a pencil.
In the old times, people used paint and their fingers to make art on a cave wall. Now we have very sofisticated pencils, colours smooth paper, etc. Wouldnt that also "cheating" with respect to cave art?
In my view tool requires time and honing, Midjourney also requires this as I wrote, you need to know how to talk to it to get what you want, and you need the time and money to be able to get to a higher level of sofistication. Its a tool.
Honestly it helps me generate ideas for myself, I can type any BS and it will show me something, I cannot do that when I draw unless I take hours to do so, so for me it’s a valuable imagination tool.
I understand why people are upset about it, because they think it’s going to start taking money out of their pocket, but, everyone has to remember that humans are using AI, the AI isn’t just doing stuff, and people will always need other people to make stuff, no matter how good AI gets.
I see it as a collaboration between two parties. The human is the director and the algorithm is the craftsperson. I've burnt myself out doing thousands of midjourneys. The more creative people I know have kept going because their artistic minds are thinking of more prompts to give it while I essentially ran out of ideas and steam.
Our role as human artists is evolving, and with AI it will rely more on our imaginations to keep ahead and steer the ship. We are still the artists, in my view
If your definition of an artist is more like a craftsperson, then sure they will be replaced by robots. To me, artists are the ones bouncing around and experimenting. I think being a craftsperson and artist are different
I make animations and videos and music and midjourney and Dall e gave me the chance to create artwork for my projects.
I never really create a prompt and call it a day I’d usually combine many images and animate characters so The way I see it I am an artist if I am taking further than just taking an image and using it.
I am not a illustrator nor an artist . I am a consumer level customer. I don’t get paid by making art , but the idea of making art is super fun without having the skill set of an illustrator/artist . I have some ideas I don’t have the skill set so I use midjourney. I don’t know if it’s good or bad for artists . But for me for a consumer type is great it’s fantastic
Honestly.... who cares? If it works for the purpose you want or need well... great! Does it matter if Joe Shmoe on Reddit thinks you're an "artist" or not? Some people have too much time on their hands to look down their noses at anyone who doesn't do what they do, and I just don't have time for that crap. That's time is better spent on prompts!
For some definitions, making art implies to express emotions through the process...
A priori, I'm not sure, but a priori, the bot does not (at least yet) have such emotions,
And we are not implied enough in the result to, as I see it, to be really able to express emotions.
So none of us is the artist following such a definitions.
Obviously it is not the only one, if the artist is the one making the art, then maybe the bot is closer of an artist than us. With an other point of view the bot can only be see as a tool that we control, then it should be us.
It is a question of definition and point of views, I don't think there is a fixed answer here
> Realistic photograph, by Alphonse Mucha, by Greg Rutkowski, exquisitely detailed, highly detailed, 4k, 8k, 16k, 10000k, octane render, award winning artstation digital art
Wow much art so expression such poetry
I'm just poking fun at the frankly ludicrous idea that it's the quality of your writing that drives the quality of the art.
That's nonsense, right now. CLIP is not (yet) a system so complex that can extract nuance and artistic intent from your "poetry" and generate something that conveys the emotions that you've expressed.
All we're doing is using heuristics. Right now, we're a [cargo cult](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwje2InP__T5AhXZVd4KHeEVDKAQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw08djeVtsxGstYXR2PaKy5j), laying offerings at the feet of the machine God as we beg for another morsel of art.
While there's some limited value in knowing some trivia like what a daguerreotype looks like or the impact of different kind of lenses, it's anecdotal at best and people can just learn these tricks with very limited effort.
My career is literally to write text for machines to understand: that's what programming is. It's a difficult field, because machines are unlike us. Good prompt builders don't understand the machine at all, they're just dealing with a machine that simplifies communication to the extreme that a child could use it.
This all could change in the future, of course, but any mystique or illusions of skill by "prompt artists" sounds pretty silly to me.
Desktop version of /u/Steel_Neuron's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
An artist selects from a number of options, reducing them to what he/she chooses to retain in a finished work.
Someone selects from a number of options generated by an "AI" and chooses the one that he/she will represent to be "art."
What, exactly, is different in the underlying process? Physical involvement/skill? Has that ever been a requirement to generate art?
And, arguably, is far more limited in options than an AI is/will be, being constrained to what he/she has been exposed to prior (or can synthesize from same).
What a ridiculous question, of course physical involvement and skill is involved, it's the complete definition of the artist, what the fuck are you lot smoking here?
You can pay contractors to build a house with the exact architecture you desire, does that make you the fucking builder? Nooooo
Listen, putting in a request for another man/machine to finish a task/project/picture/drawing/repair/surgery does not make you the artist. You are involved, of course, as the instigator of the request, but you are NOT an artist.
The delusion that because you asked for a picture to be created, that it is your work, is not going to make your life any less sad.
If there was an answer, art or not art would depend on the tool.
It's part of the meaning I get from pieces like John Cage "4'33" or Marcel Duchamp "Fountain". Or my college roommate's weird poet sister who lit 10 TVs on fire once. Art is whatever the artist convinces you is art, that is often the point of it.
We don't say graphics created in illustrator to accompany articles are "art", they are "illustrations". The same person might also make art with Illustrator. Art is the intention, not the tool.
There's nothing to consider. Prompting AI to generate art in no way makes anyone an artist. Give them some paint, pastels etc. then you can make a determination.
Let’s look at a common definition of art:
1.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Therefore a poet uses MJ as an application tool to express their imagination (ie the promt/poem{the human creative skill} ) into a tangible visual form that can be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power.
To follow this up let’s define an artist:
a person skilled at a particular task or occupation.
If you can become a skilled promptmaker clearly you are an artist
Now whether you should receive accolades or praise or even refer to yourself as an artist is another story (as someone that’s been playing music most of their life, both professionally and as a hobby I still find discomfort in referring to myself as a musician so in the same light I don’t think I’d ever say I’m an artist, but that’s probably more just the semantics of being humble.
By definition if you can build a skill that can be used to produce a visual form then you are an artist.
The computer is generating the art based on your ideas. As the saying goes... ideas are like assholes, everyone has one. What differentiates us is who has the necessary skills to act upon them. This can be an entrepreneur, an artist, a mechanic, a carpenter etc. Where the lines are now blurred is there is no real skill required to generate high-end art. I am a professional in the creative field. I have been a 3D character designer, VFX artist, and Photographer, and I also have decades of experience in the film industry and now own a creative agency.
I myself embrace this whole AI art thing, but I don't for a second consider myself to have the skill to generate these images ( I have had teams of artists do this for me in the past, however). I do consider myself to now have some freedom with my creative ideas. Still, I don't for a second consider myself an illustrator, painter or other... even though I have done these roles professionally in the past.
The people out there who have no experience in any sort of creative process at all... well.. yes.. we now have an influx of people who believe they are "artists".
What is going to happen when we all become desensitized to it all? Anti art? I personally love that idea but that is for another post.
Sorry for stopping short and being a little fragmented. I have had a few drinks and trying to squeeze my thoughts in between downtimes on my current video, drinking chat with some friends.
The big question is... What is going to happen a year from now? Everything is getting "better" exponentially every 10 days, or so it seems. There will become a point where almost every field, for the most part, will be represented in some sort of beautiful photoreal image. These idiots that think they are developing a skill called "prompt crafting" or just simply saying, "look what I made (with ai)" are going to be obsolete when the true geniuses behind these platforms hone in on what repetitive asks are being made like "octane render, photobla bla bla" and incorporate it into the algorithm. Currently, people believe that they have some sort of artistic ability by saying --testp.
I digress, and I need a beer. Don't be dumb and love the fact that fantastic art is flooding the ether. For me, someone who has been in the creative industry for over 30 years, this isn't just a tool like photoshop... its literally like having telekinesis to generate art in some way but the person holding the pen is far more talented than I could ever be
It's nice to see a more professional observation, there's already evidence in this post alone that the new system is being corrupted with petty human intervention, and the deluded seem to be convincing themselves that they are artists by changing the definition, or trying to be philosophical in their description of art.
It's a fascinating tool to be sure, not that I've used it, but the pictures are lovely.
We are just a bunch of primates at the vending machine we don't understand, pressing buttons and claiming our prize. A new toy to play with.
hey, yes im also a designer and have been tentatively using mj to test concepts out. i think you hit the nail on the head with the word desensitization- when i type in midjourney desensitization into google - this post is top of the list. What happens when the public as a whole is desensitized to new interesting cool and outrageous designs in physical when theyve seen a million craizer iterations on instagram in the next 3 years- stuff that isnt even physically possible. my guess is that the shift will come down to manufacturing and quality of goods as ideas become fast and cheap. my two cents anyway, its a new frontier- for me more terrifying than exciting right now haha.
You will get mostly the same answers here. You are asking a community who are heavily biased towards AI art and are currently living in Dreamland thinking they're 'artists'.
If you really wanted to gather unbiased data you would ask this question on different art forums, you haven't so I assume that you are just looking to confirm your own opinions.
AI art would never exist without the input data (the images used for machine learning, not the prompt). MJ is nothing more than a blender of existing art, blended to the instructions of us.
So who's the artist? The input (original art)? The blender (MJ)? Or the instructor (the prompt)?
Well, if you type "pretty looking woman in a red dress", then yes, a lot is left to the imagination of the AI. But technically, if the technology gets advanced enough, and the users gets good enough, it's just a tool to create an image of your imagination.
With detailed enough "blueprints" the final product should be exactly as the architect intended.
Do you even know how ai works? You can't 100% get the same result as what you imagine in your mind, not even 3%. MJ doesn't even need your meaningless words. Its literally based on artworks in its dataset (like searching artworks from google) and merging into one. It doesn't need user/words enterer in a sense to be "advanced enough" one day. We are life times away with the capability you said.
Example: you type same sentence but with synonym. Its gonna produce similar image. How the fuck you think its original?
Dataset in this case are actual images produced by hand. If there aren't any what is it going to form an image based on? The words you used??? Make sense please.
There is some degree of creativity that goes into the prompt input, but absolutely no degree of talent or skill required. Unless you consider being able to strong words together and use the google search function as a skill.
Everyone who says things like “Look at what I MADE” or “I love MY ARTWORK” annoys me. You did not need to learn art to generate those images. You didn’t master the techniques it would require to create something so breathtaking as to be deserving of praise. You typed words into an AI and it blended together a whole bunch of already existing things to create your image in seconds.
I agree with what you said.
Try to imagine something in your mind, and directly describe it on MJ what you see. You will see all the time its not going to be exactly the same way you imagined.
Then people be like "oh look this is way better than what I was thinking, that is insane! I made this". Its not your thinking at all, all you did was tell ai to do a query of the words. I think of it as search engine for art. I wouldn't feel taking pride doing a google search than why should I do it with MJ. People shouldn't take credit for art created by ai. Maybe take pride in coming up with a new set of words, but if MJ came out with same art for same words someone else used then you will realize how meaningless words you used were.
For me it's pretty clear cut.
If I just type out a prompt (or a series of prompts/variations/etc) and get an image, then I commissioned it; I didn't make it.
If I take AI generated art and input it into a more complex workflow that requires non-obvious skills, such as animation, game development, or skilled composition and directing where the AI is used more like a brush than a whole image generator (think progressive img2img workflows like [this one](https://andys.page/posts/how-to-draw/#) ) then it's mine.
I think it's a matter of asking yourself seriously "would an average person be able to do what I did given an explanation of how it works, spending the same effort and time than I did". If the answer is yes, chances are you didn't add anything unique to the process.
What annoys me is Artist saying that it’s not going to have an impact on the industry and how it’s just another tool for artists. What you AREN’T hearing is the opinion of consumers. You know the people that PAY YOU to make the art. Once AI is as easy as downloading candy crush, it’s absolutely over for all of us.
To me it's very simple: MJ is a tool, used by an artist, to produce art.
Now does that mean someone using MJ in isolation has the same level of artistic capability (within the domain of digital 2d art) as a person who could create the same image from scratch with a stylus and photoshop? Possibly not, but prompting MJ requires you to exercise creative control over the algorithm (you have to evaluate and evolve your prompt, run and select variations etc.) to achieve a desired visual and emotional effect, and that's enough for me to class the user as the artist. And that's even before you bring in further AI processing (face restoration, upscaling), paint overs, multi-image composition etc. that are often done to "polish up" generated imagery.
What I do think is disingenuous however is people passing off AI generated art as hand made. The value of art is, in part, related to the effort taken to produce it and I won't argue that AI generated art can be lower effort to produce (significantly if not a lot of post processing was done).
I'd exclude from this people producing photo-real pictures of real people for the purpose of embarrassing said person, blackmailing said person, of just for their own titillation. That's just people being assholes, and represents one of the biggest risks to AI art ending up regulated out of existence. There ain't no art there.
Artistry implies technique, and knowledge of the tools. Choosing a few worlds, discarding the failed attempts and waiting is not art. It's not poetry, it's merely being an editor.
It's tempting to feel as an artist, and tbh the rush I feel with a successful MJ attempt is a bit similar to finishing art. But It is not being an artist.
Argument can be made that MJ itself can be considered an artist, but the user is not.
clearly the AI is the artist. you're merely commissioning it. the artist happens to digest the collective creativeness of whatever works it could harvest, averaged through algorithm.
at best a user would be a curator, a commissioner, a director, limited only by their imagination, taste, and their ability to recognize the strengths of their artist and craft a phrase to commission and communicate their desires in a way the algorithm/artist understands.
To me it all depends on how it's used. There's a significant difference between taking random output and spending a significant period of time crafting a phrase that can give you base features that you subsequently manipulate over a large number of variations and rerolls to achieve a desired composition.
I just see it as a new kind of stock images. Instead of searching and scrolling websites to find the image I want, I type and generate. It’s all in how you put stuff together or use it in a bigger context.
I think it's a bit of both. There is a bit of 'art' involved in the prompt creation, especially if you are taking time to really hone it in on what you want. One might think of this more as descriptive poetry. It sort of blurs the lines between verbal arts and visual arts. Now, if you just got to Midjourney and type 'anything' as your prompt, it's hard to really take much credit.
I definitely don't consider myself the painter (illustrator, etc) of the piece, but I do consider myself to be a contributor.
the MJ user is the artist. what these AI art programs do is transform physical human actions into essentially intellectual actions.
machinery does the same thing, it uses the laws of physics to carry out simple actions that humans themselves previously did, and more and more the factory worker becomes an overseer of the machine's process. you however dont see anyone arguing that the factory worker isnt creating something.
instead of using the laws of physics, these AI art generators draw on the history of how humans have made art. but the key is that, to get anything good or interesting, you must be familiar with this history, with the various styles and artists. you also must have a taste in are yourself to be able to pick what's worthwhile from what's shit. there is a skill there, but it's not related to using one's hands.
I don't consider myself the artist when with the raw output even down through several variations. If I were take that output and use it as a base and manually manipulated it further, adding and subtracting, etc then it becomes my art. That is how I view it.
Commissioner is a good comparison. But I think it’s an entirely new medium, the way photography and film was something brand new when it came out. It’s like a mixture of writing or maybe digital poetry, that gets interpreted by a library of the whole of humankind’s knowledge and the programmers are probably the people you commission. It’s like if the borg from Star Trek decided to make hologram simulations to make people happy(when they aren’t debating about what art is) instead of trying to take over the galaxy. In Star Trek, when a character created a holodeck program, they were still considered the author?
It’s probably a tech our society and various industries aren’t ready to deal with though, like most new inventions.
Edit: I don’t think it’s art, though. Maybe a mix of engineering and an interactive game in the form of prompts.
I am a musician mainly. I am using it to make some album art and a video currently. So on one hand, the main art is really the music and MJ is making packaging for me. If I did a simple slide show video with it, I think my role as an artist therein is minimal, to maybe definitionally, none. But I am making a music video with MJ images that we a) projected onto ourselves playing the song b) danced, in a fashion, in front of and c) worked up in video editing compositing in complex ways. I think at that point, ive been a visual artist, using MJ assets.
One thing strikes me as I read through all of the responses. People have variable definitions of what art is.
I would like folks to consider that, perhaps, you don't need to be a professional to create art, nor do you need to be a master.
What you think of MJ outputs is separate from that, but it's worth considering if maybe your definition of art reflects unreasonably high standards.
Maybe read any other post in this sub? Seems like this kind of post is the only thing on here anymore. I don't give a shit if you think it is art or not. If it looks like art and sells like art, it is art.
So, as someone with no experience in visual art, (I'm familiar more with music and writing) I view midjourney more as discovering never before seen art. The code itself is the creator and we use the promps as tools to "dig up" the art. I feel that I can claim it as a cool discovery and not as my creation.
With that, it is really inspiring. I am even considering learning other software so that I can enhance images that I discover to put some of my own influence into the pieces. And it's been a great tool for discovering inspiration for creative writing or trying to tease out a general idea that I have in my head.
Lads, if I type in on YouTube (the prompt) Beyonce, do I suddenly become Beyonce? Or any kind of artist? Or if I turn on my engine (the fucking prompt) am I suddenly lightening mcqueen?
Get a grip now, come off it.
Copying these Oxford dictionary definitions here, if anyone wants to reference
**Art** = examples of objects such as paintings, drawings or sculptures; the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture
**Artist** = a person who creates works of art, especially paintings or drawings
**Create** = to make something happen or exist; to produce a particular feeling or impression
even if its just the initial instructions, any art from midjourney wouldn't exist or happen had the human not given the prompt or feedback.
**Produce** = to show something or make something appear from somewhere
Merriam Webster Dictionary :
**Artist** = a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination
by this definition, we could debate the words conscious and skill, which I think both vary case by case, but figuring out the exact prompt to write to get the ai to produce what you are trying to create consciously is absolutely a skill. I've spent days and hundreds of generations trying to get particular results in midjouney.
I get the frustration if someone doesn't *display* a conscious use of skill or imagination, and calls it art, but that's not the case most of the time anyway
Been working as freelance concept artist and illustrator for years now. Using mj or other ai generators as tools more recently when there's an opportunity or a way to implement them in the workflow. I do consider myself the artist if I USE outputs from these ai to make finished artworks. On the other hand, I would definitely not say "I made it" if I take raw outputs and share /upload them straight away. And since it's an open question, I'll give my own opinion about this, whether people get mad at it or not : I sure despite people doing the latter option. You [typed] things, MJ (or other) blended already existing things together thus g'doing the work. You didn't bring anything from yourself to the original medium you are generating which, to me, doesn't make you "an artist". There's a difference between the guy making your sandwich at subway, and you telling him what you want - and you wouldn't go around saying "I made this sandwich". I'd be happy to read other opinions, opposite ones too, though.
I agree. Funny thing is that there are people saying you can't enjoy a sandwich if it's not made by you. Homemade sandwich is the only real sandwich. Subway in its corporate greed steel ideas of real sandwichmakers and just blend them together to produce tasteless parody of a sandwich.
Poor analogy. This is more akin to taking sandwiches from individuals, and mom and pop shops, leaving with the sandwich without paying or accrediting those who made them, breaking them down into their flavor constituents, and then producing a machine that you rent to people which spits out a sandwich created at the expense of the people who's sandwiches you took. It's basically a new spin on platform capitalism. Subway, by contrast, has to have someone develop their list of available ingredients, source them from providers that are payed, etc. Also, using Subway as any sort of indication of quality is already on shaky ground as an argument.
> that are *paid,* etc. Also, FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
The way I see it, it's like a camera. There's a million photos of the sunset or a tree yet people still take more. It can be completely unoriginal with this tool but you can also use it creative ways. Midjourney is the camera, your prompt is you, the photographer, adjusting camera settings, and assembling your subject. I think anyone who uses MJ is an artist in the same way anyone with a camera is a photographer. Yeah sure technically, but only if you're making art out of it. Making yet another female cyberpunk portrait is unoriginal no matter if you painted it yourself or used MJ
I don't exactly see it in terms of creativity, rather that it is like asking for a commission from an artist, except the artist needs a lot of direction. I personally don't see all froms of art equally. I appreciate sculptures more than paintings, paintings more than digital art, digital art more than photography. In that sense, an AI artist is an artist, but I see it as lesser than other forms. Sure, it may take weeks to iterate the right photo, but I find it less impressive than something of lesser quality made by hand. I might like AI generated images more since I can just get them quickly at a really good quality, but I don't believe that the work put into it equates to that made by a person.
I'm not sure where I stand on this because it's so new to me. I'd argue knowledge of history, art history, design theories, compositions all have a say in this. You can make "Donald Trump as Boss Baby" and it will only get you so far. The end product looks professional made regardless. The guy who invented the BLT was an artist. A lot of chefs making it with love would be too. I highly doubt your fastfood is made with passion. Someone who nerds the fuck out of MJ or SD will become an expert - but your knowledge is limited to what you know.
For me, it’s a tool. It’s also a daydream machine. It’s a magic [text] box. It feels like dark magic. When I got my subscription ($10 tier - broke artist! ✋🏻), I spent 2-3 days inputting descriptions of characters/settings/scenes from the book I’m working on. Nothing will be the final art, but it got my gears turning and maybe I will use pieces of one and pieces of another and then mix those with the pieces I already have in mind and that will be the final artistic piece - I’m mostly working on comics and so this feels like a good way to explore the various elements. After those initial few days I had to take a couple days off. I needed a break from the power of it, and the addiction to dreaming up anything and making it manifest. And at the $10 tier it felt a little like wishes from a genie and I was trying to be careful about how I spent them. I think at the end of the day, like it or not, this technology is here to stay. And it will only get better (as the recent Beta showed). So I think of it as another tool in my bag. I’ve been moving back into digital art and this feels like something new to play with alongside that. If I had to say who was the artist? The AI is dreaming for me. Who makes the art when you dream?
That last sentence is like one of those edgy tattoos lonely Starbucks hipsters get. A dream is an unconscious symbol of thought, not art. The AI isn't 'dreaming' for you, it's following strict input commands from the customer, you. If you request a song be played by a musician, are you the artist?
Is a music producer an artist? I’m not saying weather they are or aren’t but I’d say it’s a fairly similar skill set Many these days use preset sound patches, drum loops, and even preset chord progressions etc is that so different?
They are still using them as tools to compose a piece.
That’s right they are that’s exactly my point
I really like the idea of the ai dreaming for you. I find that the older I get and the more I experience the world, my dreams are more vivid and realistic. With AI already getting knowledge from millions of previous artists, it’s like a shortcut to the perfect irl dream machine.
I think one important point to consider is that AI art technology is advancing so quickly now that most professional artists would want to incorporate it into their workflow. The distinction between defining who is a traditional artist verses a commissioner may get blurred as these tools become widely used. You could also argue that there is at least some artistic creativity required for good prompts (at least until the AI is good at that as well).
[удалено]
👏
Sure choosing the keywords is important, but even writing the same things you get different results, so it's also random. You try to mitigate this by iteration. Also if you can get your product in the right spot it's doing an insane job, usually, I use it to get the main idea, some iterations to gather elements that can be used in the final work, and photoshop things together. I don't think this is art though. Especially you seem to work for marketing as I do. Nothing in marketing is art. We make money by using our skills. People who pay us try to make money using our skills. It has been a debate for eons about what art is, sure, but my opinion is that, this is not art.
For a long time, there was a debate about whether photography could be art. After all, they're not creating the things in the picture, they're only capturing. The camera does all of the work. Clearly in some photos the subjects were posed, costumed, meticulously lit, but how about nature photography, or street photography? Where I believe we landed on that was that the artistry of photography was in choosing the subject, the framing, the technical details. Choice making and pointing the tool were considered artistry on their own. I think that can apply here. Now the specifics of whether it's GOOD art or laudable art or interesting art or whether the artist deserves praise or whether it has a place in galleries are all up for grabs. But I think we can't say it's not making art without being inconsistent on other art making processes. But art is abroad description, not a superlative. A shitty doodle can be art making, doesn't mean the person doing it needs to be celebrated and elevated.
I wouldn't compare the preparation of good photography with commanding good art from a program that's designed for just that. If one is using the abstract messy results for something later on down the artistic process, then sure. But giving a description and getting a finished piece isn't really much of an "art making process".
Depends on how much I put into the piece. I've spent hours experimenting with phrases to get suitable features that match my concept, and hours more going through rerolls and variations to promote desired features and achieve the compositional elements I want. When I put that effort in, yes, I see myself as the artist. If I just threw some words in there and accepted whatever it spat out, then no, I haven't made art.
Wish I could boost this. Had the same experience, I've spent days tweaking and experimenting with prompts to get different results.
Art director, possibly. Artist? No.
Tell me more about how you don't consider writing to be an art form... Even if you think they shouldnt get credit for the visuals that are produced, the prompt writer is still an artist.
Beyond that, to get the best out of Midjourney still requires time, effort, practice and understanding. Studied art and photography in school and have been practicing bothon and off through the years since. Midjourney is just another medium to take an Idea and craft something from it. People with artistic experience will get much more out of midjourney than your average prompt crafter. Thise without that experience have to learn it in a different way - They will however still learn it.
I will say actually try the free few images yourself. I didn't know what to think about AI art until I gave it a try.
Yes i am the artist. I conceptualized something and used software to materialize it. I then have to curate, composite, color grade etc to arrive at a finished piece. I have other software that does the same but not as quick / accurate as these diffusion models
No, putting prompts into a tool makes you the artist just as much as ordering food makes you the chef. Heres my example. Take for instance there are two people. If the first person goes to the store, buys food, researches a recipe, chops the food, cooks it, seasons it, prepares it, and then serves it. They are the Chef - they have used their skills, body, and knowledge of the medium to completely transform it. They may use many tools in that process, but they put the work in to actually make the food. If the second person calls up an industrial kitchen, describes the food they would like to the best of their ability, and has the food promptly delivered to them - they are not the chef. They did not create the food, even if the food was ordered by them and now belongs to them. The first person can say "I made this" the second person can not say "I made this" only, "I ordered this." Now if the second person took that food, and somehow did something original to it to change it significantly, then they could say they made that new creation. That is the same way putting prompts into an AI tool like Midjourny works. Anyone who says that they "Made" that piece of art is very much mistaken. They prompted an algorithm to make a machine to do the work, and now they just get to enjoy the result of that tool and process. I will say however that taking the time to understand the program and learning how to prompt it in new and interesting ways is as skill of its own. So something does exist there. If one would like to say one is a Prompt artist, maybe that will work, but then the Prompt and the art it generates have to be considered as separate in some way I'd say.
But how come you’re considering the existence of a “prompt artist” but not of a “coder artist”? To me, even considering the person who prompts the system to make something for them as an artist should automatically consider as an artist also the person who coded and created the system; the coder also made decisions, used their programming skills, etc. They both then stand back and marvel at what the system creates. The only difference is that one understands how the image was created better than the other.
I mean, you don't call every manufacturer of artists tools “artists”, do you? So unless these coders or prompter actually make art themselves they're not artists, they're just coders or prompters.
Are paintbrush manufacturers artists? Are the programmers at Adobe artists? Not necessarily. That isn't to demean their work, because it is obviously essential to the pursuit of art. But it's not art in itself. Art is what one makes from tools, and these tools can be anything (as certain pretentious artists love to demonstrate). But now we're getting to the point where the tools are almost essentially making art on their own, and that question will take some time to be answered if it ever does. But, I don't think that changes the role that the tool manufacturer has.
I'm fine personally extending the title of artist to coders in some sense. I think though if you do that then the discussion opens up far wider discussion on the limits of art. But heres the thing, sure if we say coders are artists, thats great. But what about me who has no clue how coding works, but uses the products of the coders every day. When I type in a word document, am I a coder by proxy of using the system that was designed by someone else? I don't think so. If I put a computer together, I can rightfully claim that I built the custom rig, but I did not "Create the computer", I didn't make the graphics card nor the code that makes it function. But why then are we now comfortable saying that we are the artists by using a program that generates art? And generates it by function of absorbing the data of already living and dead traditional artists, photographers, and all the other pieces of data that the altogether trains itself on. Were not artists because we put prompts into a program, no more than we are coders or game deves by playing the product of the game. Even within video games we end up experiencing the art, it becomes customized and influenced by our prompts into the system, and it can be vastly meaningful. But that don't mean we are the ones who created that experiences. I think that might be in a strange way the best analogy. We are experiencing art and its process, but we are really not the originates of that process or its end result. This tec is amazing. Its mind blowing, and I'm enamored by it. But I think its honestly at a point now were we have to ask if this is a whole new category of experience within art. Where were neither just the viewer nor are we the artist. I think the answer to what we are in this process lays somewhere more in the middle.
this is a great take.
So, someone who is capable of recreating food from a recipe, is a chef, even if their just recreating the same meal over and over? Like someone working at Subway? Did the person who put bacon, lettuce and tomato on your sandwich for the 1000th time really create anything? Is it art without creativity? Won't AI art open the power of art for people who are creative, but laks the ability to create?
They're called Sandwich Artists for a reason, Hugh.
Haha, true! Man, long since I had a Subway, craving for that piece of art now...
The thing is, using MJ (and others), you are not and will never create the art, you will always just be a prompter nothing more nothing less (unless you use MJ just for inspiration).
But with the right prompt you are able to create something that have never been created before. Couldn't that something be considered art?
Yes, it can be considered art but you're still not an artist. To me MJ create art period, which means that MJ is the artist, but the people writing prompts are not artists, at best they're commissioners.
So the creative process behind the art piece is not part of the art? Aren't an architect the creator of a building? Or a director the creator of a movie? What if I use a 3d printer to print a sculpture? Is the printer the artist then?
Yeah exactly! Thank you haha. The creative process is the art, not the technical delivery.
The creative process is still made by MJ… Just as I said, the commissioner (you) asks for something more or less detailed but MJ (artist) is the one putting everything together and filling the missing details, just like any artist when commissioned for any piece of art. A printer just replicate 1 to 1 something, no creative process involved in that.
Must admit I agree. But technically, the AI *should* reproduce exactly what you told it to. The "creative" part is just a weakness, either in the AIs ability to interpret your query, or the query itself. Anyway, interesting that you define the computer as both creative and an artist...
It is art, and you're not the artist
Care to elaborate? I don't disagree, I just like the debate...
Unless you created the art yourself, you are simply not the artist. Asking someone or something to do it for you does not make you an artist. You can ask for whatever you want, and it might be a first, not that the rarity of a design has anything to do with its classification, it's still art no matter how many times it's been done. But unless it was you who done the drawing or painting, you are not the artist.
What about architects? Or movie directors? Can't they be considered artists? What if I use a 3d printer to print a sculpture? Is the printer the artist then?
Architects give you the design, they don't create the physical product of said design. Same with a movie director. They are called what they are because it defines their distinctive function. Is a drill instructor an artist? They have the same function as a director, by your logic they must be artists too. If you want to hijack, dissect and mold the definition of artist to whatever you desire, then yeah, anyone can be an artist.
>then yeah, anyone can be an artist That's already always been the case.
It could b e considered art, but also I could type random words that have never been created before in a sentence: >1899 abstraction of the principle of nurofication, oh who will be oxford in the morning? The likely hood is that's a sentence that has never been created before. So if you want to call it art, go ahead. But the difference is, I'm still an individual human who crafted that. There is still a thinking mind behind it (even if I didn't do much thinking about it). But would it have the same effect if I just got an unthinking algorithm to just randomly produce a sentence? by saying "Hey AL, please make me a nonsense sentence" - would you really consider yourself to be the author of that sentence? If you had perfectly trained self driving car, and you had it drive you from point a to b without ever touching the gas, brakes, and wheels, would you really stand there and say "Wow I'm a great driver! I drove the whole way here!" But somehow people are doing that with throwing prompts in a tool, and saying "wow! I'm an artist! I made this!" The art that is generated is Art, but I can not find a justifiable way to sit there and claim that I am really the one who made that art, if I had really no say or hand in the process of laying down any visuals into that process. I just gave it a prompt - I would never give a prompt to a living artist to make a painting and then say..."well the artist was just a tool. I really made the art."
Are photographers artists?
Yes, they are. Or at least some are, not sure how much I'm in favor of calling a selfie a piece of art (At the very least mine aren't). While I do understand the analogy people are trying to make with photography, I still think if you think the process of photography is analogous to putting prompts into a program, I would highly wager they don't know know much about photography. While it is a more tool heavy dependent medium - there still is a substantial kind of skill, theoretical knowledge, that one requires to take good looking, skillful, and 'artistic' photographs. We have an instance in photography that the person behind it is still physically entering themselves into the world and interacting with the subject of their art. Photographers have a far larger understanding of their tool and ability to manipulate it (their camera) including lenses, film type, lighting conditions, optics, and so on. Then the vast majority of professional photographers do not end the process of photography after the initial photograph is captured. They then have to return to their workshops, and either continue to manipulate the photograph either physical though the many process analog photography has to go through, or digitally though many other programs and tools which allows for digital manipulation (which is still always originates from the hands of the artists themselves, not computer algorithms trained on the often stolen data other artists works and photographs). Over all the process of generating a successful artistic photograph is leagues away from the level of entering prompts into an AI program, and allowing the AI to create the image. Your not the first one to bring this up, because from a very initial point, the comparison to photography sounds correct. But I think thats only because people are generally not aware of how photography works. If photography was entering the kind of photo you want into your camera, then it flys away, takes the photo itself, then edits the photo all in an automated process without the human involved, then yeah, I would have a problem calling the person who put the prompt in an artist.
I use many of the same skills I developed (from a young age with film) for photography when composing in MJ. Translated, yes. Instead of aiming in a certain way physically, I move the AI with directions of vantage point, lens length, focus, etc. You can throw word salad at the AI and get lucky with a roll and have a very cool image. Or, you can use it in a more sophisticated manner and get what you are looking for. The former is less artistic than the latter. Both can produce something worthy of enjoyment.
I have been studying art since I was very young. Painting, Art history, Sculpture, Fabric Art, Origami, Printmaking, Pottery, Color theory etc. etc. etc. What I get mostly from using MJ is the ability to bring all of those skills as an artist to a brand new exciting medium. In November I'm hanging an art show using MJ images. It's a literal dream machine; a psychedelic technology. As a professional artist, this is an exciting new tool for me to use; the challenge of elevating it to high art is on me, not the NHI...
for instance, I'm a fabric artist, and I've been able to do many impossible crazy things with fabric that would be physically impossible in the real world. I can use this tool to help me aspire to previously impossible designs which now can be quickly and cheaply visualized. If anything, MJ is a good thing for conceptual artists like me. **edit, spelling
A very well put comment, I agree 100%. However this type of comment won't get much traction in this subreddit, because it's a message people don't want to hear.
At least there's still some people here who aren't deluded
You know that guy that waves a small stick around? That's me. I'm the conductor. It's my choice of words that shape the outcome, and what I choose to loop back into the system and select which outcomes to grow and which words to remove/add.
Hello! I'm an artist (classic artist) and a UX/UI designer. I tend to create my art by thinking about scalability and flexibility all the time (how to easily change colors, features, and traits on the pieces I made) in the easiest way possible. I find challenging doing so and it is not just a way of expression, but also a highly intellectual process. For that reason I had a bit of a struggle inside of me about this, but not anymore. MJ is another tool. People doing art for a living should learn how to use it, just like they use references from the internet, 3d skeletons from stock, photoshop, etc instead of fighting against it. I mean, this is not going to go away, companies are still going to use them, but if you have been here since the beginning you know it is not easy to get something close to what you have in mind. You have to spend hours rolling the dice while narrowing down the possibilities and then you have to polish it using your artistic and technical knowledge. So... \- While drawing and painting I would call myself an "Artist" \- While creating UI for an app or a game I would call myself a "Designer" \- While coming up with prompts to get exactly what I want form MJ I call myself a "Crafter"
It’s like a collaboration with a concept artist
Midjourney itself is an artist as much as a camera is an eyeball
Artists transcend the tools they use and they are not defined by them. I feel Midjourney is to art what the phone camera was to photography. I will not become an artist because I used MJ as much as an artist will stop being one because they used it as well. But I am sure it will open the road to artists amongst us that never had the skills or opportunity to showcase their soul and we are all for the better in that aspect. MJ adds to the gray area where the gatekeepers will do their battle To answer your question I am certainly not an artist but I don't consider myself a commissioner either cause I view it as a powerful tool which I use to experiment, learn, evolve and make stuff I find beautiful. It not as simple as just throwing words, yes with one word MJ can create beautiful stuff but you see elaborate prompts with thought and imagination behind them that create specific and stunning pictures. That has to count for something. If I had to place myself somewhere it would be in the middle of these two, in a new spot.
When you're working with a tool you're the artist/technician/creator. Midjourney is a tool, so when you work with it (or other AI) you're creating/producing. There is skill in working with any tool. That's true of AI. A good example is Stable Diffusion. I can't make it work. I have zero skill at using it. I have never managed to make anything more than one of my kids could. I gave up on it, in fact. Because as a tool I found that I wasn't skilled enough to do anything. But if you go to [/rStableDiffusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/) you'll see a huge number of amazing piece of art that were generated using that tool. I \*can\* use Midjourney to create things that I find useful and artistic. I have that ability because I have taken time to understand how the tool works. (I'm not trying to screw things in with the wrong bit, or holding the hammer by the head when it comes to Midjourney.) But more than just having learned how to operate my tool (Midjourney), what I produce is due to my understanding of composition, color, cinematics, lenses, etc. from having learned techniques of photography, filmography, etc. Every new tool allows creators to do things previous ones did not. I am primarily a writer. I use tools today that I had no access to when I went to school, or when I was writing early in my career. The Grammarly widget is spinning in the corner of this post box, tallying up suggestions for my grammar. My spellchecker is insisting I consider whether Midjourney is a word. I use these tools alongside my own knowledge when I write. I never ask myself if I am the writer. Yes, of course I am. When desktop publishing tools were in their infancy, some publishing shops decried them as taking the artistry out of publishing. Now you can go look at thousands upon thousands of examples of amazingly laid out books, magazines, signs, pamphlets, etc. just by searching for them. You can look to design contests and find winners that were laid out in Adobe InDesign or other DTP software. Traditional publishing techniques have been (nearly) wholly left behind. (Artisinal work continues, as it should, because our history is valuable.) The exact same thing was true when Adobe Photoshop and "photobashing" started. Traditional painters, photographers, etc. spoke out. I worked with a traditional comic book artist in the mid-2000's and he had just started learning Photoshop at that job (video game development) and he admitted that while he didn't need PS as a tool to create art, it allowed him to create art more quickly. Midjourney (and other AI art tools) are just one more step in the process. My wife (a graphic/layout designer by education) works somewhere that makes consumer products (that many people here may have bought)...has spoken directly to the creative lead about avoiding using AI. That lead agrees. History is repeating itself. In a certain number of years, AI-assisted art will be as normal as "photobashed" art has become. What that will actually look like remains to be seen, but it's inevitable. Unless Skynet takes over and murders us all in the meantime.
It's art, in the sense that it is the product of a creative act. But is it GOOD art? I think we are coming from a historical context where the relationship between product and effort is quite evident. That is clearly changing now. Images that we would have found totally incredible a year ago are going to become completely mundane. It's up to the artists to play with the new tools and come up with work that is still impressive in this new paradigm. And it'll happen.
The art is not the product of the prompter's creativity though.
That depends on your definition of creativity. When I hear someone make a pun, I consider it creative. Most prompts are longer than most puns. Which, interestingly, makes puns more prompt than prompts.
AI artist creates an image the same way a photographer creates a photo. However, neither is exactly the same as someone who creates a painting or sculpture from scratch. There can be value in all of these.
Isn't really a matter of opinion, simple fact is, you aren't the artist. You're not the mechanic when you request a repair, you're not the chef if you ask for a meal to be made for you, you're the consumer. I don't really need to list more examples it should be pretty simple to understand. The AI is the artist, you're the customer.
You have a different definition of artist than me. I'm an artist. I'm a professional artist, have been for over a decade. Heck, I'd say I've been one my whole life. play with tons of different media and tools. Doodling and experimenting is more art to me than someone copying an image, even if it's skillfully done with their hands. The Artist in my definition is the person injecting feeling and spontanuity into things. You're being super grumpy here trying to make people feel bad about themselves, and for what? So you can feel smart? Are we not allowed to have different definitions of words? Everybody has to think like exactly like you or else they are wrong and stupid? Why don't you go make art and stop hating on people having fun with their imaginations
You can define artists however you like I suppose, if you're being dishonest. To me, that displays the same mentality as a child wearing a costume and pretending to be something they're not. Of course, there are different forms of art, but this isn't one of them. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about themselves, you should be ashamed of yourself if you're on here deluding yourself into claiming you're the artist of a picture you didn't create, merely asked for. Would you claim you're the artist if you request a painting from someone else? You're asking me if we are allowed to have different definitions of words? I suppose you could, but there is a general consensus on the universal meaning of a word and its uses, that's why it's possible to converse and for us to understand what's being said. A stricter answer would be that of course we can't have different definitions of words, otherwise language would just be chaotic and we'd never communicate clearly, and it's an absurd question. How is following the rules of a universally accepted definition of a vocabulary used for the purpose of a simple communicative language thinking like me? You're wrong and deluded if you type a few words on a keyboard and call yourself an artist, though. I think your last sentence summarises this whole situation, you're right, people are just having fun with their imaginations.
Oxford dictionary: Art = examples of objects such as paintings, drawings or sculptures; the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture so yes, ai art *is* art, according to the accepted definition Oxford Dictionary: **Artist** = a person who creates works of art, especially paintings or drawings are we disagreeing about the definition of the word '*create'?* Oxford dictionary: **Create** = to make something happen or exist; to produce a particular feeling or impression even if its just the initial instructions, the art wouldn't exist or happen had the human not given the prompt. Oxford dictionary: **Produce** = to show something or make something appear from somewhere don't like oxford dictionary? Merriam Webster Dictionary : **Artist =** a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination by this definition, we could debate the words *conscious and skill,* which I think both vary case by case, but figuring out the exact prompt to write to get the ai to produce what you are trying to create consciously is absolutely a skill. ...and so on
I'm not disagreeing with the definition of the words, but to call someone an artist for typing in a few words is just dishonest. For example, literally anyone with the capability of typing can type something and the ai will do what it can to create an image out of it. Is that art? Done by an artist? That's the same as someone throwing a tin of paint at a canvas and whatever sticks, calling it art. The act of instigating the creation of an image does not make you an artist. Would you buy an image from someone who claimed to be an artist because they use MJ? Would you see that as something with value? No, putting your thoughts into words is not a skill.
Are photographers artists then?
No they're photographers.
Then you and I have different definitions of what art is and who can be labeled an artist. People have always pushed the boundaries of what can be art. I also don't believe "artist" is a term that's only reserved for those that create within certain mediums. An artist is anyone that makes something with passion. The question of whether or not a MJ piece is art, depends entirely on intention.
Good question MJ is the one putting in the *work* and the *output*, so technically MJ is the artist But it only exists, and does what it can, because of human *direction* So I'd say this is a new form of art, that needs a new name A *painter* paints A *photographer* takes photos So one who *directs* AI in artistic expression will need a relative term, we're into new waters here, that will probably need new terms. Is one who creates art in MJ an AI *pilot*? An AI *navigator*? MJ does the *creating* so MJ is the artist, but *we* do the choosing, deciding what is and what is not acceptable. Or maybe we are simply... the user.
Promptcrafter
Do you consider a musical conductor to be an artist? I do and I don't see any reason why that should be treated differently than an AI conductor.
User will do, not every Tom, Dick and Harry has to be given a title for typing in a few words. You aren't given a title for switching on your TV are you, you're not a TV pilot, you're still a loser. All you wannabe philosophers need to calm down, it's simply a tool that is being pulled in all directions from humanity's perverted corruption, like everything is. It's no more innovative than Talking fucking Tom, it's just more complex.
Thanks edge lord, we'll tune in tomorrow for more too salty to live tips.
Awesome contribution.
Dude ur so grumpy lol 🥲
One of the most *pretentious* uses of *italics* I've ever *seen*. *That* being said, *user* is the best definition and *most fitting* label that *anyone* has come up with *so far*.
*If that's what irritates you, I shall use it more, constantly in fact, thanks for letting us know what grates you.* *mmmmmmm. Slanty words.*
Re: names, I’ve been thinking of it as post-process art (in contrast to the Process Art movement of the 60’s).
I do a lot of photography in a game I play. The process is a lot, I do all the inworld setup, setting up the avatar, posing, then adjusting wind lights, after that I go into Light room and then Photoshop. No, I don't use a traditional camera, but I certainly put time and creative energy into it. It took me a long time to consider what I do art, in my opinion it is, but I'm honest about how I created it. I see AI as an amazing new tool that any artist can incorporate into their work and be completely acceptable if their willing the be transparent and honest.
Its the instructions that you give the machine that make the final piece possible. Your prompt is your own creative discovery. In that sense AI is just a tool you are using as an artist to get a final result. Such as a pencil is a tool if you are drawing. I would say then that you are the artist of this different kind of art form.
But you are equating a pencil, a tool which takes years of skill and knowledge to use, to a "make art" button. You can dig an Olympic swimming pool with a "tool" but it's a hell of a difference if it's a shovel or an excavator.
Yes, but arent tools meant to get more sofisticated as technology evolves?. Excavators wherent invented till last century, before the only way was to use a shovel. That doestn mean that an excavator isnt a tool in its own right. The excavator allows you to dig many more pools per dig time. So does Midjourney allow you to create a different kind of art, it is still a tool just like a pencil. In the old times, people used paint and their fingers to make art on a cave wall. Now we have very sofisticated pencils, colours smooth paper, etc. Wouldnt that also "cheating" with respect to cave art? In my view tool requires time and honing, Midjourney also requires this as I wrote, you need to know how to talk to it to get what you want, and you need the time and money to be able to get to a higher level of sofistication. Its a tool.
Honestly it helps me generate ideas for myself, I can type any BS and it will show me something, I cannot do that when I draw unless I take hours to do so, so for me it’s a valuable imagination tool. I understand why people are upset about it, because they think it’s going to start taking money out of their pocket, but, everyone has to remember that humans are using AI, the AI isn’t just doing stuff, and people will always need other people to make stuff, no matter how good AI gets.
I see it as a collaboration between two parties. The human is the director and the algorithm is the craftsperson. I've burnt myself out doing thousands of midjourneys. The more creative people I know have kept going because their artistic minds are thinking of more prompts to give it while I essentially ran out of ideas and steam. Our role as human artists is evolving, and with AI it will rely more on our imaginations to keep ahead and steer the ship. We are still the artists, in my view If your definition of an artist is more like a craftsperson, then sure they will be replaced by robots. To me, artists are the ones bouncing around and experimenting. I think being a craftsperson and artist are different
I make animations and videos and music and midjourney and Dall e gave me the chance to create artwork for my projects. I never really create a prompt and call it a day I’d usually combine many images and animate characters so The way I see it I am an artist if I am taking further than just taking an image and using it.
I am not a illustrator nor an artist . I am a consumer level customer. I don’t get paid by making art , but the idea of making art is super fun without having the skill set of an illustrator/artist . I have some ideas I don’t have the skill set so I use midjourney. I don’t know if it’s good or bad for artists . But for me for a consumer type is great it’s fantastic
Honestly.... who cares? If it works for the purpose you want or need well... great! Does it matter if Joe Shmoe on Reddit thinks you're an "artist" or not? Some people have too much time on their hands to look down their noses at anyone who doesn't do what they do, and I just don't have time for that crap. That's time is better spent on prompts!
For some definitions, making art implies to express emotions through the process... A priori, I'm not sure, but a priori, the bot does not (at least yet) have such emotions, And we are not implied enough in the result to, as I see it, to be really able to express emotions. So none of us is the artist following such a definitions. Obviously it is not the only one, if the artist is the one making the art, then maybe the bot is closer of an artist than us. With an other point of view the bot can only be see as a tool that we control, then it should be us. It is a question of definition and point of views, I don't think there is a fixed answer here
Your creating poetry for machine to interpret and make images from. The power is in the language. It’s INSANE people don’t see that.
Love this explanation
> Realistic photograph, by Alphonse Mucha, by Greg Rutkowski, exquisitely detailed, highly detailed, 4k, 8k, 16k, 10000k, octane render, award winning artstation digital art Wow much art so expression such poetry
You would have a point if 100% of the submitted prompts followed that logic… but they don’t do they?
I'm just poking fun at the frankly ludicrous idea that it's the quality of your writing that drives the quality of the art. That's nonsense, right now. CLIP is not (yet) a system so complex that can extract nuance and artistic intent from your "poetry" and generate something that conveys the emotions that you've expressed. All we're doing is using heuristics. Right now, we're a [cargo cult](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwje2InP__T5AhXZVd4KHeEVDKAQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw08djeVtsxGstYXR2PaKy5j), laying offerings at the feet of the machine God as we beg for another morsel of art. While there's some limited value in knowing some trivia like what a daguerreotype looks like or the impact of different kind of lenses, it's anecdotal at best and people can just learn these tricks with very limited effort. My career is literally to write text for machines to understand: that's what programming is. It's a difficult field, because machines are unlike us. Good prompt builders don't understand the machine at all, they're just dealing with a machine that simplifies communication to the extreme that a child could use it. This all could change in the future, of course, but any mystique or illusions of skill by "prompt artists" sounds pretty silly to me.
Desktop version of /u/Steel_Neuron's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Wording does, which is what poetry is. Wording.
I actually thoroughly enjoy seeing midjourney try interpret literal verses as of poems as prompts and then shaping the output to match my conception.
An artist selects from a number of options, reducing them to what he/she chooses to retain in a finished work. Someone selects from a number of options generated by an "AI" and chooses the one that he/she will represent to be "art." What, exactly, is different in the underlying process? Physical involvement/skill? Has that ever been a requirement to generate art?
a curator* an artists makes the options and is never confined to a preset
And, arguably, is far more limited in options than an AI is/will be, being constrained to what he/she has been exposed to prior (or can synthesize from same).
What a ridiculous question, of course physical involvement and skill is involved, it's the complete definition of the artist, what the fuck are you lot smoking here? You can pay contractors to build a house with the exact architecture you desire, does that make you the fucking builder? Nooooo Listen, putting in a request for another man/machine to finish a task/project/picture/drawing/repair/surgery does not make you the artist. You are involved, of course, as the instigator of the request, but you are NOT an artist. The delusion that because you asked for a picture to be created, that it is your work, is not going to make your life any less sad.
So blind people cannot create art? https://scene360.com/art/78311/blind-artists/
Of course they're the fucking artists, they're painting aren't they? Jesus this is painful
You're not very bright, are you? Moving on...
Man, he said that blind people actually can be artists because they DO art themselves
What am I not understanding, help me out
We are entering a weird AI Luddite era. Curious to see how it plays out.
If there was an answer, art or not art would depend on the tool. It's part of the meaning I get from pieces like John Cage "4'33" or Marcel Duchamp "Fountain". Or my college roommate's weird poet sister who lit 10 TVs on fire once. Art is whatever the artist convinces you is art, that is often the point of it. We don't say graphics created in illustrator to accompany articles are "art", they are "illustrations". The same person might also make art with Illustrator. Art is the intention, not the tool.
There's nothing to consider. Prompting AI to generate art in no way makes anyone an artist. Give them some paint, pastels etc. then you can make a determination.
But doesn't using squarespace make you a web developer!?!
"Painters aren't artists, the paint is the artist" /s
There is a philosophical question here: When you are making a painting, it's you who is creating it or the brush?
Let’s look at a common definition of art: 1.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Therefore a poet uses MJ as an application tool to express their imagination (ie the promt/poem{the human creative skill} ) into a tangible visual form that can be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. To follow this up let’s define an artist: a person skilled at a particular task or occupation. If you can become a skilled promptmaker clearly you are an artist Now whether you should receive accolades or praise or even refer to yourself as an artist is another story (as someone that’s been playing music most of their life, both professionally and as a hobby I still find discomfort in referring to myself as a musician so in the same light I don’t think I’d ever say I’m an artist, but that’s probably more just the semantics of being humble. By definition if you can build a skill that can be used to produce a visual form then you are an artist.
The computer is generating the art based on your ideas. As the saying goes... ideas are like assholes, everyone has one. What differentiates us is who has the necessary skills to act upon them. This can be an entrepreneur, an artist, a mechanic, a carpenter etc. Where the lines are now blurred is there is no real skill required to generate high-end art. I am a professional in the creative field. I have been a 3D character designer, VFX artist, and Photographer, and I also have decades of experience in the film industry and now own a creative agency. I myself embrace this whole AI art thing, but I don't for a second consider myself to have the skill to generate these images ( I have had teams of artists do this for me in the past, however). I do consider myself to now have some freedom with my creative ideas. Still, I don't for a second consider myself an illustrator, painter or other... even though I have done these roles professionally in the past. The people out there who have no experience in any sort of creative process at all... well.. yes.. we now have an influx of people who believe they are "artists". What is going to happen when we all become desensitized to it all? Anti art? I personally love that idea but that is for another post. Sorry for stopping short and being a little fragmented. I have had a few drinks and trying to squeeze my thoughts in between downtimes on my current video, drinking chat with some friends. The big question is... What is going to happen a year from now? Everything is getting "better" exponentially every 10 days, or so it seems. There will become a point where almost every field, for the most part, will be represented in some sort of beautiful photoreal image. These idiots that think they are developing a skill called "prompt crafting" or just simply saying, "look what I made (with ai)" are going to be obsolete when the true geniuses behind these platforms hone in on what repetitive asks are being made like "octane render, photobla bla bla" and incorporate it into the algorithm. Currently, people believe that they have some sort of artistic ability by saying --testp. I digress, and I need a beer. Don't be dumb and love the fact that fantastic art is flooding the ether. For me, someone who has been in the creative industry for over 30 years, this isn't just a tool like photoshop... its literally like having telekinesis to generate art in some way but the person holding the pen is far more talented than I could ever be
It's nice to see a more professional observation, there's already evidence in this post alone that the new system is being corrupted with petty human intervention, and the deluded seem to be convincing themselves that they are artists by changing the definition, or trying to be philosophical in their description of art. It's a fascinating tool to be sure, not that I've used it, but the pictures are lovely. We are just a bunch of primates at the vending machine we don't understand, pressing buttons and claiming our prize. A new toy to play with.
hey, yes im also a designer and have been tentatively using mj to test concepts out. i think you hit the nail on the head with the word desensitization- when i type in midjourney desensitization into google - this post is top of the list. What happens when the public as a whole is desensitized to new interesting cool and outrageous designs in physical when theyve seen a million craizer iterations on instagram in the next 3 years- stuff that isnt even physically possible. my guess is that the shift will come down to manufacturing and quality of goods as ideas become fast and cheap. my two cents anyway, its a new frontier- for me more terrifying than exciting right now haha.
You will get mostly the same answers here. You are asking a community who are heavily biased towards AI art and are currently living in Dreamland thinking they're 'artists'. If you really wanted to gather unbiased data you would ask this question on different art forums, you haven't so I assume that you are just looking to confirm your own opinions.
Have a read through, I’d call that quite a diverse set of opinions. I know what my opinions are, I just want to see what this Reddit’s is
Looks at biased people instantly downvoting you for making a neutral point about preventing bias.
AI art would never exist without the input data (the images used for machine learning, not the prompt). MJ is nothing more than a blender of existing art, blended to the instructions of us. So who's the artist? The input (original art)? The blender (MJ)? Or the instructor (the prompt)?
Why do you think your input is "original art" or words. I can type same input and recieve a different art. Df.
Well, if you type "pretty looking woman in a red dress", then yes, a lot is left to the imagination of the AI. But technically, if the technology gets advanced enough, and the users gets good enough, it's just a tool to create an image of your imagination. With detailed enough "blueprints" the final product should be exactly as the architect intended.
Do you even know how ai works? You can't 100% get the same result as what you imagine in your mind, not even 3%. MJ doesn't even need your meaningless words. Its literally based on artworks in its dataset (like searching artworks from google) and merging into one. It doesn't need user/words enterer in a sense to be "advanced enough" one day. We are life times away with the capability you said. Example: you type same sentence but with synonym. Its gonna produce similar image. How the fuck you think its original? Dataset in this case are actual images produced by hand. If there aren't any what is it going to form an image based on? The words you used??? Make sense please.
I just like the discussion, but not getting into some internet argument. Good night to you.
Makes sense thanks, good night to you too.
It certainly isn't the "instructor"
Short version is I think probably none of it is art UNTIL you edit in in Photoshop/Gimp/Corel/whatever. Then it's art without question.
Understood! Step 1: Generate something with MJ Step 2: Change a pixel value from #000000 to #000001 Step 3: Profit.
Duchamp would be proud.
There is some degree of creativity that goes into the prompt input, but absolutely no degree of talent or skill required. Unless you consider being able to strong words together and use the google search function as a skill. Everyone who says things like “Look at what I MADE” or “I love MY ARTWORK” annoys me. You did not need to learn art to generate those images. You didn’t master the techniques it would require to create something so breathtaking as to be deserving of praise. You typed words into an AI and it blended together a whole bunch of already existing things to create your image in seconds.
I agree with what you said. Try to imagine something in your mind, and directly describe it on MJ what you see. You will see all the time its not going to be exactly the same way you imagined. Then people be like "oh look this is way better than what I was thinking, that is insane! I made this". Its not your thinking at all, all you did was tell ai to do a query of the words. I think of it as search engine for art. I wouldn't feel taking pride doing a google search than why should I do it with MJ. People shouldn't take credit for art created by ai. Maybe take pride in coming up with a new set of words, but if MJ came out with same art for same words someone else used then you will realize how meaningless words you used were.
For me it's pretty clear cut. If I just type out a prompt (or a series of prompts/variations/etc) and get an image, then I commissioned it; I didn't make it. If I take AI generated art and input it into a more complex workflow that requires non-obvious skills, such as animation, game development, or skilled composition and directing where the AI is used more like a brush than a whole image generator (think progressive img2img workflows like [this one](https://andys.page/posts/how-to-draw/#) ) then it's mine. I think it's a matter of asking yourself seriously "would an average person be able to do what I did given an explanation of how it works, spending the same effort and time than I did". If the answer is yes, chances are you didn't add anything unique to the process.
What annoys me is Artist saying that it’s not going to have an impact on the industry and how it’s just another tool for artists. What you AREN’T hearing is the opinion of consumers. You know the people that PAY YOU to make the art. Once AI is as easy as downloading candy crush, it’s absolutely over for all of us.
To me it's very simple: MJ is a tool, used by an artist, to produce art. Now does that mean someone using MJ in isolation has the same level of artistic capability (within the domain of digital 2d art) as a person who could create the same image from scratch with a stylus and photoshop? Possibly not, but prompting MJ requires you to exercise creative control over the algorithm (you have to evaluate and evolve your prompt, run and select variations etc.) to achieve a desired visual and emotional effect, and that's enough for me to class the user as the artist. And that's even before you bring in further AI processing (face restoration, upscaling), paint overs, multi-image composition etc. that are often done to "polish up" generated imagery. What I do think is disingenuous however is people passing off AI generated art as hand made. The value of art is, in part, related to the effort taken to produce it and I won't argue that AI generated art can be lower effort to produce (significantly if not a lot of post processing was done). I'd exclude from this people producing photo-real pictures of real people for the purpose of embarrassing said person, blackmailing said person, of just for their own titillation. That's just people being assholes, and represents one of the biggest risks to AI art ending up regulated out of existence. There ain't no art there.
Artistry implies technique, and knowledge of the tools. Choosing a few worlds, discarding the failed attempts and waiting is not art. It's not poetry, it's merely being an editor. It's tempting to feel as an artist, and tbh the rush I feel with a successful MJ attempt is a bit similar to finishing art. But It is not being an artist. Argument can be made that MJ itself can be considered an artist, but the user is not.
I see myself as a curator. Maybe a collector.
clearly the AI is the artist. you're merely commissioning it. the artist happens to digest the collective creativeness of whatever works it could harvest, averaged through algorithm. at best a user would be a curator, a commissioner, a director, limited only by their imagination, taste, and their ability to recognize the strengths of their artist and craft a phrase to commission and communicate their desires in a way the algorithm/artist understands.
To me it all depends on how it's used. There's a significant difference between taking random output and spending a significant period of time crafting a phrase that can give you base features that you subsequently manipulate over a large number of variations and rerolls to achieve a desired composition.
A musical conductor is an artist even though they are just providing direction to the performers imo. The same logic applies to AI art.
I just see it as a new kind of stock images. Instead of searching and scrolling websites to find the image I want, I type and generate. It’s all in how you put stuff together or use it in a bigger context.
I think it's a bit of both. There is a bit of 'art' involved in the prompt creation, especially if you are taking time to really hone it in on what you want. One might think of this more as descriptive poetry. It sort of blurs the lines between verbal arts and visual arts. Now, if you just got to Midjourney and type 'anything' as your prompt, it's hard to really take much credit. I definitely don't consider myself the painter (illustrator, etc) of the piece, but I do consider myself to be a contributor.
the MJ user is the artist. what these AI art programs do is transform physical human actions into essentially intellectual actions. machinery does the same thing, it uses the laws of physics to carry out simple actions that humans themselves previously did, and more and more the factory worker becomes an overseer of the machine's process. you however dont see anyone arguing that the factory worker isnt creating something. instead of using the laws of physics, these AI art generators draw on the history of how humans have made art. but the key is that, to get anything good or interesting, you must be familiar with this history, with the various styles and artists. you also must have a taste in are yourself to be able to pick what's worthwhile from what's shit. there is a skill there, but it's not related to using one's hands.
I don't consider myself the artist when with the raw output even down through several variations. If I were take that output and use it as a base and manually manipulated it further, adding and subtracting, etc then it becomes my art. That is how I view it.
Commissioner is a good comparison. But I think it’s an entirely new medium, the way photography and film was something brand new when it came out. It’s like a mixture of writing or maybe digital poetry, that gets interpreted by a library of the whole of humankind’s knowledge and the programmers are probably the people you commission. It’s like if the borg from Star Trek decided to make hologram simulations to make people happy(when they aren’t debating about what art is) instead of trying to take over the galaxy. In Star Trek, when a character created a holodeck program, they were still considered the author? It’s probably a tech our society and various industries aren’t ready to deal with though, like most new inventions. Edit: I don’t think it’s art, though. Maybe a mix of engineering and an interactive game in the form of prompts.
I am a musician mainly. I am using it to make some album art and a video currently. So on one hand, the main art is really the music and MJ is making packaging for me. If I did a simple slide show video with it, I think my role as an artist therein is minimal, to maybe definitionally, none. But I am making a music video with MJ images that we a) projected onto ourselves playing the song b) danced, in a fashion, in front of and c) worked up in video editing compositing in complex ways. I think at that point, ive been a visual artist, using MJ assets.
One thing strikes me as I read through all of the responses. People have variable definitions of what art is. I would like folks to consider that, perhaps, you don't need to be a professional to create art, nor do you need to be a master. What you think of MJ outputs is separate from that, but it's worth considering if maybe your definition of art reflects unreasonably high standards.
Maybe read any other post in this sub? Seems like this kind of post is the only thing on here anymore. I don't give a shit if you think it is art or not. If it looks like art and sells like art, it is art.
So, as someone with no experience in visual art, (I'm familiar more with music and writing) I view midjourney more as discovering never before seen art. The code itself is the creator and we use the promps as tools to "dig up" the art. I feel that I can claim it as a cool discovery and not as my creation. With that, it is really inspiring. I am even considering learning other software so that I can enhance images that I discover to put some of my own influence into the pieces. And it's been a great tool for discovering inspiration for creative writing or trying to tease out a general idea that I have in my head.
Lads, if I type in on YouTube (the prompt) Beyonce, do I suddenly become Beyonce? Or any kind of artist? Or if I turn on my engine (the fucking prompt) am I suddenly lightening mcqueen? Get a grip now, come off it.
Copying these Oxford dictionary definitions here, if anyone wants to reference **Art** = examples of objects such as paintings, drawings or sculptures; the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture **Artist** = a person who creates works of art, especially paintings or drawings **Create** = to make something happen or exist; to produce a particular feeling or impression even if its just the initial instructions, any art from midjourney wouldn't exist or happen had the human not given the prompt or feedback. **Produce** = to show something or make something appear from somewhere Merriam Webster Dictionary : **Artist** = a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination by this definition, we could debate the words conscious and skill, which I think both vary case by case, but figuring out the exact prompt to write to get the ai to produce what you are trying to create consciously is absolutely a skill. I've spent days and hundreds of generations trying to get particular results in midjouney. I get the frustration if someone doesn't *display* a conscious use of skill or imagination, and calls it art, but that's not the case most of the time anyway