Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Illustration App Procreate Condemns Generative AI
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think of Michael Whelan often when art and AI pop up.
Artists will still remain. And I'm sure there will be artists that could even utilize AI with an artistic spirit.
But let's not kid ourselves that generative AI as it stands is being made for the benefit for artists.
This is childish, and to the point that AI is sucking the soul out of art.
Like all the companies flat out stealing to train their AI models?
That kind of "taking advantage"?
I love how people think "embracing AI art" and "taking advantage of the tech" is some skill to learn
If anything, it would be a short stop gap to just replacing anyone who "embraced and took advantage of the tech" for a fleeting moment
Fully rejecting this garbage is where I'm at
I don't want "artificial creativity" -- it's a contradiction in terms
If anything, it would be a short stop gap to just replacing anyone who "embraced and took advantage of the tech" for a fleeting moment
Fully rejecting this garbage is where I'm at
I don't want "artificial creativity" -- it's a contradiction in terms
I think the point is it does not take any skill. It is super easy to use and because of that saves a ton of time and is incredibly helpful and productive.
No one is forcing AI art on anyone. Anecdotal but I don't know anyone interested in AI art, and no real person who cares about art will be interested in art not created by a human being.
Here I thought I was making a valid point! Your point begs the question, does ANY finiancial incentive suck the soul out of art?
Why is Florentine Renaissance art dominated by images of emperors & kings, wealthy burghers & their wives, and religious content? Because that's who was paying the artists to create those very paintings and sculptures, that's why. Does that "suck the soul" from the work of Donatello, Raphael, DaVinci, or Michaelangelo? Sure sounds like that's the point you're trying to make.
Art has no soul. The artist has the soul, and great art is a reflection of that soul, no matter the incentive. When I beheld Michaelangelo's Pieta in person, I saw his soul in his creation. He was paid by the Roman church to create it, using the tools he had available to him at the time. All of them. It could not exist without those tools. It would not exist without the financial support of its patron. It's ludicrous to speculate that modern artists should forgo all the tools available to them to share their visions. It's even more ludicrous that any of those tools actually create a wall between the creator and his creation.
Biggest question remaining, who are we to judge the validity, the talent, or the "soul" or art? Or the tools used to create it? The Pieta, David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel could not have been created using the tools available 500 years before. Your inability to use those tools in no way invalidates those tools as long as someone better than you can.
"artificial creativity" is nothing more than a term you're using to rationalize your bias. There is no empirical evidence that such a thing even exists, much less contradicts itself. Extending your argument means any art not made by a man drawing pictures on a cave wall, using only his fingers and his own blood, is "artificial creativity" since it requires an instrument between the creator and his creation. A charred stick is an "artificial" medium. So is the fire used to char it. I'm sure there are artists still refusing to use paint brushes with ""artificial" synthetic bristles. Maybe you're one of those?
One needs to keep an open mind to it. It's been useful for a plebian like me resolving issues with my workflow automations.
Without a doubt art and money go hand in hand and why the great empires had lots of art. When you are poor living in the mud you don't have the time to explore and create in the same way as you do in an opulent society.
Where I would draw the line with art is a completely generated by AI. Personally I am not a fan of digital art at all. Something about the human hand interacting with a piece. Chiseling stone, painting canvas, the effort and craftsmanship with no undo option. AI art lacks depth and meaning because AI has no depth and meaning, no life time of experiences. It is again algorithms and nothing more and no replacement for the human experience, only attempts at mimicking which makes it as conversational as a parrot. 2 images below, one is AI and one is painted by Keith Melling, an English artist. I think it is easy to spot what is AI and what is not. One has pretty colours and the uninformed might fight the bright colours to be enough, but there is no real looking into it, it is simply a place holder on a wall that is probably replaced with each new fad. The other is an artist, someone who has been to these places, inspired by them, lived in those hills, really sees the beauty and vastness of it all. AI will never replace real artists, though the masses may drink up the garbage art that AI spits out, just as over 300 million people think it is worth their time to follow the Kardashians on whatever platforms they are using. Ai is not the death of a culture, I would say that has already happened thanks to social media.
Let's be honest - corporate art is already pretty soulless.
Human-generated Art will always have a place in society because society will demand it. Like organic milk and eggs. AI is the new GMO - artificial, low quality, ethically dubious.
That is exactly it. AI will be used more and more commercially but cannot replace the humanity found in art created by real people. I personally don't care if the pizza flyer or the insurance brochure are using AI images or not, I do care if the painting on my wall is.
These AI tools can greatly help corporate Marketing so quickly and trendy as well. Will painting for one’s own satisfaction cannot use any tools like illustrator, it requires canvas, colour pallet and your own hands. This particular discussion is about Illustrator not trying to use AI tools in helping artists (corporate or otherwise).
Art has been and always will be subjective no matter how it was created. Whether it is using silk screening like Andy Warhol, dripping paint like Jackson Pollock, 2D vs 3D animations, film vs digital, the list goes on and on. No one is forcing anyone to use AI. And those who choose to use it, can use it as another tool in their toolbox.
Of course it can, and unfortunately, it will. The cost savings and earning potential are astronomical. Humanity? Human nature is what brought us here in the first place.
It does not matter whether the quality of art is refined, artificial or reflective of human endeavor. As you yourself said, "over 300 million people think it is worth their time to follow the Kardashians". Bad taste is omnipresent. What matters is the commecial value.
Finally a salient argument with good points! So how does Protease factor into your equation here? Is it just a digital brush, or is it an merely an "artificial" shortcut used by artists less talented with an analog brush, easel, and paint? Is Protease different from Generative AI in kind or merely in degree?
you will have a segment of the population that are happy with AI generated art, just as you have a segment of the population following the Kardashians or other social media stars full of hollow empty nonsense. There are people who do care and will always care about the deeper things.
Can you point to a piece of art, in any medium that has been valued and bought at a price tag that would fit the great works of art out of history? Has this been proven in the art world yet? I know it is used commercial with graphics, but I have yet to see paintings AI generated and sold to discerning people who actually care about art.
Fun reminders to the pro AI Gen commenters I'm seeing, you cannot copyright AI Gen images. Which means, if an artist, like myself, uses or say, recreates the image. You cannot stop them from profiting on it, that includes directly profiting by selling merchandise, using the images in the artists' own work.
A trio of art made by a monkey was sold for 25000USD. So… Art is just about anything.🤷🏼
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/c...old-thousands-will-solo-show-december-1671976
Last edited:
We all know that the law will need to catch up to the technology. The US Copyright office is in the early days of their study in regards to generative AI but have already brought forward the urgent need for legislation related to "digital replicas" of people.
Truth is that it's impossible to tell for certain how things will shake out, as far as the law goes. The majority of these projects are on borrowed time and are aware of that.