[Micky Wagmo]

I guess it all depends on what one prefers. My preferences and another artist's methods and desires need not run parallel. I just happen not to like cartoons given the same consideration as let's say a good oil or acrylic painting. HOWEVER, Beethoven's music at first was rudely not accepted. Neither were the impressionists, so on and so forth. Thus, if I'm willing to remain honest, I must shut myself up and not speak strongly against AI. Oh that we could see a hundred years into the future! BTW, I think Sam is a pretty capable artist, but I don't prefer his work, and it's ok if he doesn't prefer mine. Let's all smile.

 

[Maüsser1337]

Apparently AI can make art now. I am honestly not pleased about this, because art is so hard to make! The poeple who like technology try to get involved with what we love so that they can do whatever they want. This will be very bad for people who do product designs, book covers ect. Because when this intelligence becomes more widespread and available, people are going to obviously go with the faster, cheaper choice. Anyway, what are y'alls thoughts on this.

I utilized image generators to make parts to my art but I do fear when I get better at making artworks that I won't be able to be innovative at all in my artworks

 

[Janique]

I guess it all depends on what one prefers. My preferences and another artist's methods and desires need not run parallel. I just happen not to like cartoons given the same consideration as let's say a good oil or acrylic painting. HOWEVER, Beethoven's music at first was rudely not accepted. Neither were the impressionists, so on and so forth. Thus, if I'm willing to remain honest, I must shut myself up and not speak strongly against AI. Oh that we could see a hundred years into the future! BTW, I think Sam is a pretty capable artist, but I don't prefer his work, and it's ok if he doesn't prefer mine. Let's all smile.

The problem is that other poeple are using ai to make art that looks like he made it without giving zero credit or respect. They plugged in all his art into a system that generates their own art.

 

[Micky Wagmo]

Artist's making copies of other artist's work and then selling the copies as originals has been going on for over. It's happened to me about ten years ago and I'm still sore about it. This is a hard, rotten situation for us to overcome. AI is just another tool , but our imaginations are far better. Copyright Law is the key. Enforcement isn't easy.

 

[Micky Wagmo]

Meant to say 'going on for Ever. '

 

[lmoyer]

I feel that I have a much different perspective on AI art than most artists do.

The biggest argument people seem to have against it is that "it's stealing from sources it doesn't own", but that's exactly what we do as artists. We reference all the things around us, including other pieces of art. Artists all around the world draw, paint, sculpt, or otherwise create something based off of references that they likely didn't get express permission to use as references.

Think of all the times you used Google or Pinterest to find references on something you were looking to create. And even if you don't anymore, you ended up where you are because your mind has saved the concept of those references that you've used in the past. I'm not saying you copied it exactly, as that would then become a plagiarism issue, but you utilized a resource you did not expressly own.

If the AI was copying what it used as a reference and barely changing it, there would be more concern on my end. But as I'm seeing it now, there's not any moral issues to what it does.

One of my favorite art books "Steal Like an Artist" (Steal Like an Artist: 10 Things Nobody Told You About Being Creative: Kleon, Austin: 8601300471914: Amazon.com: Books) has a quote that stands out to me:

"If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism, but if you copy from many, it's research."

So, while AI art certainly can be concerning to me regarding the potential future of human artists, I don't believe there's anything morally wrong with what it does to make it.

 

[tally943]

Apparently AI can make art now. I am honestly not pleased about this, because art is so hard to make! The poeple who like technology try to get involved with what we love so that they can do whatever they want. This will be very bad for people who do product designs, book covers ect. Because when this intelligence becomes more widespread and available, people are going to obviously go with the faster, cheaper choice. Anyway, what are y'alls thoughts on this.

I agree with you. Kind of reminds me of all the free website makers that took work away from website designers. Or the AI that writes things faster and better than us. I still think there will be a market for things made by actual humans, but I'm sure there will be plenty of people who won't care about that.

 

[Micky Wagmo]

Let's please attempt to make at least one correction regarding, ""If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism, but if you copy from many, it's research." No, that's not correct. if you copy from one author, that's plagiarism. If you copy from many authors, that's multiple plagiarisms. It's all against the law. Research, real professional research requires references and backup data. Seldom have I seen plagiarism that could include the backup.
Could we all have a world wide meeting and decide what about the current AI there is that we'd call equal to "our" particular kind of art? Want to take a short verbal trip?
Can we agree that a huge painting made using a spray gun is using a machine? A spray device is a machine, is it not? A computer uses what we know as "machine language". Doesn't this mean that a computer is also a machine? I'm certain it does. Now we have two machines. We use our imaginations to paint (with a brush). We use our imaginations to write "machine language" which creates an AI program. Woops, suddenly we're moving into some type of equality. By the way, a paint brush is also a machine, and now I guess I'm in big trouble. BUT, we painters manipulate the brush. Oh gosh, that doesn't win any argument either. We also manipulate the spray gun and the computer (in different methods), but we still are manipulating. Can we build a computer that will paint by itself? Crap! Yes we can.
All these words keep moving around and around until, like water running in a circle down the sink drain, we realize at least several things are true: 1) As long as we have computer technology, there will be AI. 2) Art is a mobile or a fluid phenomenon. 3) We were not here in the beginning of art, nor will we be here at the end; I have no idea if we're even in the middle, yet.
That's three things, maybe it's enough. Could some of us get together and say to the AI people that we accept their creation? Could we do that for just one week? Could we also, just for a week, call AI by another term. Call it AI-ART. Seems to go along with drawing and sketching and oil painting with a brush, or spray painting, or tattoos too. (Is a sculptor an artist?)
One thing for sure, we all are in the midst of some kind of change. The world is no longer flat, and maybe, just maybe, AI is also art??????? So, I say hello to all the AI people out there. You're no longer making "other art", you're creating AI-ART, BUT for this week only! hahahahahaahahhh. Let's go have a drink together.

 

[Micky Wagmo]

PS. If I find out that someone, anyone has copied my art without express written permission, using toothpicks, toothbrushes, wax candles, or AI-- doesn't matter, consider this a fair warning: I'll find you and I'll bring a law suit against you, pilgrim.

 

[lmoyer]

Let's please attempt to make at least one correction regarding, ""If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism, but if you copy from many, it's research." No, that's not correct. if you copy from one author, that's plagiarism. If you copy from many authors, that's multiple plagiarisms. It's all against the law. Research, real professional research requires references and backup data. Seldom have I seen plagiarism that could include the backup.

But if that's the case, then you're saying that every artist is breaking the law. Because artists don't list all the references that they use (typically). For example, say that someone paints a physical object, or even more specifically, the Eiffel Tower.

The Eiffel Tower is an architectural work of art, which I believe everyone would agree on. Is it plagiarism, then, to paint the Eiffel Tower without express permission from the governing body that owns it?

Or, similarly, is it illegal to paint buildings that you do not own or don't receive express permission from the owners to paint? You are, after all, using a reference of something that isn't yours.

There are some cases where I would agree with you, though, Such as trademarked characters (think Mickey Mouse). Those are very specific and immediately identifiable as having an owner and brand.

However, artist use other paintings and artwork from creators as reference as well. But if the art is indistinguishable from their reference, and cannot be proven what they used as a reference, then there's no law being broken. And, even if there theoretically was a law being broken, there's no way to prove it and no way to press charges against the individual (or in this case, AI).

I do like your idea of labeling it very specifically as AI-Art though. Definitely a good thought, and I would 100% be behind some kind of legislation that requires people to disclose if something was created by AI and must be labeled as AI-Art.

 

[Janique]

I think another problem that the poeple who use ai art and are getting better at it fast don't actually care about art or they would be pouring hours and hours into learning how to make it before ai art came out. A good art piece can take between any few hours a hundred hours while they just wait for it to load in maybe a few seconds to minutes.

 

[Micky Wagmo]

But if that's the case, then you're saying that every artist is breaking the law. Because artists don't list all the references that they use (typically). For example, say that someone paints a physical object, or even more specifically, the Eiffel Tower.

The Eiffel Tower is an architectural work of art, which I believe everyone would agree on. Is it plagiarism, then, to paint the Eiffel Tower without express permission from the governing body that owns it?

Or, similarly, is it illegal to paint buildings that you do not own or don't receive express permission from the owners to paint? You are, after all, using a reference of something that isn't yours.

There are some cases where I would agree with you, though, Such as trademarked characters (think Mickey Mouse). Those are very specific and immediately identifiable as having an owner and brand.

However, artist use other paintings and artwork from creators as reference as well. But if the art is indistinguishable from their reference, and cannot be proven what they used as a reference, then there's no law being broken. And, even if there theoretically was a law being broken, there's no way to prove it and no way to press charges against the individual (or in this case, AI).

I do like your idea of labeling it very specifically as AI-Art though. Definitely a good thought, and I would 100% be behind some kind of legislation that requires people to disclose if something was created by AI and must be labeled as AI-Art.

As long as you or I care enough to continue the conversation, then maybe we'll end up OK in the end.
As far as saying "that every artist is breaking the law", that is NOT what I mean. I'll attempt to clarify further. There are objects, buildings etc. that are within the 'public domain', and are copied (as in photographs) as well as painted. So, let's take all of those out of this conversation. If, however, you choose to copy the CokeCola logo and at the same time make a few dollars from the copy, then you better get ready for a knock at your door. Many works of all kinds of art (music, photography, etc.) are accompanied by a "credit" line and/or tell the public that permission has been granted. Then there are others who flagrantly disregard all kinds of laws.
But, let's keep this to AI. One thing for sure, let the lights go out and the batteries run down, and AI suddenly won't exist. AI has turned into a funny creature that some of us are frustrated about. And, I rather doubt we are going to circumvent the concerns, nor are we really doing more than thrashing ourselves over yet another method of humans drawing on a cave wall.
Please let me indulge further. I happen to be a fourth generation woodworker. This means that I can make almost anything using wood and do it exceedingly well. HOWEVER, some years ago, I noticed our stock remained unsold. An investigation quickly revealed what we called the China Syndrome. We also blame Wally-world and the American quest for faster, cheaper products. Many years before Covid, we closed the business. We may fear that AI will become the AI Syndrome, but me, myself, and I, and many more continue with our imaginations and our abilities. I won't wait for the AI failure due to electricity disconnect, I'll continue to paint. A study of Art History will reveal cycles, many of them that occurred in the 18th century. Whatever cycle we're in, let's make the best of it.
One way to possibly beat AI is to become better artists.

 

[John Emmett]

As an artist I am of my time… I use artificial intelligence.


For example… https://www.johnemmett.com/ai.html

 

[Micky Wagmo]

My thoughts are: Use the tool you find useful. If you're proficient with that tool, you just may make something worthwhile. If you are extremely proficient, you may make something others will appreciate and want. It's the "others" who will eventually let you know how your doing.

 

[Janique]

As an artist I am of my time… I use artificial intelligence.


For example… https://www.johnemmett.com/ai.html

Ai art is technically technology that can take other people's art they worked extra hard on to make something customizable while dodging copyright laws and not giving artists credit. If you are using other people's abstract art to make your own without much work then you are doing this too.

 

[John Emmett]

If you are using other people's abstract art

I use my art …

This is public domain

 

[Janique]

I mostly use my art …

Then that is a whole different story because you are using your art how you please. You are using your own resources that belong to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[shellifitz]

Maybe the way to go as AI gets better and more realistic is for human artists to go more minimalist and folk art naive style. ? Somehow we always have to keep a difference between us and it.

shellifitzpatrick.com

 

[Janique]

Maybe the way to go as AI gets better and more realistic is for human artists to go more minimalist and folk art naive style. ? Somehow we always have to keep a difference between us and it.
shellifitzpatrick.com

Hmmm....the problem is that alot of poeple don't enjoy making that art like myself. I have my own style that definitely has a more modern look. I don't think I would enjoy art in the styles you listed. Not because they aren't beautiful, its just not my preferred taste in art. To me, I will keep doing art, In my style, no matter how advanced ai art becomes. I don't think anyone should change their style of art because of ai either

 

[Micky Wagmo]

AI only imitates art. I have no desire or plans to imitate AI.