| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago |
| What a great thing this didn't exist in the past. We likely wouldn't have had any of the amazing artworks that we have now. Imagine an AI generated Mona Lisa, Nightwatch or Sistine Chapel ceiling because prompting would have been so much cheaper than paying Leonardo, Rembrandt or Michelangelo... Now extrapolate to all other artforms. Sculpture seems safe, for now, but only barely so. |
|
| ▲ | wordpad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits. |
| |
| ▲ | nluken 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I hear this often and it's such a strange view of art, like the only thing that matters is scale and speed. It's a perspective so colored by mechanization that it fails to account for other philosophies in art. Think of what, say the Arts and Crafts movement was all about! | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Artists aren't doing it for the money. That is unlike any artist that I know and I know quite a lot of them. They love their work and the process but they also need to eat. And that included those mentioned above. | |
| ▲ | theappsecguy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Art is about creating something from scratch. This isn't creating anything but cobbling together elements of scraped/stolen content to generate an imitation of prior work. | |
| ▲ | __alexs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is a tremendous amount of "art" that is produced for purely commercial reasons. It employs many thousands of people. These roles are definitely threatened by image generators. Agree that if you are Artist this is not going to be a big concern to you. | | |
| ▲ | gm678 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, many (I would even venture to say most) of the great artists most people know of earned their bread with intermittent commercial contracts, even rote advertising commissions in the 19th/20th century. |
| |
| ▲ | lm28469 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have you talked to "artists"? In my experience the vast majority say the opposite of what you worded here. | |
| ▲ | rdedev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | An aspect of art is this pursuit of pushing boundaries within the confines of what is considered good. Would an artist with an infinite image generator be interested in pushing said boundaries? Maybe but they will definitely miss out on getting stuck on an idea and coming up something completely new | |
| ▲ | Timpanzee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AI isn't a tool for creating art in the same way as a paintbrush or clay. AI is describing a painting you want, then having someone else creating the artwork for you. You aren't doing art in the same way hiring a sculptor isn't doing sculpting. AI is well on the way to eliminating human made art since the skills to actually make art will be lost to the skill of being able to describe art. You know, since the only thing that matter is reducing costs. | | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Art is about pushing limits of what's possible That's engineering, if that. Art isn't, and has never been about that. | | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jplusequalt 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits Says who? Being an artist means different things to different people, but at the very least I believe it requires an interest in your craft, a desire for personal growth, and a yearning to express yourself. | |
| ▲ | autoexec 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yet somehow with AI art we end up with https://i.redd.it/3v2uwwxxkhkg1.png more often than https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Michelan... The only thing AI art makes possible that wasn't possible before is the scale of slop | |
| ▲ | jayd16 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Sistine Chapel was a commission. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A very large fraction of everything we collect as great art marking our history was made on commission. The GGP is showing their complete ignorance of the history of art. |
| |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Taste is not scaleable. |
|
|
| ▲ | tom1337 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd say these models only exist because we had amazing artworks in the past. |
| |
|
| ▲ | nzach 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's true, but you forgot a key piece in this puzzle. The AI can only produce things that already exist. It can combine new things, this is why you can it for a picture of Jesus planting a flag on the Moon. But it only works because Jesus is a concrete concept that already exists in our world. If you ask for a picture of jacquesm planting a flag on the Moon the result will be nonsensical. |
| |
|
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have the creativity of someone not at all creative (couldn't even come up with a good analogy) and the stuff I created with AI art tools is awful compared to what I see from "AI artists" on social media. Just being able to generate a vision and then be able to capture it in a prompt is an art within itself. |
|
| ▲ | techjamie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ironically we live in a time that, overall, is probably better for artists than the world any of those guys grew up in. People have always valued art but not the artists, and many artists through history, including the famous ones, died broke with their works only posthumously attaining value. These days, through commissions, art is a much more viable profession than it ever was. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was until ~2021 and it going rapidly downhill. I know some people that are really good at art and they got work on commission from publications, venues and so on. They have seen a significant drop in their bookings and the ones that they do get negotiate hardball because (1) everybody else is desperate too and (2) if they can't get to a deal then AI is now an alternative for the not-so-discerning public which was a fairly large chunk of the usecases. So you were making book covers? Ah, so sorry. Nobody really cared that it was you. And you can probably extend that to what's between the covers... | |
| ▲ | coffeebeqn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is it though? It was for the last 20 years but I’d imagine sales of commissions are down immensely and going down every day |
|
|
| ▲ | zackmorris 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think of it more as that AI will destroy the profit motive in all things, not just art. What we used to think of as talent/skill/experience will no longer be scarce, because anyone will be able to make anything with a prompt. The perceived value will be in wholes built of valueless parts (gestalts). AI is incompatible with capitalism, but the world isn't ready for that. So we'll have a prolonged period of intense aggregation where more and more value is attributed to systems of control that already have more than they could ever spend, long after the free parts could have provided for basic human needs. In other words, the masters existed because they had benefactors and a market for their art and inventions. Today there are better artists and inventors toiling in obscurity, but they won't be remembered because they merely make rent. Which gets harder every day, so there's a kind of deification of the working class hero NPC mindset and simultaneously no bandwidth for ingenuity (what we once thought of as divine inspiration). Terence McKenna predicted this paradox that the future's going to get weirder and weirder back in 1998: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KZ2ZtTsHqO0 |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | On the contrary, the talent will be more scarce because there is no longer a motivation to acquire it in the first place. |
|
|
| ▲ | ahtihn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would anyone even care about Mona Lisa if the exact same painting was done by a random nobody? It's just a portrait. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most people no. Then again most people are idiots barely aware of the world they live in, much less culture. People who actually care about art, if given a chance to see it, yes. Of course, it being done by Davinci is not some random fact about the painting - as if a painting is a mere artifact. | |
| ▲ | __alexs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Da Vinci is maybe only the 5th most interesting thing about the Mona Lisa. |
|
|
| ▲ | hypeatei 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'll just be extremely candid: a lot of people don't give a shit about these art pieces or art in general. It's okay if you do, there is nothing wrong with that, but it's a myopic view that the world would be worse off if we didn't have a portrait of Mona Lisa. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, who gives a shit about culture, after all humanity doesn't really need it... | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's not the point, but okay. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there'd still be art, just not those pieces created by those specific people and the world would be just fine. Humanity would've fared okay if Nano Banana was created 500 years ago. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What would you have trained it on? | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei an hour ago | parent [-] | | Photos, I guess? Your original comment implied access to AI so they'd also have ways to take pictures, probably. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We would have tons of great artworks if it existed in the past. The works would be both more numerous and at a higher quality. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely not a chance. You see, in the past there was nothing to train it on. And that's sort of the point: the only reason that this AI image generation works at all is because it is lifting on the hard work of the people that had the skills, put the time and the effort in. |
|
|
| ▲ | dfxm12 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I disagree. On the one hand, yeah, On This Day... 1776 is terrible, and it is sad to compare it to Requiem for a Dream or Pi, but even in this age where AI is available, we see tons of critically successful art being made without the use of AI. |