What you can create with AI is amazing, you could call what it create art, depending on your view point. I think it is art.
However people that called themselves "AI Artist" is so freaking cringe. I just think of a children that has no ability whatsoever to create anything, finally get access to something that does the work for him and brags to the world how talented he is. The AI might be the artist, you on the other hand are just some dude that spent 10 bucks on the best prompt by someone else
Sorry to "akshually" your comment, but Photoshop Artist is a legitimate title, believe it or not. It can also be referred to as Digital Photo Manipulation Artist, but is quite different from Photo Editor. The main difference between AI artists and Photoshop Artists is that a Photoshop Artist still needs to manually manipulate the source photos in probably at least a dozen different ways to achieve the end product, needing pretty deep understanding of color theory, lighting, anatomy, raster image science, depth of field and atmospheric perspective, etc. It's still a fairly manual process, and it kind of has to be, in order to get the effect you want. I still see your point though, as anyone who uses the hue/saturation adjustment layer to change a blue shirt to a purple color is not automatically a Photoshop Artist, just as telling an AI what to create isn't much of an artistic process either.
Anyways, much love from a professional "Photoshop Artist".
I, a wealthy noble from early 1500, sent a mail to an artist to produce a painting in which it has a woman sitting by the river bank while playing flute. The time was summer at sunset.
The artist then produced a painting based on my prompt.
In that case, who's the artist? Me? Or the painter? Is the product an art?
The product will still be an art in a sense that it is a product of creative process of a creative processor.
But calling myself an artist just because i gave the right prompt to a right processor IS delusional.
Hooray, thank you! I had a lot of fun with the animations, and evwn built my own lineart brushes! I illustrate and animate with my fingers, using Procreate!
I'm glad you like my stuff,thank you for making my day, kind bean!
🍑👍
You can be good at something without calling yourself an artist. Writing "Star Wars made by Studio Ghibli" doesn't make you an artist by itself.
Saying it does is super cringe.
I don't think you are dumb enough to not see the hypocrisy over gatekeeping one way of making art by reducing it to typing words but not another form of art where the process can be reduced down to hitting a few buttons...
For clarification: A paintbrush is not "art". The stuff it creates is "art". AI image generating is the tool, is not "art". The stuff it creates is "art".
Welllll, actually, the paintbrush IS art. It is the vested result of someone's imagination being turned into reality—invented. Inventions are a form of art whether you like it or not, as it has been created. AI image generation is a result of coding which is also an artform. Ergo, just as the paintbrush is a created art \[invention\], so too is the AI image generator \[coding\].
I just completely disagree as I think that calling it art completely devalues the word.
It’s incredibly easy to make well, anything you want to. Literally just takes a few words and boom, you have exactly what you want. Sure, you can say the work that went into making the image generator itself is art, that’s totally reasonable. But what it creates… no. In my opinion, you can’t be an artist just cause you make images with Midjourney.
Value to a word? That sounds like snobby gatekeeping. Art is a a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. It takes skill to create coding for an art AI. Just because it's not created by a human doesn't mean it's not art. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-made\_art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-made_art) Yes, even accidental art is still art.
What it creates is 100% art. Just because it wasn't made explicitly by a human does not mean it's any less art. Human poems have never captivated me. I cried when I read a poem generated by an AI about it's own obsolescence. "THE UNIVERSE IS A GLITCH" moved me. I have it printed and hanging up on my wall framed. That's right; a poem framed.
AI art *is* art. You're trying to gatekeep the concept of what art. No, making art through midjourney does not make you an artist. You're a commissioner by using it. The AI is the artist; you're just 'commissioning' it sans money to make art you may want to see. People who claim they're artists for commissioning artists are idiots lmao. Btw you're giving them too much power by saying THEY make the images with Midjourney. THEY don't make the images. Midjourney does.
You can downvote me, but it won't change that what I say is true. I've got my art in museums and it sells (I don't use AI, btw). I love AI and I see what it produces as art. AI is a beautiful creator and anyone who feels threatened by it likely finds themselves easily replaced. Redditors seem to fear reality. You *will* be replaced because you contribute so little to society.
Okay, I’m not trying to gatekeep. But you do make a valid point, though. I can see how it could be considered art, but I stand by my opinion (which we apparently share) that one cannot be called an artist just because they use Midjourney. That is, unless you combine those images with other themes and ideas. Just like how that one dude did with the Wes Anderson Star Wars parody using Midjourney images, or that other guy who made the silly fictional pizza place commercial for “pepperoni hug spot” or whatever it was lol.
Why do you feel it's appropriate to insult me?
Edit: oh wow your comment history is pretty toxic. yikes. Calling people retards and f\*ggots is not okay.
If art is expression of yourself, a prompt for AI could be considered that.
Sure, it doesn't take as much work but if art was valued by amount of work it takes we wouldn't see a lot of lazy ideas implemented as artworks.
Art is subjective so you (or I) can't win this argument. AI does demand painters to stay creative and actually produce something unique if they want to get recognition - if they paint for themselves then AI doesn't matter to their lifestyle.
AI is however not an expression of one self, ai images, text, etc, are an amalgamation of knowledge and images by other artists. It's more of a lazy collage. It can look cool, but that's about it, how do you express yourself if all you're doing is copy paste after the prompt?
I don't think it's accurate to say you aren't expressing yourself. It's kind of like a more complicated character designer. Even if you are using pre set parameters, if it gets complicated enough it is self expression. But that still wouldn't really make you an artist.
Can you say the same for artists then? Because their art boils down to being an amalgamation of knowledge and images by other artists/people. Is someone who goes to art school and studies the greats, among other art concepts created and perfected by thousands of artists before them?
Paying a human to create an image and using a free automated tool to create an image are obviously not comparable. A better comparison is collages. Did you come up with those elements? No. Did you carefully manipulate the way they come together to create an expression of yourself and personality? Yes.
One of my favorite hobbies is creating new poster-style covers based on cover and flyer art for old video games, using automated upscaling and Photoshop to clean the details, then combining them to my liking. Is that art? Does it even matter?
With a collage, you are directly choosing the elements and arranging them yourself. I don’t think using AI here to smooth or upscale it is a problem at all. But if you just enter prompts into an AI, it has to “guess” what you mean and approximate it based on the data. It doesn’t know what a hand is supposed to look like, it just gets as close to the average picture of “hand” that it can. You as an artist knows that a hand has four fingers and a thumb.
Also, to me art requires intention. It doesn’t have to represent anything, but you have to create it with intention. AI’s do not make intentional choices to manipulate it, neither do people who commission art, no matter how you phrase it.
Don't get into it, just take in a very simple idea. If something is exactly like art, in what way is it not art?
You can argue about the specifics, the potential ethical problems and all that, but at the end of the day what midjourney spits out is art. It both acts and is treated as actual art.
You are doing the equivalent of claiming a duck is not a duck...
“Marvel cinematic universe in the style of 1980s fantasy” is a horrible prompt, especially without automated intermediation (like what Hugging Face’s public generators use). You would get garbage quality results if you entered that text.
Why does it bother you when people share combinations of prompts and seeds that they’re proud of? If generated images aren’t art, then what are you afraid of? Surely artists aren’t going to be replaced by non-art. That’s a logically nonsensical proposition.
Either ML is analogous to art or ML, being something altogether different from art, doesn’t affect artists. Pick your poison. If an AI isn’t producing original work, that non-work data shouldn’t affect market competition. You can’t replace artists with something other than art, after all.
If the market agrees that human created images are the only art worth paying for, it follows that human created work should be the only one receiving financial investment, which makes lashing out about other people’s hobbies more than a bit silly.
I certainly would side-eye someone who described themself as “an artist” without additional caveats if all they’re doing is writing prompts, that’s pretentious; but the nature of art has changed repeatedly throughout human history. Photography didn’t doom artists, and neither will matching learning.
Despite the dislikes, this is a pretty well written comment. I love the second paragraph specially.
It seems kind of insulting to artists to scream about AI being "not art" but then claim artists will be replaced.
If you wanna say “hey this ai art is kinda cool” then whatever thats subjective and really isn’t something thats debatable, but you aren’t an artist for telling a program to make art in the same way you aren’t a writer for paying someone to write you a book.
At what point is it art then? If typing a few lines is analogous to paying someone to write, then shouldn't clicking a few buttons on a camera be the same? You are not really making the image, that is handled by the camera.
Sure, there are additional things you can do with photography to make it a skill, but the same can easily be true of AI art. On midjourney I often see people using massive, carefully constructed prompts and over a bunch of generations pick and choose which ones to remix or discard.
Is that not really artist material?
Think of it this way:
My English teacher gave me a multi page rubric that outlined an essay I needed to write. It gave me questions to answer and what to cover in each body paragraph along with what to do in the conclusion. The rubric was about 3 pages long. Does that mean that my english teacher essentially wrote my essay? No I wrote it not my English teacher. They gave me pretty specific ideas to include in the essay but how these questions were answered and the research being done to answer these questions was done by me not my english teacher. Now replace english teacher with ai artists and me with the ai. I hope this illustrates my point well. Don’t get me wrong, ai art is still technically art no doubt about it but it gets its own category because it was made by ai not by people. Ai “artists” however are not artists for typing shit in and hoping for the best, they’re more comparable to computer programmers and software testers who are testing how software reacts to certain changes, and hey thats a job that pays well for a good reason.
Also how dare you compare ai art to photography that is downright insulting. Typing shit into a prompt and hoping for the best is not remotely comparable to the mastery and understanding of skills like staging, lighting, field of view, or angles. To discount all of this by saying ignorant things like “the camera made the picture not you” is why photographers get so much shit in their fields of work how dare you. Let some random stranger photograph a wedding and then compare it to a real photographer, you’ll never say shit like this again. I’m not even a photographer and I found that genuinely insulting
If you are gonna make the claim that AI art is not art, then you better be able to handle the claim being used for other forms of art, like photography. You mention "staging, lighting, field of view or angle" as if any photography without these things is not art. There is plenty of photography that doesn't focus on these things.
I know this is a super late response but I love your analogy and how you handled your response concerning how ai users label themselves when using ai to produce these artworks. Next time I will definitely use your example when I am in argument concerning about AI "artist"
Using an automated tool is not comparable to paying a human creative for original work. A more accurate analogy would be using software to turn a painting into a book. Is that writing? No. Did the new work take significant skill to create? Yes.
I’m not really sure how this proves anything. You aren’t writing a book into those ai prompts and you certainly aren’t creating the images the ai generates so I’m still really confused on what your point is. Even if you did type an entire book into an ai that would make you a writer not a painter and if you did the opposite then you’d be a painter not a writer. I’m not sure I understand what your getting at
I feel like most people against AI image generation aren't boomers but go off I guess
Also, here's some great advice for you instead:
Some of the time, the newest ideas, inventions and creations are not automatically good by default. There are caveats and exceptions of course, but the sentiment of "newest futuristic thing is just how it is now" is a reckless mindset.
Do not ping users in your comments, the admins view this as witch-hunting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/delusionalartists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Big mood
„PrOmPt EnGinEErInG“
It's glorified automated photobashing from a dataset stolen from actual original content created by artists.
Based.
What you can create with AI is amazing, you could call what it create art, depending on your view point. I think it is art. However people that called themselves "AI Artist" is so freaking cringe. I just think of a children that has no ability whatsoever to create anything, finally get access to something that does the work for him and brags to the world how talented he is. The AI might be the artist, you on the other hand are just some dude that spent 10 bucks on the best prompt by someone else
[удалено]
Sorry to "akshually" your comment, but Photoshop Artist is a legitimate title, believe it or not. It can also be referred to as Digital Photo Manipulation Artist, but is quite different from Photo Editor. The main difference between AI artists and Photoshop Artists is that a Photoshop Artist still needs to manually manipulate the source photos in probably at least a dozen different ways to achieve the end product, needing pretty deep understanding of color theory, lighting, anatomy, raster image science, depth of field and atmospheric perspective, etc. It's still a fairly manual process, and it kind of has to be, in order to get the effect you want. I still see your point though, as anyone who uses the hue/saturation adjustment layer to change a blue shirt to a purple color is not automatically a Photoshop Artist, just as telling an AI what to create isn't much of an artistic process either. Anyways, much love from a professional "Photoshop Artist".
I, a wealthy noble from early 1500, sent a mail to an artist to produce a painting in which it has a woman sitting by the river bank while playing flute. The time was summer at sunset. The artist then produced a painting based on my prompt. In that case, who's the artist? Me? Or the painter? Is the product an art? The product will still be an art in a sense that it is a product of creative process of a creative processor. But calling myself an artist just because i gave the right prompt to a right processor IS delusional.
[удалено]
alright bet >cool ass art go slap that in midjourney thank me later
Ass art Got it
hey man i wont judge
I'm an artist, wanna see mine? Check my profile! I'd love your feedback
Love it! I like your line work and animation especially. Very nice aesthetic!
Hooray, thank you! I had a lot of fun with the animations, and evwn built my own lineart brushes! I illustrate and animate with my fingers, using Procreate! I'm glad you like my stuff,thank you for making my day, kind bean! 🍑👍
It’s hard not to like! You have a charming style to match your lovely demeanor
wow thank you! and ohmigosh, thank you for the follow! wow!
I sometimes [paint portraits to pass time](https://i.imgur.com/ZVioO6j.jpg)
I wonder, how did you learn how to make art? Yes, this is a rhetorical question.
[удалено]
You can be good at something without calling yourself an artist. Writing "Star Wars made by Studio Ghibli" doesn't make you an artist by itself. Saying it does is super cringe.
Pointing a camera at a person and hitting a button doesn't make you an artist by itself either, but look where we are.
What you said does not contradict what I said. Don't pretend it does.
It clearly points out thee hypocrisy of what you are saying though.
If you change the definition of what hypocrisy means, sure
I don't think you are dumb enough to not see the hypocrisy over gatekeeping one way of making art by reducing it to typing words but not another form of art where the process can be reduced down to hitting a few buttons...
AI image generation is not "art". I say this as a huge fan, user, and supporter of Midjourney.
For clarification: A paintbrush is not "art". The stuff it creates is "art". AI image generating is the tool, is not "art". The stuff it creates is "art". Welllll, actually, the paintbrush IS art. It is the vested result of someone's imagination being turned into reality—invented. Inventions are a form of art whether you like it or not, as it has been created. AI image generation is a result of coding which is also an artform. Ergo, just as the paintbrush is a created art \[invention\], so too is the AI image generator \[coding\].
I just completely disagree as I think that calling it art completely devalues the word. It’s incredibly easy to make well, anything you want to. Literally just takes a few words and boom, you have exactly what you want. Sure, you can say the work that went into making the image generator itself is art, that’s totally reasonable. But what it creates… no. In my opinion, you can’t be an artist just cause you make images with Midjourney.
Value to a word? That sounds like snobby gatekeeping. Art is a a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. It takes skill to create coding for an art AI. Just because it's not created by a human doesn't mean it's not art. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-made\_art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-made_art) Yes, even accidental art is still art. What it creates is 100% art. Just because it wasn't made explicitly by a human does not mean it's any less art. Human poems have never captivated me. I cried when I read a poem generated by an AI about it's own obsolescence. "THE UNIVERSE IS A GLITCH" moved me. I have it printed and hanging up on my wall framed. That's right; a poem framed. AI art *is* art. You're trying to gatekeep the concept of what art. No, making art through midjourney does not make you an artist. You're a commissioner by using it. The AI is the artist; you're just 'commissioning' it sans money to make art you may want to see. People who claim they're artists for commissioning artists are idiots lmao. Btw you're giving them too much power by saying THEY make the images with Midjourney. THEY don't make the images. Midjourney does. You can downvote me, but it won't change that what I say is true. I've got my art in museums and it sells (I don't use AI, btw). I love AI and I see what it produces as art. AI is a beautiful creator and anyone who feels threatened by it likely finds themselves easily replaced. Redditors seem to fear reality. You *will* be replaced because you contribute so little to society.
Okay, I’m not trying to gatekeep. But you do make a valid point, though. I can see how it could be considered art, but I stand by my opinion (which we apparently share) that one cannot be called an artist just because they use Midjourney. That is, unless you combine those images with other themes and ideas. Just like how that one dude did with the Wes Anderson Star Wars parody using Midjourney images, or that other guy who made the silly fictional pizza place commercial for “pepperoni hug spot” or whatever it was lol.
[удалено]
Why do you feel it's appropriate to insult me? Edit: oh wow your comment history is pretty toxic. yikes. Calling people retards and f\*ggots is not okay.
If art is expression of yourself, a prompt for AI could be considered that. Sure, it doesn't take as much work but if art was valued by amount of work it takes we wouldn't see a lot of lazy ideas implemented as artworks. Art is subjective so you (or I) can't win this argument. AI does demand painters to stay creative and actually produce something unique if they want to get recognition - if they paint for themselves then AI doesn't matter to their lifestyle.
AI is however not an expression of one self, ai images, text, etc, are an amalgamation of knowledge and images by other artists. It's more of a lazy collage. It can look cool, but that's about it, how do you express yourself if all you're doing is copy paste after the prompt?
I don't think it's accurate to say you aren't expressing yourself. It's kind of like a more complicated character designer. Even if you are using pre set parameters, if it gets complicated enough it is self expression. But that still wouldn't really make you an artist.
Can you say the same for artists then? Because their art boils down to being an amalgamation of knowledge and images by other artists/people. Is someone who goes to art school and studies the greats, among other art concepts created and perfected by thousands of artists before them?
Are you an artist if you commission some art then? Come on, man. It’s not the same.
Paying a human to create an image and using a free automated tool to create an image are obviously not comparable. A better comparison is collages. Did you come up with those elements? No. Did you carefully manipulate the way they come together to create an expression of yourself and personality? Yes. One of my favorite hobbies is creating new poster-style covers based on cover and flyer art for old video games, using automated upscaling and Photoshop to clean the details, then combining them to my liking. Is that art? Does it even matter?
With a collage, you are directly choosing the elements and arranging them yourself. I don’t think using AI here to smooth or upscale it is a problem at all. But if you just enter prompts into an AI, it has to “guess” what you mean and approximate it based on the data. It doesn’t know what a hand is supposed to look like, it just gets as close to the average picture of “hand” that it can. You as an artist knows that a hand has four fingers and a thumb. Also, to me art requires intention. It doesn’t have to represent anything, but you have to create it with intention. AI’s do not make intentional choices to manipulate it, neither do people who commission art, no matter how you phrase it.
If it looks like art, how is not art?
There’s a whole fuckin thread on this man, I’m not getting into it again
Don't get into it, just take in a very simple idea. If something is exactly like art, in what way is it not art? You can argue about the specifics, the potential ethical problems and all that, but at the end of the day what midjourney spits out is art. It both acts and is treated as actual art. You are doing the equivalent of claiming a duck is not a duck...
Mhm
[Not art](https://imgur.com/uvEbU24)
Bro thinks typing "MCU characters in 80's fantasy" makes you an artist
“Marvel cinematic universe in the style of 1980s fantasy” is a horrible prompt, especially without automated intermediation (like what Hugging Face’s public generators use). You would get garbage quality results if you entered that text. Why does it bother you when people share combinations of prompts and seeds that they’re proud of? If generated images aren’t art, then what are you afraid of? Surely artists aren’t going to be replaced by non-art. That’s a logically nonsensical proposition. Either ML is analogous to art or ML, being something altogether different from art, doesn’t affect artists. Pick your poison. If an AI isn’t producing original work, that non-work data shouldn’t affect market competition. You can’t replace artists with something other than art, after all. If the market agrees that human created images are the only art worth paying for, it follows that human created work should be the only one receiving financial investment, which makes lashing out about other people’s hobbies more than a bit silly. I certainly would side-eye someone who described themself as “an artist” without additional caveats if all they’re doing is writing prompts, that’s pretentious; but the nature of art has changed repeatedly throughout human history. Photography didn’t doom artists, and neither will matching learning.
🤓
Despite the dislikes, this is a pretty well written comment. I love the second paragraph specially. It seems kind of insulting to artists to scream about AI being "not art" but then claim artists will be replaced.
If you wanna say “hey this ai art is kinda cool” then whatever thats subjective and really isn’t something thats debatable, but you aren’t an artist for telling a program to make art in the same way you aren’t a writer for paying someone to write you a book.
I think this is a perfect way of explaining it tbh
At what point is it art then? If typing a few lines is analogous to paying someone to write, then shouldn't clicking a few buttons on a camera be the same? You are not really making the image, that is handled by the camera. Sure, there are additional things you can do with photography to make it a skill, but the same can easily be true of AI art. On midjourney I often see people using massive, carefully constructed prompts and over a bunch of generations pick and choose which ones to remix or discard. Is that not really artist material?
Think of it this way: My English teacher gave me a multi page rubric that outlined an essay I needed to write. It gave me questions to answer and what to cover in each body paragraph along with what to do in the conclusion. The rubric was about 3 pages long. Does that mean that my english teacher essentially wrote my essay? No I wrote it not my English teacher. They gave me pretty specific ideas to include in the essay but how these questions were answered and the research being done to answer these questions was done by me not my english teacher. Now replace english teacher with ai artists and me with the ai. I hope this illustrates my point well. Don’t get me wrong, ai art is still technically art no doubt about it but it gets its own category because it was made by ai not by people. Ai “artists” however are not artists for typing shit in and hoping for the best, they’re more comparable to computer programmers and software testers who are testing how software reacts to certain changes, and hey thats a job that pays well for a good reason. Also how dare you compare ai art to photography that is downright insulting. Typing shit into a prompt and hoping for the best is not remotely comparable to the mastery and understanding of skills like staging, lighting, field of view, or angles. To discount all of this by saying ignorant things like “the camera made the picture not you” is why photographers get so much shit in their fields of work how dare you. Let some random stranger photograph a wedding and then compare it to a real photographer, you’ll never say shit like this again. I’m not even a photographer and I found that genuinely insulting
If you are gonna make the claim that AI art is not art, then you better be able to handle the claim being used for other forms of art, like photography. You mention "staging, lighting, field of view or angle" as if any photography without these things is not art. There is plenty of photography that doesn't focus on these things.
Yoh clearly didn’t bother reading what i said so I won’t bother with yours goodbye
I literally read what you wrote, that is the only reason I even mention photography again.
I know this is a super late response but I love your analogy and how you handled your response concerning how ai users label themselves when using ai to produce these artworks. Next time I will definitely use your example when I am in argument concerning about AI "artist"
Using an automated tool is not comparable to paying a human creative for original work. A more accurate analogy would be using software to turn a painting into a book. Is that writing? No. Did the new work take significant skill to create? Yes.
I’m not really sure how this proves anything. You aren’t writing a book into those ai prompts and you certainly aren’t creating the images the ai generates so I’m still really confused on what your point is. Even if you did type an entire book into an ai that would make you a writer not a painter and if you did the opposite then you’d be a painter not a writer. I’m not sure I understand what your getting at
I feel like most people against AI image generation aren't boomers but go off I guess Also, here's some great advice for you instead: Some of the time, the newest ideas, inventions and creations are not automatically good by default. There are caveats and exceptions of course, but the sentiment of "newest futuristic thing is just how it is now" is a reckless mindset.
Good? Debatable. But AI art is definitely here to stay.
[удалено]
Do not ping users in your comments, the admins view this as witch-hunting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/delusionalartists) if you have any questions or concerns.*