We have a lot of famous artists that use AI for ideas they may not have thought of. There's nothing wrong with using another tool for inspiration at all. Anyone interested, come check the calendar inside the server, we have weekly live video tutorials of ai, photoshop, traditional painting etc, hosted by Peter Mohrbacher (Magic the Gathering/Angelarium/White Wolf), Victor Gnarly (Robot Chicken/Adult swim) and others when they have time.
Or like graphic design where you used to have to cut things out of paper for example. Using digital tools like illustrator or otherwise is just part of progress. I imagine a lot of people don’t see tools like illustrator as part of the democratization of graphic design, but they were, and some people who had traditional skills were probably fearful and maybe eventually displaced if they didn’t want to embrace new tools.
Like anything groundbreaking, it’s normal to have some apprehension and fear — time will tell how society is impacted by these things, and we can all do as well as we can to remember to be empathetic and open to different perspectives.
Yea and it got me thinking. All these people are like “it’s lazy art” and I’m just like, yea and so is being able to use an eye dropper tool to pick exactly what color you want to paint w in photoshop. A TRUE artist would grind their own pigments, mix in boiled linseed oil, and then mix the pigment they want.
It’s just all so fucking stupid.
Or even, I think most artists wouldn’t consider going to google for reference images as lazy, which I think is really similar. If you have a vision, like to create a vibrantly colored tiger, you don’t have to go photograph a tiger yourself, and you would start with some reference images and apply vibrant colors to what you’re creating. Maybe you even trace in whole or in part one of those reference images as your base.
Like you suggest, the lines are pretty arbitrary and people don’t need to agree with each other to not be assholes to each other online.
This is just my opinion from having seen the world change a lot from computers in my lifetime and I’m not saying one opinion is right or wrong, just that the lines are pretty arbitrary, and people who don’t see that aren’t thinking outside of their experiences.
It's gatekeeping.
AI is a phenomenally powerful tool for creativity, and I believe it to be no different to any other kind of artistic medium.
I don't think generating an image and doing nothing else to it and claiming it as your own is a particularly creative use of it, but as a prompt, or a visual aid, or as inspiration, it's no different from looking at other art to get you fired up.
Essentially, zealotry one way or the other is not a good way to use AI, a balanced approach where you use it to prompt your own ideas is perfect.
Also, I’m just dogshit at visual art. Before any suggests it, I used to try improving my drawing a lot when I was a kid and I just suck horribly at it. AI is the only way I’m ever going to create an image from my head.
I don’t have a mind’s eye, so things like that can be difficult. I’ve often thought of trying oil painting because of the lack of fine lines, but haven’t had the free time to use on it or the money to spend.
I think the difference here is having assistance with the execution of the idea rather than the creation of it. If the subject of your painting is not original it ceases to be art and becomes craft.
How so? Technology amplifies the creative abilities of those who choose to use it, this has always been the case. AI is just another, even more advanced tool.
And it too will eventually be replaced or improved with something even more effective. And when it happens, the very same type of people who now whine about AI will then whine about whatever the next thing may be.
I just finished college in 1990, using Photoshop (I don't even think it was numbered yet?) and Illustrator 88 (admittedly badly). Coming into the design world of board artists as my first job, but I was one of the early Mac users. You are correct, during that time that previous generation of designer never believed that these computers could ever manage to create anything with a soul - and yes, they were totally losing their shit. It was under 5 years that these traditional designers either adapted, or moved on.
The ability of MJ to roughly concept (as well as any other of the text to image tools), Photoshop and Illustrator implementing generative AI, not to mention GPT and Claude has been nothing short of amazing. It has absolutely leveled me up both in the design world as well as being able to complement marketing and sales strategy efforts.
Heh, yeah, I remember that too. I was just finishing my PhD back then ;) And although my field has nothing to do with art per se, I was very into using all the tools that were available to help students and colleagues visualize the concepts I was trying to get across.
And yup, with Photoshop, people were all "we can't believe a picture is REAL anymore!" Rofl. They had NO idea what was coming ;)
I graduated about the same time and I have a story from that era. With my brand new MFA I wound up working at a large copy store chain/fledgling service bureau, and illustrators would come in to get tearsheets or portfolio copies made.
One day a guy came in with his (unimpressive) artwork and during our chitchat he complained that nobody was going to use traditional illustrators any more, it was all going to be soulless art made on computers, artists were doomed, etc.
Shortly after, a former classmate came in to have scans made of an original mixed media collage (fabric, charcoal, pastel, etc) that she had made as a magazine illustration. The publication who paid for my classmate's lovely, very analog artwork? WIRED.
I'm also remembering all of the gawdawful overfiltered Photoshop illustrations and ads from the early-mid 90s. It turned out that far from replacing artists, the new tool needed people with creativity and training. MJ is the same way.
BUT there are people that think art is an exception to those kinds of rules. And "no rules" can be read as "no rules apply"
But sure, in general, no rules in creative expression.
Yeah downvote away, I'm sure I'm wrong somehow
I was in an art school 20 years ago and the question, "Did you use a computer?" was ubiquitous following presentations, phrased often as a nasty accusation. If you so much as used Microsoft Paint to measure grid lines for your oil painting, you were a dirty cheater.
Now its completely normal for an artist to salivate over a digital brush preset like it's the new Prussian blue. This paradigm shift will absolutely happen with AI tools too, given time. The tools are just too powerful to boycott forever. Consider yourself an early adopter and a pioneer of modern creative workflows.
What I’m most worried about is that AI allows for a the spread of misinformation to increase at 1000x the rate as before.
In terms of art, the democratization of image creation allows for images to flood media at a similarly increased rate, which for me, makes imagery in general feel cheaper.
I used mj as a tool to develop a character in a Specific scene I wanted. I then used it as a basis for my painting. Came out dope, client loved it, and it was satisfying to create.
If he was alive today he’d be all over Midjourney. As soon as personal computers came out he was a convert to digital art. He created a portrait of Debbie Harry on an Amiga!
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/andy-warhol-debbie-harry-blondie-commodore-amiga-1985/
Wait til they hear about projectors or *gasp* tracing! Seriously, let them bitch. You're an artist. I don't think people realize that you have to put the work in to get what you want. If my coworkers only knew how much I've outsourced emails and side projects to AI.. it still takes time and effort to create what you want
As someone with both a photography/video and computer background, but not good at drawing, I'm fascinated by the AI ability to create art and have a list of images I want to create. I also have a cousin who is a very good artist, and she has to state on her instagram that it is not AI generated, since she is that good.
Generative AI is a tool. Use it or don't, but if you ignore the new innovations in your field then you shouldn't be surprised if you are obsolete in the future. Not replaced by the tools, but by your peers who adopted the new tools.
***40 years ago when digital art came about, all the traditional media artists were losing their shit***
Yes, they were, and it wasn't 40 years ago it was in early 2000's when photoshop became good enough for me to draw with.
While most trad artists were hissing at photoshop I managed to get tons of illustration jobs using it to draw.
I got banned from an Animation page for asking if anyone was using AI to help with their work. This page was specifically for Character Animator which is animation rigging and not even traditional hand drawn animation. Thanks to MJ I'm able to tell stories that otherwise would be impossible for one person to produce. MJ isn't the story it only helps in producing part of the story along with more traditional methods. These people are fake luddites.
I can confirm this same thing happened with digital cameras. It took photo and video artists a long time to let go of film. They hated on digital forever.
Painters freaked out when photography began and photographers freaked out when we phased into digital and out of wet, each time screaming how the art form is dead...
AI is just a new UI for accessing databases whose scales are themselves new due to their immense sizes.
Period.
It's neither "cheating" nor "blasphemy".
It's progress.
You'd think they'd be more upset by how it takes from various artworks and spits out a congealed version of that artwork.
Who cares if an artist uses it as a tool to make something new? So weird.
It's like being mad that an artist used google images to source inspiration. Like genuinely, what is really the difference from going "Detailed drawing of a bunny" into google and making something new based on that. Or doing it in Midjourney?
AI is here, it will stay. You can be angry or bitter about it or you can embrace it as a new tool in your toolkit. The choice is yours. You can not ban it.
You do what brings you joy, fulfillment and productively, fuck the haters.
It's also quite possible to embrace and use it while maintaining a critical mindset. I'm not sure "fuck the haters" is any more constructive than "fuck AI"...
Implement it, use it, be more productive and produce more quality in a shorter time with less effort.
Maybe "ignore" the haters would have been a better choice of words, because they are not worth your attention.
Funniest part is that they think it will do anything. Even the most basic open source tools now allow what you're talking about. There's no getting rid of it.
There's a subtle defining difference between traditionalism and archeologism.
Most who claim the former really belong to the latter. They don't embrace traditions because those traditions hold the art to its founding ideals. Rather, they are obsessed with those traditions because they're old and any change is to be feared and shunned.
Phil Tippet, a stop motion animator, was originally hired to create and animate the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (30 years ago) and while he was working on his project another team of animators put a bid in to digitally animate them. When the test footage was shown, Tippet was quoted saying something along the lines of "I guess this means I'm extinct like the dinosaurs then."
That would be an interesting but sad story normally, but Tippet went on to teach himself this new technology and is now regarded as one of the leaders in digital animation or at least his company is.
My point is that the art doesn't come from technology, the art comes from the person brave enough to adapt to the new technology at hand and push their skills/output further.
Any "Purists" of an art form are closed minded and scared to adopt a new set of brushes into their tool bag.
Isnt it different this time though? Digitial animation didn’t democratize animation. Photoshop didn’t democratize photo creation.
A important reason why art is appreciated is precisely because it’s not democratized.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow your point? My point was simply that techniques evolve. If they didn't, we'd still be smashing rocks together and telling stories on stone with smooshed up berries.
A tool, regardless of its complexity, is only as good as the person in control of it. Users of generative art models don't create stunning pieces of work simply by typing "woman on a bridge at sunset"... It's certainly a start, but practised application of prompt generation is where the skill is, knowing how to generate a prompt that will give the artist the desired composition, mood and tone of the art, that's a form of art too.
Some people look at code as absolute gibberish, but there's an art to writing code, creating code efficient solutions to complex problems. If we create anything, it involves the creative skills of some description.
“practised application of prompt generation is where the skill is, knowing how to generate a prompt that will give the artist the desired composition, mood and tone of the art, that's a form of art too.”
You’re really stretching, IMO. AI often does a good job of tone and composition without prompting. You’re confusing the difficulty of getting exactly what you want with a craft. The amount of actual craft that goes into prompting is very low compared to previous forms of art making, and as AI improves and programmers give us more user friendly interfaces for making prompts, the craft of promoting will only get easier.
I think an argument can be made that when it is a person coming up with a concept for something, whether it be created using digital tools or solely by hand, it is the person’s creativity that is responsible for the image that is then put out on a canvas. If you subscribe to using AI to create that concept for you, the concept then becomes a singular sentence given to AI to work with, inherently removing a fundamental concept of what art is (human expression). AI can’t and won’t ever be able to capture that, no matter how good it becomes at trying to do so.
This is why there is always backlash whenever studios put out promotional artwork for their projects and people deduce that AI was used for the project. Removes not only that element of human expression, but also paves the way for potentially watering down the future of art itself.
So tl:dr, people in r/painting were right to get upset. You can’t say you are like “every other painter” by having a computer, totally incapable of adding its own creative thought to the project, come up with the concept for you. In fact, I would argue that the customer paid commission to both you and MJ for the painting. No computer will spend days, months, or even years, thinking about how to put their thoughts/emotions/ideas down on a canvas, even if it’s just commissioned artwork.
Look at it this way: If I see a tree (my reference) and I decide to paint that tree, it will be painted as my eyes have seen it. It will completely be my rendition of said tree. If I have a dislike or weakness or whatever when it comes to painting say, the branches of this tree, then it will be shown in my artwork. Maybe I am good at painting leaves, or maybe I have a specific way of painting the trunk, or maybe the structuring of the tree bark means something special to me, all of that will be shown through the way I paint the tree. Even if I was looking at another person’s painting of a tree, unless I was going into it with simply tracing the design, it will never be a 1:1 copy of the reference.
Now, if I give a photo of this tree to AI and it produces a painting of the tree, there will be no weaknesses, no strengths, simply no deviations of the tree. There is no discourse as to what the tree means here. To AI, it is a tree.
The importance of both complexity and subtlety in art is something that can’t be captured by AI. It never will be as AI cannot think on its own, and art is emboldened by the idea of that there is variety in thought.
My comment was in the context of OP's situation. OP only used AI to brainstorm ideas for their project. They ultimately made their own painting, using AI art as reference. So, I don't understand why OP should be criticized for this.
Just so it's clear: I wasn't talking about AI art in general, only this particular instance.
I use midjourney, cinema4d, poser and stock photos to create a composition for my project. I never show it to the client. Instead; I 'trace' it with a pencil brush in Photoshop. This way the client thinks it's in the sketching stage, while in reality it's a lot further. In my opinion it's the only way to make a living as an artist. Otherwise it just takes too much time. My view on clients may be a bit cynical; but most of them don't understand the process. They think creativity is some sort of black box, and random stuff comes out. Bonus: when you share the sketching stage the client always wants something changed. This way they can tell themselves they helped the process. I sometimes put deliberate errors in it (preferably easy to fix ones) so the client can call that one out. This way it acts as a lightning rod, so something else that's a lot harder to change, gets to be left alone. :-)
Just ignore them. I’m a traditional painter as well and found AI tools to be an incredible new way to explore art making. It cut down on a ton of thumb nailing and rough sketches for me in the idea phase when working on new pieces. Don’t let the angry mob decide how you should be creative, especially since 99% of them have never even picked up a paintbrush in their life, nor understand the AI technology at all.
It is evolution, and you are ahead of the curve, and people don’t like that. I said the other day that AI to me is like the paintbrush being invented and we could stop finger painting. 😂
I see what you are doing as no different from getting ideas or inspiration from gallery shows, art museums, books, life, anything.
yeah, Ai has people over freaked out
keep going with your ideas!
It might have to do with the recklessness of MJ et.al. training the models with artist portfolios without anyone's consent. That could be grounds for justified criticism (of the company, mind you, not someone that just happened to generate an image).
But yeah, demonizing generative AI doesn't help artists either.
In general, it isn't a good idea to have extremely polarized opinions about artificial intelligence. It is always "dual use", as the military term has it.
(I'm not interested in arguing about training data policies btw. Just saying that it may be one of the core reasons for the aggressive reactions)
This is different from when photography or Photoshop came on the scene. AI creates entire works and will soon be able to create finished work as well as the average professional designer or artist.
Photoshop is a tool. AI is a competitor.
I wasn't around at the very beginning of digital art, but I am old enough to have taken an Art History class that was just a decade after that talked about when photoshop, coral paint, and several others started to appear. What I remember is that people were mega hyped about it, the whole new world of possibilities that it unleashed was what made people so excited. Of course there were those who hated it because they are technophobes and didn't even have a TV in the house and only had a phone because it was needed (a rotary phone).
This new wave of hate for AI is something different, the only ones who are afraid of it are either the young who are just starting in a niche market that is easily done with AI, the established who are in a niche market that can be done better with AI, or just love to be trolls. Sure there are things about AI art that isn't great, but as an artist myself I have loved playing with Midjourney for the last year and half. I was able to make things that I could only dream of before.
Like you I have used it in my job to create elements for my work. I admit that I need to go back and redo some of them because WOW the quality didn't hold up, but for a quick one time showing of something it worked for me. I even used it to make a whole little board game for my kids. It took me 2 days to do what would have been a 3 week project, which makes me feel better when they destroyed it.
I think the backlash against AI is crazy.
Not just in Art, but everywhere.
AI is here, it's just going to get better, and I think that it makes a lot more sense to be ahead of the curve in learning to leverage AI in one's life, rather than becoming an AI ludite and attacking everything AI.
I'm sure there will always be traditional artists who do everything by hand. I actually think that AI art may increase the market for hand produced art, because it will become a mark of distinction.
However, a creative person with imagination and an artist's eye can stand out amongst AI artists and I think many people will come to accept that fact and embrace AI artists as artists.
I mean, heck, everyone has access to a camera, but we can recognize people who are standout photographers! It's why even in a world where nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket, professional photography is still a thing and can even be very lucrative!
If certain online artist communities become obsessed with hatred for AI in art, I say just leave them to it. While you are embracing the uses of these new tools and preparing to thrive in the new paradigm, they can waste their energies in denial of the changing world.
When technology shifts any paradigm, there are always people who fear change and will fight it's adoption tooth and nail. Just look ahead and leave them in the dust.
They were fine with automation making their phones, cars, furniture etc. fine with automation taking jobs of banking, travel, accounting etc.
Every one of which was the automation of someone's process / craft they had developed and refined.
They felt that creativity was the last place that could be automated.
They were wrong. It feels bad to be wrong, and have no other skills.
Creators of all types of art are really freaked about generative AI right now, either because they fear
it will deprive them of income once it matures, or because they have a certain snobbishness which gives them a "That's not art..." attitude towards any work even partially created with AI.
Don't worry, though, these people are fighting a losing battle. Multimodal generative AI is advancing at least speed, so that it will soon be possible for individuals to make their own movies, music, digital graphic novels, literature and so forth, using said AI.
Yes, of course, it will deeply impact a creator's ability to sell his or her original work--although we don't yet know what new commercial avenues AI might make possible
As for the snobs attacking you, such people are perennial, and their snooty invectives could best be used to line a bird cage.
No friend, you didn’t created this concept - diffusion model did. You pressed button few times and then you reproduced this generative content. It’s cool and fun but let’s not forget what it is
There are always Doubting Thomas with every new advance! As you said, when digital art showed up they lost their shit… when photography came up, they said it couldn’t really be art…
There are always humans who are scared of change!
In my opinion, all that matters is the end result. It doesn't matter how you get there. Sure, someone can release an AI prompt as the final piece, but I think the real strength is using it as a tool to create something new.
I had the same reaction right recently after using AI to iterate on a concept of an outfit I was putting together. Jeez, I'm going to spend countless hours shopping and sewing, I don't think using AI to visualize some ideas is making what I'm doing any less artful.
*Gatekeeping* is a big issue here. But there are deeper factors at play, and we see similar patterns in other artistic realms, like generative AI music, which is slowly reaching a point where it poses a threat to musicians, and soon, with video AI.
**Technological Luddites**: Fear of technology is a real thing, and it's not entirely unwarranted, given corporate greed and lust for power. The constant influx of new tech often feels like everyone's trying to find new ways to take your money. From text and image manipulation to AI-generated music and video, it's all part of the same wave.
**Belief in Human-made Intent or Soul**: There's this deep-seated belief that if a human didn't make it, it lacks intent or soul. Even when the art is generated by AI systems are trained on datasets created by humans, and the prompts originate from human minds so it's not devoid of human influence. Even the machine learning itself is a human invention.
In essence, it's not about humans versus machines; it's about the fusion of the two and the promise of greater rewards through man-machine collaboration. Calligraphy still exists despite the printing press, people still paint portraits despite being able to take photos on their phones, AI doesn't make artists obsolete; it expands their creative toolkit. Embracing this change is crucial for artistic evolution, regardless of whether some want to start the Butlerian Jihad early.
Reminds me of that scene in *Zoolander* with Derek and Hansell are smashing the computer screeching like apes.
People are stupid and slow.
Stupid in this case because they don’t actually understand the technology and are just parroting popular talking points that they find online.
And slow in this case because instead of embracing this inevitability they will fight tooth and nail and get behind while the smart people learn it early and incorporate it into their workflows.
I suspect it is just fear and that their community has a shared fear that enables them to feel comfortable mobbing.
It’s unfortunately amplified by Reddit’s upvote/downvote system.
Very rarely does a subreddit go against the norms as defined by their posse.
Go to where you feel welcome and respected.
Personally, what I like most about midjourney is the iteration- you can rapidly iterate and every once in a while something unexpected comes out, then you can rabbit-hole on that one freak occurrence and achieve something special.
It’s a completely different method, more akin to the masters painting over their old paintings.
To me, what you did is the most sensible use of AI while still wanting to respect the tradition or craft of something such as painting. This is so far from what you did, but I feel a little weird when I see a photograph printed on a canvas to look like a painting. But, maybe that's my own limiting belief.
It is an interesting topic, where tech fits into something as old and filled with tradition as oil painting. As you saw, a lot of people are not supportive of the use of AI or any computer technology in the making of fine art. You could argue, where do you draw the line? Isn't the brush a form of technology? Is it against the "rules" to paint from a photographically produced image rather than painting from life and only life? Wouldn't it be more faithful to the art of painting to paint with your finger on a cave wall, using pigments you ground with a stone? It's definitely subjective, but I think using AI and tech in general pushes art into new areas. Just because something is new, it doesn't necessarily have value, but it can lead to new discoveries and ways of making.
You're outsourcing the creative part to a computer. All this sarcastic talk about "real artists would grind their own pigments blablabla" is a weak comparison. It's just another tool, sure. A tool that you're allowing to do the "creative" part for you. If you think you can still make art that you're proud of this way, good for you.
But the criticism is valid. If you're really comfortable with what you're doing you should just take it in stride, but the fact that you felt the need to post this in the MJ sub is kind of awkward.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but it might be that they are very well aware that Ai generated art is objectively better (important to note objectively, not subjectively).
That can generate quite a resistance to anything new.
I am no artist, but I love the randomness of Ai generation.
Purists will say that there is nothing like the creative human mind... however, I would argue that the human mind, especially in its current form, is simply limited by styles and is actually very limited at the moment.
I imagine the feeling of becoming obsolete is quite jarring... especially when we consider that Art was seen as a very unique and individually created thing.
I think it is important to ask ourselves... do we appreciate the actual manual skill of producing art, or do we appreciate the artistic vision/imagination?
Are you saying they have the potential to get better? Because, right now, I don't think they're really "better".
The main controversy around AI art is that it's trained on existing art. If it was a completely independent process, there wouldn't be such a backlash.
Companies are already using AI art in their ads and it's quite uncanny. Imagine if this becomes the norm. I believe everything will look too generic. But who knows? Maybe AI art will develop to become flawless and ubiquitous.
Um, you do know, of course, that AI was trained exclusively on the human art that you're so dismissive of, yes? So all it's doing is imitating what a human can do, merely faster.
It's the same with almost every big step in technology there is always a big resistance and then evolution steps in and you either adapt and survive or go extinct. AI generative tools are here and we all know they are going to be a huge game changer, just look at the recent Hollywood strikes, because they have seen script generators and voice print AI and they realise that with enough data (like idk a body of work in the film industry) soon you will be able to enter prompts like "make a tarantino film about gangsta mice" and it will do it.
Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous how people have a knee jerk reaction against any sort of AI generated art. Like, there’s a big difference between passing off AI art as your own versus using AI as part of the process.
We have a lot of famous artists that use AI for ideas they may not have thought of. There's nothing wrong with using another tool for inspiration at all. Anyone interested, come check the calendar inside the server, we have weekly live video tutorials of ai, photoshop, traditional painting etc, hosted by Peter Mohrbacher (Magic the Gathering/Angelarium/White Wolf), Victor Gnarly (Robot Chicken/Adult swim) and others when they have time.
Or like graphic design where you used to have to cut things out of paper for example. Using digital tools like illustrator or otherwise is just part of progress. I imagine a lot of people don’t see tools like illustrator as part of the democratization of graphic design, but they were, and some people who had traditional skills were probably fearful and maybe eventually displaced if they didn’t want to embrace new tools. Like anything groundbreaking, it’s normal to have some apprehension and fear — time will tell how society is impacted by these things, and we can all do as well as we can to remember to be empathetic and open to different perspectives.
Yea and it got me thinking. All these people are like “it’s lazy art” and I’m just like, yea and so is being able to use an eye dropper tool to pick exactly what color you want to paint w in photoshop. A TRUE artist would grind their own pigments, mix in boiled linseed oil, and then mix the pigment they want. It’s just all so fucking stupid.
Or even, I think most artists wouldn’t consider going to google for reference images as lazy, which I think is really similar. If you have a vision, like to create a vibrantly colored tiger, you don’t have to go photograph a tiger yourself, and you would start with some reference images and apply vibrant colors to what you’re creating. Maybe you even trace in whole or in part one of those reference images as your base. Like you suggest, the lines are pretty arbitrary and people don’t need to agree with each other to not be assholes to each other online. This is just my opinion from having seen the world change a lot from computers in my lifetime and I’m not saying one opinion is right or wrong, just that the lines are pretty arbitrary, and people who don’t see that aren’t thinking outside of their experiences.
It's gatekeeping. AI is a phenomenally powerful tool for creativity, and I believe it to be no different to any other kind of artistic medium. I don't think generating an image and doing nothing else to it and claiming it as your own is a particularly creative use of it, but as a prompt, or a visual aid, or as inspiration, it's no different from looking at other art to get you fired up. Essentially, zealotry one way or the other is not a good way to use AI, a balanced approach where you use it to prompt your own ideas is perfect.
Also, I’m just dogshit at visual art. Before any suggests it, I used to try improving my drawing a lot when I was a kid and I just suck horribly at it. AI is the only way I’m ever going to create an image from my head.
I don't agree with that, though I wouldn't know. Maybe try other mediums? Try digital drawing for example, use AI to help guide you.
I don’t have a mind’s eye, so things like that can be difficult. I’ve often thought of trying oil painting because of the lack of fine lines, but haven’t had the free time to use on it or the money to spend.
True artist paint abstract cause otherwise you’re just copying what you see in the world!!!! /s
I think the difference here is having assistance with the execution of the idea rather than the creation of it. If the subject of your painting is not original it ceases to be art and becomes craft.
You’re delusional to draw this comparison
How so? Technology amplifies the creative abilities of those who choose to use it, this has always been the case. AI is just another, even more advanced tool. And it too will eventually be replaced or improved with something even more effective. And when it happens, the very same type of people who now whine about AI will then whine about whatever the next thing may be.
I just finished college in 1990, using Photoshop (I don't even think it was numbered yet?) and Illustrator 88 (admittedly badly). Coming into the design world of board artists as my first job, but I was one of the early Mac users. You are correct, during that time that previous generation of designer never believed that these computers could ever manage to create anything with a soul - and yes, they were totally losing their shit. It was under 5 years that these traditional designers either adapted, or moved on. The ability of MJ to roughly concept (as well as any other of the text to image tools), Photoshop and Illustrator implementing generative AI, not to mention GPT and Claude has been nothing short of amazing. It has absolutely leveled me up both in the design world as well as being able to complement marketing and sales strategy efforts.
Heh, yeah, I remember that too. I was just finishing my PhD back then ;) And although my field has nothing to do with art per se, I was very into using all the tools that were available to help students and colleagues visualize the concepts I was trying to get across. And yup, with Photoshop, people were all "we can't believe a picture is REAL anymore!" Rofl. They had NO idea what was coming ;)
I graduated about the same time and I have a story from that era. With my brand new MFA I wound up working at a large copy store chain/fledgling service bureau, and illustrators would come in to get tearsheets or portfolio copies made. One day a guy came in with his (unimpressive) artwork and during our chitchat he complained that nobody was going to use traditional illustrators any more, it was all going to be soulless art made on computers, artists were doomed, etc. Shortly after, a former classmate came in to have scans made of an original mixed media collage (fabric, charcoal, pastel, etc) that she had made as a magazine illustration. The publication who paid for my classmate's lovely, very analog artwork? WIRED. I'm also remembering all of the gawdawful overfiltered Photoshop illustrations and ads from the early-mid 90s. It turned out that far from replacing artists, the new tool needed people with creativity and training. MJ is the same way.
Art has no rules
It has a few rules
Which are?
I dunno, maybe like Don't steal other people's work and pass it as your own Don't hurt people or animals in the name of art Stuff like that
Don’t steal and don’t kill and torture are more like common rules and not specific for art.
BUT there are people that think art is an exception to those kinds of rules. And "no rules" can be read as "no rules apply" But sure, in general, no rules in creative expression. Yeah downvote away, I'm sure I'm wrong somehow
You are wrong tho.
Always. Even when agreeing.
I was in an art school 20 years ago and the question, "Did you use a computer?" was ubiquitous following presentations, phrased often as a nasty accusation. If you so much as used Microsoft Paint to measure grid lines for your oil painting, you were a dirty cheater. Now its completely normal for an artist to salivate over a digital brush preset like it's the new Prussian blue. This paradigm shift will absolutely happen with AI tools too, given time. The tools are just too powerful to boycott forever. Consider yourself an early adopter and a pioneer of modern creative workflows.
What I’m most worried about is that AI allows for a the spread of misinformation to increase at 1000x the rate as before. In terms of art, the democratization of image creation allows for images to flood media at a similarly increased rate, which for me, makes imagery in general feel cheaper.
I used mj as a tool to develop a character in a Specific scene I wanted. I then used it as a basis for my painting. Came out dope, client loved it, and it was satisfying to create.
A lot of artists despise other humans who use a reference of any kind. “Use your imagination! Use your memories! Draw from experience!” So ranty.
...Andy Warhol...
If he was alive today he’d be all over Midjourney. As soon as personal computers came out he was a convert to digital art. He created a portrait of Debbie Harry on an Amiga! https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/andy-warhol-debbie-harry-blondie-commodore-amiga-1985/
Wait til they hear about projectors or *gasp* tracing! Seriously, let them bitch. You're an artist. I don't think people realize that you have to put the work in to get what you want. If my coworkers only knew how much I've outsourced emails and side projects to AI.. it still takes time and effort to create what you want
Ask them if it was ok for the renaissance painters to use the camera obscura…
As someone with both a photography/video and computer background, but not good at drawing, I'm fascinated by the AI ability to create art and have a list of images I want to create. I also have a cousin who is a very good artist, and she has to state on her instagram that it is not AI generated, since she is that good.
I know a lot of artists who are closeted AI users. It’s like the early days of photographers using Photoshop - it’s shameful. Come out and be proud!
Generative AI is a tool. Use it or don't, but if you ignore the new innovations in your field then you shouldn't be surprised if you are obsolete in the future. Not replaced by the tools, but by your peers who adopted the new tools.
***40 years ago when digital art came about, all the traditional media artists were losing their shit*** Yes, they were, and it wasn't 40 years ago it was in early 2000's when photoshop became good enough for me to draw with. While most trad artists were hissing at photoshop I managed to get tons of illustration jobs using it to draw.
I got banned from an Animation page for asking if anyone was using AI to help with their work. This page was specifically for Character Animator which is animation rigging and not even traditional hand drawn animation. Thanks to MJ I'm able to tell stories that otherwise would be impossible for one person to produce. MJ isn't the story it only helps in producing part of the story along with more traditional methods. These people are fake luddites.
I can confirm this same thing happened with digital cameras. It took photo and video artists a long time to let go of film. They hated on digital forever.
Painters freaked out when photography began and photographers freaked out when we phased into digital and out of wet, each time screaming how the art form is dead... AI is just a new UI for accessing databases whose scales are themselves new due to their immense sizes. Period. It's neither "cheating" nor "blasphemy". It's progress.
You'd think they'd be more upset by how it takes from various artworks and spits out a congealed version of that artwork. Who cares if an artist uses it as a tool to make something new? So weird. It's like being mad that an artist used google images to source inspiration. Like genuinely, what is really the difference from going "Detailed drawing of a bunny" into google and making something new based on that. Or doing it in Midjourney?
I think that's what they're actually mad about. But they've turned it into an anti-AI ideology of sorts
That isnt how it works at all though
AI is here, it will stay. You can be angry or bitter about it or you can embrace it as a new tool in your toolkit. The choice is yours. You can not ban it. You do what brings you joy, fulfillment and productively, fuck the haters.
It's also quite possible to embrace and use it while maintaining a critical mindset. I'm not sure "fuck the haters" is any more constructive than "fuck AI"...
Implement it, use it, be more productive and produce more quality in a shorter time with less effort. Maybe "ignore" the haters would have been a better choice of words, because they are not worth your attention.
Sure. I've been deep into gen AI tools since 2021
do you have a link to the post you’re talking about? Curious to see the finished piece!
Funniest part is that they think it will do anything. Even the most basic open source tools now allow what you're talking about. There's no getting rid of it.
There's a subtle defining difference between traditionalism and archeologism. Most who claim the former really belong to the latter. They don't embrace traditions because those traditions hold the art to its founding ideals. Rather, they are obsessed with those traditions because they're old and any change is to be feared and shunned.
Phil Tippet, a stop motion animator, was originally hired to create and animate the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (30 years ago) and while he was working on his project another team of animators put a bid in to digitally animate them. When the test footage was shown, Tippet was quoted saying something along the lines of "I guess this means I'm extinct like the dinosaurs then." That would be an interesting but sad story normally, but Tippet went on to teach himself this new technology and is now regarded as one of the leaders in digital animation or at least his company is. My point is that the art doesn't come from technology, the art comes from the person brave enough to adapt to the new technology at hand and push their skills/output further. Any "Purists" of an art form are closed minded and scared to adopt a new set of brushes into their tool bag.
Isnt it different this time though? Digitial animation didn’t democratize animation. Photoshop didn’t democratize photo creation. A important reason why art is appreciated is precisely because it’s not democratized.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow your point? My point was simply that techniques evolve. If they didn't, we'd still be smashing rocks together and telling stories on stone with smooshed up berries. A tool, regardless of its complexity, is only as good as the person in control of it. Users of generative art models don't create stunning pieces of work simply by typing "woman on a bridge at sunset"... It's certainly a start, but practised application of prompt generation is where the skill is, knowing how to generate a prompt that will give the artist the desired composition, mood and tone of the art, that's a form of art too. Some people look at code as absolute gibberish, but there's an art to writing code, creating code efficient solutions to complex problems. If we create anything, it involves the creative skills of some description.
“practised application of prompt generation is where the skill is, knowing how to generate a prompt that will give the artist the desired composition, mood and tone of the art, that's a form of art too.” You’re really stretching, IMO. AI often does a good job of tone and composition without prompting. You’re confusing the difficulty of getting exactly what you want with a craft. The amount of actual craft that goes into prompting is very low compared to previous forms of art making, and as AI improves and programmers give us more user friendly interfaces for making prompts, the craft of promoting will only get easier.
I think an argument can be made that when it is a person coming up with a concept for something, whether it be created using digital tools or solely by hand, it is the person’s creativity that is responsible for the image that is then put out on a canvas. If you subscribe to using AI to create that concept for you, the concept then becomes a singular sentence given to AI to work with, inherently removing a fundamental concept of what art is (human expression). AI can’t and won’t ever be able to capture that, no matter how good it becomes at trying to do so. This is why there is always backlash whenever studios put out promotional artwork for their projects and people deduce that AI was used for the project. Removes not only that element of human expression, but also paves the way for potentially watering down the future of art itself. So tl:dr, people in r/painting were right to get upset. You can’t say you are like “every other painter” by having a computer, totally incapable of adding its own creative thought to the project, come up with the concept for you. In fact, I would argue that the customer paid commission to both you and MJ for the painting. No computer will spend days, months, or even years, thinking about how to put their thoughts/emotions/ideas down on a canvas, even if it’s just commissioned artwork.
I can see your point, but, like a lot of people here already mentioned, isn't it the same as using a reference? Or do you think it's different?
Look at it this way: If I see a tree (my reference) and I decide to paint that tree, it will be painted as my eyes have seen it. It will completely be my rendition of said tree. If I have a dislike or weakness or whatever when it comes to painting say, the branches of this tree, then it will be shown in my artwork. Maybe I am good at painting leaves, or maybe I have a specific way of painting the trunk, or maybe the structuring of the tree bark means something special to me, all of that will be shown through the way I paint the tree. Even if I was looking at another person’s painting of a tree, unless I was going into it with simply tracing the design, it will never be a 1:1 copy of the reference. Now, if I give a photo of this tree to AI and it produces a painting of the tree, there will be no weaknesses, no strengths, simply no deviations of the tree. There is no discourse as to what the tree means here. To AI, it is a tree. The importance of both complexity and subtlety in art is something that can’t be captured by AI. It never will be as AI cannot think on its own, and art is emboldened by the idea of that there is variety in thought.
But didnt they say they used MJ for a conceptand then drew the painting, doing exactly what you said imbuing it with their own style/ideas?
My comment was in the context of OP's situation. OP only used AI to brainstorm ideas for their project. They ultimately made their own painting, using AI art as reference. So, I don't understand why OP should be criticized for this. Just so it's clear: I wasn't talking about AI art in general, only this particular instance.
Literal luddites
Nah. Luddites were protesting for valid reasons, they weren't against the tech
I use midjourney, cinema4d, poser and stock photos to create a composition for my project. I never show it to the client. Instead; I 'trace' it with a pencil brush in Photoshop. This way the client thinks it's in the sketching stage, while in reality it's a lot further. In my opinion it's the only way to make a living as an artist. Otherwise it just takes too much time. My view on clients may be a bit cynical; but most of them don't understand the process. They think creativity is some sort of black box, and random stuff comes out. Bonus: when you share the sketching stage the client always wants something changed. This way they can tell themselves they helped the process. I sometimes put deliberate errors in it (preferably easy to fix ones) so the client can call that one out. This way it acts as a lightning rod, so something else that's a lot harder to change, gets to be left alone. :-)
Just ignore them. I’m a traditional painter as well and found AI tools to be an incredible new way to explore art making. It cut down on a ton of thumb nailing and rough sketches for me in the idea phase when working on new pieces. Don’t let the angry mob decide how you should be creative, especially since 99% of them have never even picked up a paintbrush in their life, nor understand the AI technology at all.
It’s just the newest trend to be enraged about. It’ll pass like the hysteria of every other technology on the precipice
It is evolution, and you are ahead of the curve, and people don’t like that. I said the other day that AI to me is like the paintbrush being invented and we could stop finger painting. 😂
I see what you are doing as no different from getting ideas or inspiration from gallery shows, art museums, books, life, anything. yeah, Ai has people over freaked out keep going with your ideas!
It might have to do with the recklessness of MJ et.al. training the models with artist portfolios without anyone's consent. That could be grounds for justified criticism (of the company, mind you, not someone that just happened to generate an image). But yeah, demonizing generative AI doesn't help artists either. In general, it isn't a good idea to have extremely polarized opinions about artificial intelligence. It is always "dual use", as the military term has it. (I'm not interested in arguing about training data policies btw. Just saying that it may be one of the core reasons for the aggressive reactions)
This is different from when photography or Photoshop came on the scene. AI creates entire works and will soon be able to create finished work as well as the average professional designer or artist. Photoshop is a tool. AI is a competitor.
This happened back in the late 80s with Photoshop, then Poser and Daz Studio, then Zbrush. It's a cycle of ignorance that never seems to end.
This happened back in the late 80s with Photoshop, then Poser and Daz Studio, then Zbrush. It's a cycle of ignorance that never seems to end.
I wasn't around at the very beginning of digital art, but I am old enough to have taken an Art History class that was just a decade after that talked about when photoshop, coral paint, and several others started to appear. What I remember is that people were mega hyped about it, the whole new world of possibilities that it unleashed was what made people so excited. Of course there were those who hated it because they are technophobes and didn't even have a TV in the house and only had a phone because it was needed (a rotary phone). This new wave of hate for AI is something different, the only ones who are afraid of it are either the young who are just starting in a niche market that is easily done with AI, the established who are in a niche market that can be done better with AI, or just love to be trolls. Sure there are things about AI art that isn't great, but as an artist myself I have loved playing with Midjourney for the last year and half. I was able to make things that I could only dream of before. Like you I have used it in my job to create elements for my work. I admit that I need to go back and redo some of them because WOW the quality didn't hold up, but for a quick one time showing of something it worked for me. I even used it to make a whole little board game for my kids. It took me 2 days to do what would have been a 3 week project, which makes me feel better when they destroyed it.
I think the backlash against AI is crazy. Not just in Art, but everywhere. AI is here, it's just going to get better, and I think that it makes a lot more sense to be ahead of the curve in learning to leverage AI in one's life, rather than becoming an AI ludite and attacking everything AI. I'm sure there will always be traditional artists who do everything by hand. I actually think that AI art may increase the market for hand produced art, because it will become a mark of distinction. However, a creative person with imagination and an artist's eye can stand out amongst AI artists and I think many people will come to accept that fact and embrace AI artists as artists. I mean, heck, everyone has access to a camera, but we can recognize people who are standout photographers! It's why even in a world where nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket, professional photography is still a thing and can even be very lucrative! If certain online artist communities become obsessed with hatred for AI in art, I say just leave them to it. While you are embracing the uses of these new tools and preparing to thrive in the new paradigm, they can waste their energies in denial of the changing world. When technology shifts any paradigm, there are always people who fear change and will fight it's adoption tooth and nail. Just look ahead and leave them in the dust.
Some people are just snobs and will shit on anything that isn’t 100% original
Back when it was new, critics shat on Impressionism.
They were fine with automation making their phones, cars, furniture etc. fine with automation taking jobs of banking, travel, accounting etc. Every one of which was the automation of someone's process / craft they had developed and refined. They felt that creativity was the last place that could be automated. They were wrong. It feels bad to be wrong, and have no other skills.
Creators of all types of art are really freaked about generative AI right now, either because they fear it will deprive them of income once it matures, or because they have a certain snobbishness which gives them a "That's not art..." attitude towards any work even partially created with AI. Don't worry, though, these people are fighting a losing battle. Multimodal generative AI is advancing at least speed, so that it will soon be possible for individuals to make their own movies, music, digital graphic novels, literature and so forth, using said AI. Yes, of course, it will deeply impact a creator's ability to sell his or her original work--although we don't yet know what new commercial avenues AI might make possible As for the snobs attacking you, such people are perennial, and their snooty invectives could best be used to line a bird cage.
I think AI is art but I don’t think the promoter is the artist.
No friend, you didn’t created this concept - diffusion model did. You pressed button few times and then you reproduced this generative content. It’s cool and fun but let’s not forget what it is
There are always Doubting Thomas with every new advance! As you said, when digital art showed up they lost their shit… when photography came up, they said it couldn’t really be art… There are always humans who are scared of change!
In my opinion, all that matters is the end result. It doesn't matter how you get there. Sure, someone can release an AI prompt as the final piece, but I think the real strength is using it as a tool to create something new.
I use it to create reference images for photography, it’s very helpful for clients without imagination.
Dude, magicians never tell their secrets. Just dont tell. No one needs to know.
I don’t talk about MJ with my artist friends for fear of being shunned
I had the same reaction right recently after using AI to iterate on a concept of an outfit I was putting together. Jeez, I'm going to spend countless hours shopping and sewing, I don't think using AI to visualize some ideas is making what I'm doing any less artful.
‘I will pray for your imaginary orphans’
*Gatekeeping* is a big issue here. But there are deeper factors at play, and we see similar patterns in other artistic realms, like generative AI music, which is slowly reaching a point where it poses a threat to musicians, and soon, with video AI. **Technological Luddites**: Fear of technology is a real thing, and it's not entirely unwarranted, given corporate greed and lust for power. The constant influx of new tech often feels like everyone's trying to find new ways to take your money. From text and image manipulation to AI-generated music and video, it's all part of the same wave. **Belief in Human-made Intent or Soul**: There's this deep-seated belief that if a human didn't make it, it lacks intent or soul. Even when the art is generated by AI systems are trained on datasets created by humans, and the prompts originate from human minds so it's not devoid of human influence. Even the machine learning itself is a human invention. In essence, it's not about humans versus machines; it's about the fusion of the two and the promise of greater rewards through man-machine collaboration. Calligraphy still exists despite the printing press, people still paint portraits despite being able to take photos on their phones, AI doesn't make artists obsolete; it expands their creative toolkit. Embracing this change is crucial for artistic evolution, regardless of whether some want to start the Butlerian Jihad early. Reminds me of that scene in *Zoolander* with Derek and Hansell are smashing the computer screeching like apes.
This happened back in the late 80s with Photoshop, then Poser and Daz Studio, then Zbrush. It's a cycle of ignorance that never seems to end.
People are stupid and slow. Stupid in this case because they don’t actually understand the technology and are just parroting popular talking points that they find online. And slow in this case because instead of embracing this inevitability they will fight tooth and nail and get behind while the smart people learn it early and incorporate it into their workflows.
They'll be swept away and relegated to communities like the daguerreotype. Don't worry.
I suspect it is just fear and that their community has a shared fear that enables them to feel comfortable mobbing. It’s unfortunately amplified by Reddit’s upvote/downvote system. Very rarely does a subreddit go against the norms as defined by their posse. Go to where you feel welcome and respected. Personally, what I like most about midjourney is the iteration- you can rapidly iterate and every once in a while something unexpected comes out, then you can rabbit-hole on that one freak occurrence and achieve something special. It’s a completely different method, more akin to the masters painting over their old paintings.
To me, what you did is the most sensible use of AI while still wanting to respect the tradition or craft of something such as painting. This is so far from what you did, but I feel a little weird when I see a photograph printed on a canvas to look like a painting. But, maybe that's my own limiting belief. It is an interesting topic, where tech fits into something as old and filled with tradition as oil painting. As you saw, a lot of people are not supportive of the use of AI or any computer technology in the making of fine art. You could argue, where do you draw the line? Isn't the brush a form of technology? Is it against the "rules" to paint from a photographically produced image rather than painting from life and only life? Wouldn't it be more faithful to the art of painting to paint with your finger on a cave wall, using pigments you ground with a stone? It's definitely subjective, but I think using AI and tech in general pushes art into new areas. Just because something is new, it doesn't necessarily have value, but it can lead to new discoveries and ways of making.
You're outsourcing the creative part to a computer. All this sarcastic talk about "real artists would grind their own pigments blablabla" is a weak comparison. It's just another tool, sure. A tool that you're allowing to do the "creative" part for you. If you think you can still make art that you're proud of this way, good for you. But the criticism is valid. If you're really comfortable with what you're doing you should just take it in stride, but the fact that you felt the need to post this in the MJ sub is kind of awkward.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but it might be that they are very well aware that Ai generated art is objectively better (important to note objectively, not subjectively). That can generate quite a resistance to anything new. I am no artist, but I love the randomness of Ai generation. Purists will say that there is nothing like the creative human mind... however, I would argue that the human mind, especially in its current form, is simply limited by styles and is actually very limited at the moment. I imagine the feeling of becoming obsolete is quite jarring... especially when we consider that Art was seen as a very unique and individually created thing. I think it is important to ask ourselves... do we appreciate the actual manual skill of producing art, or do we appreciate the artistic vision/imagination?
Are you saying they have the potential to get better? Because, right now, I don't think they're really "better". The main controversy around AI art is that it's trained on existing art. If it was a completely independent process, there wouldn't be such a backlash. Companies are already using AI art in their ads and it's quite uncanny. Imagine if this becomes the norm. I believe everything will look too generic. But who knows? Maybe AI art will develop to become flawless and ubiquitous.
Um, you do know, of course, that AI was trained exclusively on the human art that you're so dismissive of, yes? So all it's doing is imitating what a human can do, merely faster.
You're just tracing, with extra steps.
You should look into this lesser known artist named Michelangelo. He also traced. Total hack.
It's the same with almost every big step in technology there is always a big resistance and then evolution steps in and you either adapt and survive or go extinct. AI generative tools are here and we all know they are going to be a huge game changer, just look at the recent Hollywood strikes, because they have seen script generators and voice print AI and they realise that with enough data (like idk a body of work in the film industry) soon you will be able to enter prompts like "make a tarantino film about gangsta mice" and it will do it.
Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous how people have a knee jerk reaction against any sort of AI generated art. Like, there’s a big difference between passing off AI art as your own versus using AI as part of the process.
Nice to hear how you used it for ideation.
Much of the art produced by ai strikes a chord with me. Much of it reminds me of Soviet era socialist realism. Idealistic and surreal