I already don't give a shit about Hollywood. Haven't cared about a new movie in a really long time. If it goes AI I can totally live without it.

if you asked someone "would living in a hoarder's house be good or bad for you, your health, sanity, and soul"
most would say bad

but somehow packing every square inch, byte, and second of attention with pure dog shit is just GRAND

Attached File

I made this for you OP.

Attached File

I hate it.

What's the saying about being in the back half of the chessboard?

In 18-24 months art will likely be the least of our concerns, especially if you see it as one component that is simply being aligned into a larger, more capable system.

Late to the thread party but, I agree op. I suspect it's generational and those of us suspect may come around at some point. Although I do think some of the art is very cool, I do miss the human touch and creativity of the human mind.
I think a bunch of the photoshop pros here may be out of a jerb.

Almost like it's planned...

I was a professional photographer from 1988-2014ish.

Certain photographers blew up about digital photography and how it was going to destroy the industry.

Along came Karen. With about 2k in equipment and DOMINATED the industry. In one major category. The wedding industry.

That’s right. Most every other category, with maybe the exception of some senior portraits and family type stuff, survived.

Machines, Karen included, can’t replicate the quality a pro can create. The only people who appreciate Karen produced quality are the ones who don’t really care. If you can be replaced by Karen, or Siri, maybe you kinda suck and shouldn’t be paid in the first place?

Something to consider.

Damn you, Kojima!

Yes

Photography is much more than that, just like cooking is more than just owning a high quality oven.

That's really sad.

I'm calling it, the next summer of love will be about AI.

Yep, but aside from the skill thing, the bigger problem with AI is that you're generating a completely fake image. A photo taken with a camera shows something real, even if it's only a recording. AI is 100% fake.

This is just taking us farther and farther from reality. Pretty soon we'll be surrounded by fake everything. It's going to be incredibly sad and unhealthy.

Andy Warhol had an army of interns that painted what he described. This was toward the end of his life but the creativity was still contained in his description and vision. He signed his his name.

As an assistant to well known photographers, both commercial and fine art, I would set things up based on their instructions. They would tweak things for the final image.  They would press the button, for lack of a better term.

I’m assuming 99% here have no idea how commercial art is produced.

An AI entity at this stage will not put brush strokes on canvas to create texture and form to replace the modern equivalent of Mondrian or Monet.

I'm talking about things like photography, videography, voice acting, etc. Those are recordings of real things. Like going into the woods and taking a photo of an owl or something.

With AI, there will be a huge shift from real to fake imagery. Almost everything will be fake. Do you really not see the downsides, even from a mental health standpoint?

Lol nails it

We have had a Groundhog Day party every year for the last 25 years

3 years ago i was scraping the barrel looking for new un used clip art for the invitation

this year, I have infinite unique art in my art directed AI script library




I had never seen a cupid groundhog before
Now I have the most bitching fridge magnets

The downside is with things that NEED to be real. Art, for the most part, is not a representation of reality. It’s a perceived reality of the artist which may or may not mean anything to you.

I agree. The art reflects the times we live, and although it doesn’t do much for me, I appreciate what art does/did for humanity as a whole.  I find a lot of the AI shit deeply unsettling and can’t even tell you why, other than it’s “weird” and easy to tell when it’s not human made.

Honest question here, I’m not mocking you.

Could it be like when Native Americans thought photographs were stealing their soul?

Norman Rockwell eventually succumbed to having  a professional photographer come in and shoot photos of his models and setups to use as reference material in order to get a quicker turn around time on his Satruday Evening Post covers and other assignments.

N.C. Wyeth had a dim view of movies. He believed it would dull the imagination of individuals in the story telling process as opposed to reading a book with well thought out illustrations.

I guess OP needs to find better art. Art is more than entertainment. Call me when AI can write music like 'Bleed Me and Ocean' from Acid Bath. It will never happen if you believe in what it takes to make that kind of art. Machines will never be sad or depressed, and without that plus sincerity you won't have art, maybe you'll get entertainment at best.

Op is right.
But most people are blind soulless worms who can only shriek at being distributed from eating excrement as they wiggle their way into hell.
Wait until ai is used to “fix” history.

RARE
A
R
E

Right. I don't really have a problem with AI art because ultimately you're just using a more powerful tool to make art. Change like that is inevitable and I'm okay with it as long as it's fantasy.

The problem is when fake rubbish starts replacing real photos and real videos of real things everywhere. And if you look around, that's already happening. Not because it's better than the real thing, but because it's cheaper and easier to make.

Why take pictures of animals at Yellowstone when you can stay home and generate a fake image that looks just as convincing? That's just one example, but the end result is that pretty soon we'll be surrounded by fake everything. It's going to be incredibly annoying and depressing.

Yea kind of this.  If anyone thinks all it takes to take amazing photo's is a good quality camera - I have some bad news for ya.

If that is your fear than buy books now and don't store images you don't know. Maybe there will be a rise of photographing the photographer style documentaries.

Take 1,000 keep/show 25.

It’s not a secret.

At Natty Geo it was shoot 50,000, print 12



The prompt: A instructional cooking session for homemade gnocchi hosted by a grandmother social media influencer set in a rustic Tuscan country kitchen with cinematic lighting

It’s funny cuz I’m 1/4 native.[img]/images/smilies/anim_rofl.gif[/img]

To answer your question, I don’t know, I haven’t thought very deeply on it. Maybe I feel like it’s stealing humanity’s collective soul would be a better way to put it? Don’t get me wrong, i want people to do whatever they want, enjoy whatever they want, use AI generators 24 hours a day if they so please, but I hope artists don’t go away because of it.

In the same way that an experienced photographer can identify digital from film, you will/do have people that can ID AI.

Will there be a certain market for a plain old “pretty picture” to put in sample frames at Hobby Lobby? You bet. These are not the images that will be purchased to hang in the lobby of the Beverly Hilton, unless that is the intent. Art snobs will know.

Art has always evolved very quickly, because being first is more important than being good.

When it comes to reality, I have no idea how easy it will be to tell what is fake. We consume news very quickly . I went to art school, not journalism school. But, just as in the early days of digital when it became necessary/required to identify altered images, I have no doubt AI is not far behind.

Yep so natural especially when the spoon morphed it's way into her right hand. Creepy smile was super authentic. One word to describe that whole sequence..... sincere. AI has definitely done it, no need for real people.

Funny enough I bet the answer is more AI. I bet an AI program can pretty easily tell if something was generated vs manmade with a percentage of certainty based on how colors and pixels are placed in an artwork.

I talk to some people who think music is good background noise and the  bigger the audience means the better the music. They will gobble up AI created art. I feel a little sorry form them.

There is currently a huge resurgence of film usage in the art world because of its “genuineness”. People pay huge amounts for vinyl records because of the “warmth” of the sound. People love original, unique, new art and there will always be experts to analyze and say something is not original, it’s AI. AI is 6.5 Creedmore of the art world. The flavor of the week. Some will see valid reasons for it to be used but many will say, “6.5 is great, but is it really that much better than 308 to spend thousands of dollars changing over if I don’t have the money?”

I can't even imagine.

It's still disappointing.



This edit won't mean shit because it's on page 4 of a troll thread, but..

The problem most people have with art is that they don't have access to it. Most people will never appreciate Van Gogh because they won't see it in person. You can't appreciate the depth of what he did if you're not looking directly at his work. It's three dimensional, if you care. Or a Reubens.. You can look at a picture online, or in a book, but most of his paintings are as robust as his women. They're huge, taking up entire walls in museums. Walking into the Sistine Chapel and marveling at the painting with perfect proportions and perspective on a curved ceiling, painted 500 years ago. The point being, art needs to be accessed to be appreciated, or at least respected, and most people will never have the opportunity.

If you'd ask them what is a major or a minor chord they couldn't tell you. But they would swear Kiss makes better music than other rock bands simply because they have higher album sales. I probably know more Kiss songs than them.

AI generated rock will be great to them. To you and me we will know the difference.

There is a huge market in making art that is just simple filler. That was true in the past, is currently true and will be true in the future wether AI is involved or not. While it may make you sad, the artist is happy they are getting paid. That is a reward in itself. A huge majority of artists do not shape a genre or ever make anything that inspires emotion. I’m one of those. Every person on this website has seen my work but would never identify me with it or say, “wow, that’s an awesome photo.” And I’m ok with that.

I have experienced exactly that.  :D
(Tampa, Buttholes concert, turned into a riot, hospital run.)

AI is great to come up with logos and stuff like that. Ad agencies won't be able to charge big bucks for a dozen simple logos for many clients anymore.
Actual art that makes people FEEL? Not as easy. Especially since it's all pixels on screens. Real woodblock print loses it's soul in digital format. I imagine thick oil paintings loses everything. And yeah, until 3-D printers spit out AI designed sculpture and pottery that look like glazed real pottery, etc., we still have other media.

Totally agree. AI will be to basic graphic design what Karen with a digital camera was to wedding photography.

Didn't figure on seeing HOF in an AI thread.  

A good example of live music though.  The recordings don't capture the band's live sound.  If you were never in the room then you'll never understand.  Nor will AI.

For fun I just asked Chatgpt this.  "please explain why high on fire was a better band when des was the drummer."

Here's the answer.  Far more comprehensive than expected.  But still looks like some sterile gobbledygook.  Whereas I think a longtime honest fan would say that seeing the band live back then made you realize Des was their secret weapon.  Dude was a caveman holding his sticks backwards and pounding out sonic barbarism.  

I'm kind of ambivalent. On one hand, AI generated art is reductive in the sense that its output is composed of sterile preassembled pieces. The picture of the cowboy riding on a cheetah in this thread, for instance - the model just painted a stereotypical cowboy, an average over all images of cowboys in the model's training set. It can't really create something new, something which is immediately reminiscent of a cowboy but isn't one. It won't compose the picture of any novel elements, either, unless it's very specifically told to.

Compare this to real art. Nude Descending a Staircase actually looks like a time-lapse of someone walking down stairs. The essential forms of a person walking are evident in what otherwise is a jumble of beige polygons. Or the cave paintings at Lascaux - some Cro-Magnon exactly captured the essence of a wild horse's haunches; the curvature of the legs is drawn perfectly, though the rest of the figure is out of proportion. With careful prompting someone could probably get a generative model to produce something analogous, but such care would have to be put into the prompt that it would require a level of creativity, attention to detail, and understanding of artistic fundamentals that would be difficult to distinguish from conventional artistic talent (aside from actually being able to use a paintbrush).

In some naive sense, having a generative model compose something for you isn't that different from commissioning a professional artist - you lay out the basic idea, and the artist fills in the gaps. Of course that misses some important parts. Some of what's missing is the sort of dialogue between the artist and the customer, where real creativity can spontaneously emerge. Another thing missing is the artist's personal touches. In The Last Judgement, for example, Michelangelo painted one of the demons with the face of Biagio da Cesena, a priest who Michelangelo didn't particularly care for, and who was present at the unveiling. A generative model won't deliberately gigatroll someone like that.

On the other hand, there are mountains of shit media pabulum squeezed out by talentless midwits already, all predating some potential AI aesthetic apocalypse. The blackpill, then, is not from some extinction of talent, but from the addition of yet another digital dipshit amplifier.

By democratizing composition, AI art might actually start to displace the terrible postmodern art, which is basically a woke-adjacent closed ecosystem of money laundering. Generative models draw pictures of things, not "the marginalized lived experience of the wise subaltern (shoe polish and menstrual blood on canvas)".

I appreciate your insights. I should make it clear that visual art is the least of my concerns. Writing is what I care about.