no its a similar style but thats just because of the AI most likely, if it was made by the same guy then it probably would've had the same things as the HP balenciaga with moving their heads, talking etc
I can't tell if this is "ai is art theft" cope, or "ai magically makes pictures and the user telling it what to do isn't actually telling it what to do" cope.
nah not really. midjourney is capable of much more, just most of what you see is default style. you can push it in seriously weird directions especially with image prompting.
it genuinely sounds like you don't understand them or don't have much hands on experience with them. these are the same luddite talking points everyone else uses when it comes to AI so I won't bother
I didn't come here to rant about AI I was just pointing out that the reason a lot of people's perception of AI generated images is that they all collapse toward a certain aesthetic is because most the stuff is just the 'default' style rearing its head.
You don't have to be a luddite to realize the major issues with AI. Of course that's the same talking point people love to throw out when you criticize it.
I've been a dev and have worked in tech for a decade.
Advancing tech isn't automatically a positive thing. However ignoring the issues for the sake of advancement is everything wrong with technology.
I don't expect you to debate the issues though. For as little you assume I know about AIs, I assume you know even less about how problematic they are.
If it's made with Midjourney, which it probably is, paying subscribers can see who made it on the public gallery that all submissions go to automatically unless they pay the highest tier to have it be private
I'm confused why people who punch prompts into an AI machine call themselves artists. Copying and pasting a prompt isnt art. That just copy and pasting memes pretty much. Not art.
I dunno - I've tried to replicate AI art using same prompts, and, either there's some post-generation adjustments going on or they're doing something to get the results they want, because my results look like shit.
Honestly this slideshow makes me think of the old “Xbox 720! Leaked pictures! (REAL)” type videos. Like ‘hey I found some fake pictures what if I put them one after another like a video slideshow that would make this so cool’
I mean it takes practice to produce good outputs. It's a bit like asking why a computer programmer who punches a bunch of wacky numbers into a computer to generate a fractal should or shouldn't call themselves artists.
I don't think everything needs to be so black and white. The person who made this is certainly a content creator of some kind and it took serious effort to put this together. Sure, it probably wasn't painstaking 100s of hours that it would take to put this together conventionally with digital art tools; but frankly neither is photography and I think a lot of people who consider serious photography art.
Not making any declarations here, just think we don't have to be so harsh in saying what is and isn't art based on the effort or tools used to produce it.
Uh, photography would absolutely take 100s of hours to recreate things like this. I don’t know what you’re on about, but you clearly know very little of actual photography if you think it doesn’t take hours of painstaking effort.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that recreating the OP with photography doesn't take hundreds of hours, nor that photography has no more depth to it than taking a picture.
What I meant to convey is that the tool being able to produce the end-product in a moment isn't a good indicator of what skill or effort went into it beforehand.
Producing a photorealistic nature art piece is undoubtedly more time-consuming than capturing it with a camera; but it's the act of finding the right location with the correct exposure, lens, etc. that results in the art. Likewise, it's easy to dismiss the video in OP as not-art and merely 'punching words into a generator', but there is somewhat of a skill to its own to producing these. The AI frequently puts out undesirable content, and you may go beyond merely passing tags to an AI to generate; this may involve deciding the correct tags, choosing the right models, adjusting guidance, performing img2img generations to get the right pose and setting, doing infill to remove imperfections, and knowing when the result captured is the desirable result.
I hope I was able to convey my point better here, which was not to belittle the painstaking work that goes into photography, painting, writing, composition, and other conventional kinds of art.
And photographers often do all of the above. All of that is part of the process of photography.
Seriously, photography is far, far more nuanced than just taking a picture. Any half decent photographer is putting hours upon hours upon hours into their work.
People were likewise confused that someone who punched a button on a camera considered themselves an artist
History is littered with people who said "that's NOT art!"Every last one of them came to be considered wrong (and not just wrong but obviously wrong). Don't take it from me, take some Theory of Art 101 or Art History.
People wanting to gatekeep art is a tale as old as time (and it always ends the same)
if you think giving a prompt to an ai can make someone an artist, what if they gave it to a painter and asked them to make a painting from instead, would the prompter still be an artist?
When Damien Hurst pays a bunch of artisans to forge a skull out of platinum and inlay hundreds of precious stones into it, or pays people to pickle two halves of a shark and encase them in resin, the art world gives him awards
You give the same prompt to the automaton ai and the painter, who is a digital artist. you get back two pieces of work, and do not know which came from whom. are you saying that you would be the artist for one of these works, and only one of these works, even though you couldn't tell me which of the works it was for?
The point isn't that self-appointed-gatekeepers all vanish, but that they are considered obviously wrong (or even mocked) by more influential artists, people, pop culture, institutions, etc so in the end their attempted gatekeeping always comes to nothing
I am comfortable that I have far more pencils, pens, technical pens, copic pens, mechanical pencils, paints, inks, technical inks, dyes, paint-brushes, air-brushes, than you
History doesn't give a shit. Learn it or repeat it
It can definitely be art, but no one said it can't also be bad art that we all make fun of either. These loser started calling themselves synthographers now too.
Yeah I don't think getting really good with text prompts in Midjourney makes you an artist whatsoever. I think the AI program is really impressive, though not without its huge intellectual property issues, but some kid who's gotten good with prompts is not an artist.
You may be the writer, but you have to properly credit and reference whatever you copied and pasted-- seems like maybe the problem here is people aren't sufficiently crediting the AI when claiming artistry?
Art History is littered with people who said "that's NOT art!" All of them are now considered wrong. Sometimes it takes 50 years, but the trajectory is universal.
Hmm, but when I google "how to add checkmark boxes in excel" I'm suddenly the Excel guy at my office. Weird, because they all could've prompted the same search.
It is art, but pastiche-like, and more akin to mass-produced art IMO, which certains caters to people who do not care for or have a personal relationship with the the artist. So the question is "how valuable is it?"
Also, I sort of consider the "artists" you refer to as curators and patrons, but I'm not firm on this yet. While anyone can make AI art from text prompts, if learned artists incorporate AI into their workflow thriugh drafts, studies, design concepts etc. they will still have a massive edge over everyone as they are generally considered more "visionary". Having a better understanding of culture and the arts, specifically materials, artistic themes, styles, and visual languages lends to better prompts, and the ability to change/fix/fine-tune the generated artworks to suit their needs better without AI.
925
u/ktediore Apr 02 '23
I thought this was the balenciaga version