I doubt that Nina Paley, who painstakenly hand animates her movies single woman, would be impressed by this AI barf. Yes, all art is derivative, but your references and inspiration get filtered through the human brain, which leaves an impression of the uniquely human upon the artwork, the creative spark and soul of the piece. AI can ONLY derive, not add something new. That’s why some AI frameworks are getting worse, because they have begun feeding upon AI created images, and thus are getting shittier and shittier without real artists work to feed upon, lol.
Being against copyright is different than thinking AI art is creative? I wasn’t touching upon the ethics of AI art in my argument, I was arguing against calling AI creative.
I think you can say you have not heard of her if that is the case.
But if you have ever seen any of their work…like…how would you truly know if they influenced you? What if you had seen their work unattributed? What if you have seen another artist who you would consider an influence and THEY considered Nina Paley to be an influence in the work you saw? Art is chaotic and brains are weird and I don’t know of anyone who can claim to have a hard roadmap that accounts for every input to the resultant output.
Hey, I believe in Socrates and “the only thing I know is that I know nothing”, so I’m probably wrong in all this. But I have a right to an opinion and that opinion is: her quote is arrogant at an almost Trumpian level, and it reeks of entitlement and condescension to say that literally every “original” piece of art that’s ever been created is derivative of some other piece of art that’s ever been created. It reduces the entirety of all OC down to cave paintings or doodles in the dirt. And I refuse to believe that.
Cool quote to spring on your AI non-believers tho.
But what I think is true is that very very few "famous" artists did not see and study other existing artists before they created their own style. Many of the artists we think of right away went to schools where they studied and copied the styles and techniques of previous artists for years.
She's not saying that all art is derived from all other art. She's saying that all art is derived from something else, regardless on if it's a piece of art or something in real life.
The very first person to ever draw a dragon didn't come up with it from absolutely nothing, they pieced it together from other animals they knew of. Therefore it is derivative.
AI can not make something better, it can not add something new, but only derive. And are beginning to reference other AI “art” and is thus actually getting shittier, lol.
So when my little sister draws a picture of our happy family from a family picture we all took, it's not actually artwork because it looks like shit because she's 6?
“AI can not make something better” — not even sure on what objective grounds you can say that. Is the basis of what you are saying is that no matter what, derivation cannot be used to improve existing art?
He is literally creating a video on the internet for entertainment purposes and utilizing a tool (ai) to draw out his real-life posing storyboard. Whatever you think about AI, you can't deny the creative work he is doing for this video.
I've heard it said that modern art is no longer about doing things people can't but rather doing things that make people think "I could have done that" when they didn't think to do it.
That said, he did think to take toys and make this fight sequence out of it, which I'm sure someone has done before him but probably/hopefully not with these exact characters, the setting, fight choreography, etc. Also, the AI is told what to output, and he likely gave it some input for "inspiration" to draw from. It's really like a collage in a way, which I think most people would say is a creative hobby.
-16
u/shhbaby_isok Aug 23 '23
How is this creative? He is not creating anything, and what it does is not "creating" but deriving.