Community rules:
Be respectful and considerate in comments.
No deliberately offensive or inappropriate content.
Traditional artists and posts are also welcome here.
All posts must properly credit the original artist.
Please use the tickbox to mark any NSFW content.
No A.I. generated dreamscapes for now, as those are at best unethically sourced in the current state.
No furry related art.
How to post:
Please follow the convention of the images already uploaded so far i.e.:
Image title by Artists Name
In the description link the source to the image, and also include a direct link to the artists gallery. See previous posts for examples.
What to post:
You can post your own work here, but avoid spamming.
You can post your favourite peices here for us all to enjoy.
--
All artworks are copyright of the artists named in the posts.
Artists gallery links may contain NSFW works.
--
'The Lament for Icarus 2020' is one of my digital-artwork, created in 2D/3D softwares. It's my way of paying homage to the classicist artist Herbert James Draper. we can still comprehend the deep meaning contained in Greek mythology.
https://3dmiao.artstation.com/store/art_posters/2kBJR/the-lament-for-icaru-2020
Can't speak for the person you're asking, but a lot of us who appreciate art appreciate the talent and skill it takes to translate a vision into whatever medium. Lots and lots of people get cool ideas, but artists take those ideas and bring them to life. Just typing the idea into a prompt box and having the result spit out doesn't seem like the same thing.
I don't know the answer but I do know that I enjoy a live concert or play because of the talent on display. There's something special about seeing it happen in real time. I think real art might point to something similar.
While I agree, I also wonder how much art has not been conceived as the person with the idea had no way to realise it. We now have tools that non artists can use to create art. A lot is awful, but some is wonderful. When photography first started, it was not considered art.
I appreciate what you're getting at, but there's just a lot of "vibes" here.
AI art doesn't "seem" like the same thing as hand crafted, but you also can't really pin down why, right?
Like what difference does the amount of labor put into a piece matter unless that's specifically part of the point of the piece? Moreso for a case like this where the concept is really what's important & it's digital anyways. Do you see what I'm saying?
I guess what I'm asking is what's the difference between AI slop & hand drawn slop (not meant to be insulting to this artist, this is a good piece)?
Artists are going to have work & get creative enough to distinguish themselves, imo.
My earlier reply had nothing to do with "vibes." I was saying that for many folks (not all), it's the talent and skill that go into a piece that adds to our appreciation of it. Have you ever seen a statue by a great sculptor, like the Pieta by Michelangelo? Yes, the thing itself is beautiful, but part of what makes it amazing is that it's carved out of stone. If Michelangelo was able to make it happen just by describing it, it wouldn't be renown as something truly great.
So sure, cool image, but not a work of art in my mind because there was no artistic talent to make it happen. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the image.
They also said that they appreciated the effort and talent that went into creating the piece. Can I stick you in a sweatshop, chained to a table by the ankle, and force you to do work for me with no pay? Why not? "Vibes?"
We're humans, and we have appreciation for things that go beyond measurable, quantifiable metrics. One of these is an speciation of artistry, and skill, neither of which is required to prompt your way through an AI generated image.
I don't entirely understand your argument concerning working for no pay?
There is loads of mass produced "art" made by humans, probably in China or India. Is this superior to AI art? Do you all appreciate the "time & effort" put into these?
I may have missed your point, though, like I said I don't think I completely grasp your argument.
Art is largely dependent on the viewer. If you come across a curiously artificial, but aesthetically pleasing, pile of rocks in the forest, is it art if it was created by nature? Is Half Dome art?
Personally, there's a difference to me whether an animal created something for aesthetic reasons, vs the wind just jumbling branches into a randomly pleasing arrangement. Flowers are not "art." They're pretty, but not art. A human could make a chair to sit in, utterly uniting aesthetics, and although it might be pleasing to the eye, it's not art.
In my definition, the intention of the creator matters, and is a part of what defines art.
Great, but then is AI art generated by a human not entirely intention? Would that not endear you more towards it?
The piece OP posted is a great example of art that is entirely conceptual, which seems to me the best use case for AI art.
There is no such thing.
So, first: I'm not the person you originally started arguing with; I have no objection to AI art, except vaguely in that is the worst kind of commercial plagiarism designed to steal other people's work and turn it into profits. It's like pirating music, but then selling CDs of the copy. Obviously much worse.
But that's only a vague objection because I'm no kind of artist. I support them and their fight, but abstractly as it doesn't affect me.
I like a lot of the AI gen stuff. Very pretty, visuals catered to your whims, on demand. Turn that mind's eye vision of the Dark Tower into a real image, despite having no artistic skill! But I don't respect it. I don't think it's "Art", anymore than a random Mandelbrot is "Art." Take that Mandelbrot and paint it using pointillism, and that would be Art.
When AGI comes along, and has an inner world and an imagination, then I'll start thinking of it as Art.