Acceptable uses for AI in art

[Tiffany]

As an illustrator myself, I am very staunchly against AI art. Sadly the majority of those singing the praises of AI art have actually just shown they do not want to pay or support artists.

There's a whole subreddit where AI bros are warning about the action that artists are so rightfully taken to protect themselves. Such an example being this screenshot from the AI subreddit.

Like it's laughable that these people don't know that professional working artists will always have clauses in their contracts for commercial rights of usage and so forth. I have done this myself in the past.

More examples of these AI bros that just make the whole thing disingenious to me and quite frankly laughable that I have zero respect for any of them, if they don't respect us in the first place.
This screenshot
And this

Now writing and photography isn't my lane. I'm speaking here in the realms of digital illustration. I absolutely believe there always should be consent and artists permission given first. If an artist wants to make images specifically to feed an AI program, than great! But I still fear the future it will give for working class artists. Corporations will want to use it as it's cheaper than hiring human labour, and I have genuinely seen people on bird app say "what's the point in being an artist anymore, I won't do it", which is so dystopian. It's horrible to rip away an ability that's innate within all of us.

And I disagree. I think there is zero skill whatever ever needed to just type a few words into a program to play lottery on what you're gonna get as an image.

EDIT: while I did say 'writing and photography isn't my lane', I do believe those creators should have their rights, copyrights and consent given first at all times.

I 100% agree with this, I don't support AI images.

[Memory]

I came across this video today (The video topics not so important-deals with mental health); Im sure its not a unique style and Im sure we will see lots of it in the future - but I think its incredibly engaging - its like the AI is visualising his words in the same way your mind would when someone is talking to you and you're imagining their words - somehow I find it very relaxing, like its speaking to my brain in a language I didn't know I was missing

This is really cool actually, and it showcases what I meant earlier: computer assisted art is a new tool used by humans creatively, not a replacement of the artist. That video would not have existed without this human using stable diffusion to underline their very human-made points.

If an artist is so severely threatened by a computer mixing together billions of pieces of art into a creation without any kind of meaning, context, message, subtext or commentary, then their art was clearly not unique or meaningful in the first place. No computer right now can replace a human's sense of context: no computer could have written Pride and Prejudice at the time it was written, because that would have required life experience, a biting sense of social commentary, plenty of social and political context, and innovation; not just remixing what is there. Or painted expressionist works for the same reason.

Good artists will prevail because insight into society and the human condition are irreplaceable. Artists who already simply just do more of what exists perhaps might get outclassed by "AI", but that just means their art was no different from what "AI" does in the first place. Musicians who only knew how to play note sheets mechanically were largely replaced by sequencers and digital instruments, while actually creative musicians did not vanish, instead it made music production a lot more accessible than before.

New legions of artists will arise who use this new technology as a tool to create their own art. This entire debate really reminds me of mathematicians afraid to lose out to the first computers. There was an entire wave of mathematicians whose only real contribution was doing the dirty work of manual calculating, who of course were threatened by computers doing their jobs faster, more accurately and efficiently. But mathematicians still exist to this day regardless: those who can do what no computer can do: innovate, form new theorems, communicate with other scientists, test their hypotheses. Assisted by computers, not replaced by them.

Artists meet the same future right now: those who merely churn out art without any meaning will perhaps falter in the face of technological efficiency at doing this busywork, while those who actually innovate, communicate something about the human condition, will be able to use this new technology to strive towards excellency, and a new era of artistic expression might begin. Like sequencers in music, or computers in mathematics.

I work at a publisher right now, and I can confidently say: GPT will never be able to replace a competent author. But it might replace those we reject right now anyway.

[Necrosia]

I am not questioning the fact that AI art is here to stay.
I also don’t see a problem with using ethically trained AI to enhance one's own work.

Maybe art-generating machines started as a noble cause like scientific endeavors generally do but as @HayleyMulch cleverly pointed out with examples, this is not the case today. Maybe you, fellow forum member, is not using AI art to hurt people but the most majority of them are.

Artists are telling so themselves.

The most popular art-generating AIs, stable diffusion and midjourney were trained unethically, so even if you write the most perfect prompt ever you are using stolen content, you are hurting people.

Just because something has been made publicly available doesn’t mean anyone can use it free of charge.

Adobe made an AI image generator — and says it didn’t steal artists’ work to do it
This seems one of the most ethical approaches to date, by Adobe even, I would like to see anti-corporative people pay adobe to use their theorically ethical AI.

I think those who do not create art (as in illustrations and paintings) should not be considered when asking what is valid or not to be done with their illustrations and paintings.

If an artist is so severely threatened by a computer mixing together billions of pieces of art into a creation without any kind of meaning, context, message, subtext or commentary, then their art was clearly not unique or meaningful in the first place. No computer right now can replace a human's sense of context: no computer could have written Pride and Prejudice at the time it was written, because that would have required life experience, a biting sense of social commentary, plenty of social and political context, and innovation; not just remixing what is there. Or painted expressionist works for the same reason.

As someone who doesn’t create art that is clearly not unique or meaningful yourself in the first place it seems those standards you mentioned are pretty exoteric. I look at a mc donalds hamburger, it has meaning to me because my great great grandfather had a hamburger business that made him rich. The hamburger itself was made by a minimum wage worker, they are payed so little, maybe thats why they are poor and my great great grandfather was rich, this context adds special meaning to me. It is such a commentary on capitalism the fact that the hamburger-making person cant barely purchase food for themselves.

Conclusion: mc donalds hamburger is art.

Assisted by computers, not replaced by them.

Incorrect. Proof:
BuzzFeed replaces 180 fired journalists with ChatGPT neural network.
AI Art on a Book Cover, and It Is a Mess

I already linked pretty more in that other threads.

[Memory]

Conclusion: mc donalds hamburger is art

Yes.

https://artincontext.org/readymade-art/#A_Brief_History_of_Readymade_Art

[Necrosia]

Yes.

https://artincontext.org/readymade-art/#A_Brief_History_of_Readymade_Art

Then please explain to me why a machine-generated art would be less art than an art made by a human if meaning, context, message, subtext and commentary are subjective.

[Memory]

Then please explain to me why a machine-generated art would be less art than an art made by a human if meaning, context, message, subtext and commentary are subjective.

A computer has no subjective intentions. It is a mathematical formula over image data, nothing else.
Humans have subjective intentions and are therefore capable of creating art.

[Necrosia]

A computer has no subjective intentions. It is a mathematical formula over image data, nothing else.
Humans have subjective intentions and are therefore capable of creating art.

But if intentions are subjective to the point that they need explaining (since you had to link to external source to explain it to me) and even a piece of food can have intentions behind it I don’t see why a machine would not be able to create art if the algorithm was created with intention. Usually the difference between art and design is that design has a comercial purpose but if a machine(or algorithm) is created for the sheer amusement of someone with out any money compensation by definition it is art because it has an intention and no money is being exchanged.

Your point was that true art has meaning therefore it will never be replaced by machines but meaning and intention can be infused on anything so what really is keeping machines from simply replacing all forms of graphical arts, illustrations and paintings?

[Memory]

I don’t see why a machine would not be able to create art if the algorithm was created with intention.

The transitive property of intent is something I can get behind. 

If someone builds a machanical arm that can paint, then I'd say the arm itself and the images it produces are part of the same art piece. Considering one without the other doesn't work. So both the machine and what it makes are the singular artistic intent of whoever built the machine.

But if the arm can only recreate images fed to it, that's definitely a copyright issue if the source images weren't used with permission.

Although, remixed art like what is produced by an AI may fall under a legal if not ethical exception. Transformative works have special protection under copyright law. There are lots of caveats to that though. If a remix is used for commercial purposes or diminishes the value/demand for the original art piece, it's less likely to qualify for protection as a transformative work.

[Melooon]

If someone builds a machanical arm that can paint, then I'd say the arm itself and the images it produces are part of the same art piece.

So if a digital illustrator prints out their illustration, would you count the printer as part of the artwork? How about the program they used, and the tablet they drew on? For conceptual work I can totally see that being the case, but I think 99% of illustrators don't consider their tablet as part of their illustrations.

I think this debate about the Andy Warhol v Goldsmith case is really relevant to this debate:

[Necrosia]

The point is that categorizing things as art/non-art and claiming that art will never be replaced simply because it is art and has a deeper meaning is very subjective, this sort of distinction is not being made by the people creating unethical AI and with out proper background check to explain the intent behind a piece something made by a human or by a machine are the same to the viewer. The fact that AI draw hands poorly is merely a technical problem that will be solved soon.

If paint itself is not art but using it with intent make the final piece art, why the result of a machine-generated thing if used with intent should not be art as well? What if the person has intent while writing the prompt, is it not the same as having intent while using paint?

If allowed to take precedence both artists and non-artists(by the definition previously made on this topic which I dont agree with but am using for the sake of argument) will be substituted, thinking that there is some greater humanitarian cause that keeps "real art" by "real artists" from being replaced simply falls flat.

[NacreousDreams]

So if a digital illustrator prints out their illustration, would you count the printer as part of the artwork? How about the program they used, and the tablet they drew on? For conceptual work I can totally see that being the case, but I think 99% of illustrators don't consider their tablet as part of their illustrations.

In defense of MamboGator, most people aren't building printers or programs or tablets for their art. I think the idea is that if you build an arm for the purpose of demonstrating its artistic abilities as art itself, then it could work- that is, the arm's ability to create works is the art. That's different from a printer, whose job is to create prints of art generally. It's not specific to any piece, it can't do anything particularly unique. It's a general tool that aligns more closely with the paintbrush than the painting.

Imagine a double pendulum, that chaotic system, with a pencil attached at the end so that it traces the path it takes as it moves about. It seems pretty hard to me to separate the arm from the tool when considering the piece as a whole; it's largely defined by how unique a double pendulum works!

[Memory]

In defense of MamboGator, most people aren't building printers or programs or tablets for their art. I think the idea is that if you build an arm for the purpose of demonstrating its artistic abilities as art itself, then it could work- that is, the arm's ability to create works is the art. That's different from a printer, whose job is to create prints of art generally. It's not specific to any piece, it can't do anything particularly unique. It's a general tool that aligns more closely with the paintbrush than the painting.

Imagine a double pendulum, that chaotic system, with a pencil attached at the end so that it traces the path it takes as it moves about. It seems pretty hard to me to separate the arm from the tool when considering the piece as a whole; it's largely defined by how unique a double pendulum works!

This is a good summation of what I was aiming for, but you put it in better words. However, I do believe that the medium is part of the message. A digital painting made in photoshop hits differently than the same thing done in acrylic, for example. In that way, the tools and canvas used to create the art are, at least partially, a part of any meaning.

[Memory]

If allowed to take precedence both artists and non-artists(by the definition previously made on this topic which I dont agree with but am using for the sake of argument) will be substituted, thinking that there is some greater humanitarian cause that keeps "real art" by "real artists" from being replaced simply falls flat.

I don't think you need to worry about the appreciation for "real" art by artists disappearing. I'm interested in AI art because it's hella fascinating that computers can do this now. But my appreciation for a painting is both for the final rendered work and the skill and effort the artist put in.

People don't like the Mona Lisa just because it looks nice. They like it as a representation of da Vinci's skill as an artist.

[Melooon]

They like it as a representation of da Vinci's skill as an artist

I'd jump in there and say no way! People don't give a crap about some Italian dude from the 1500s They like the Mona Lisa because it says something about them and their culture, the Mona Lisa is a representation of a cultural ideal that has been constructed largely over the last 100 years, only a fraction of the Mona Lisas life. It is the embodiment of the myth of art and time and loves that we are all pushed to crave.

I suppose you could extrapolate that out and say that people in the future won't care whats made by a human or an AI, the tool might be part of the myth of the work, but it's not what the audience actually craves; people want art to be a mirror on themselves; they don't care what the mirror is made of, and they don't really care what it shows them, as long as its a mirror and they see their own reflection in some form 

[NacreousDreams]

I'd jump in there and say no way! People don't give a crap about some Italian dude from the 1500s They like the Mona Lisa because it says something about them and their culture, the Mona Lisa is a representation of a cultural ideal that has been constructed largely over the last 100 years, only a fraction of the Mona Lisas life. It is the embodiment of the myth of art and time and loves that we are all pushed to crave.

I suppose you could extrapolate that out and say that people in the future won't care whats made by a human or an AI, the tool might be part of the myth of the work, but it's not what the audience actually craves; people want art to be a mirror on themselves; they don't care what the mirror is made of, and they don't really care what it shows them, as long as its a mirror and they see their own reflection in some form 

I'm not sure I agree with the view of art as purely reflective, I argue it's a generalization that doesn't scale. There are lots of people who collect stuff out of respect for the artists they like- even works they aren't so keen on. That doesn't show an interest in reflection, so much as an interest in the artists themselves.

It can also serve as an escape, which is how it often gets used in the modern day. I think we all get this, no need to elaborate.

Art can also just be appreciated for its aesthetic, as well, which is where I think a lot of the concern with AI art comes from. Let's not forget the myriad of paintings whose subjects are just a humble bowl of fruit. Or how about nature paintings, like forests or waterfalls and what not? Art is more than just beauty, but there is a lot of art that focuses on beauty alone that doesn't work toward reflection. And I'd value that. I've got two abstract pieces hanging on my wall right now, just cause I thought they looked cool.

Even beyond that, Art as a mirror' is a limiting analogy; art can also be a gateway. Allow you to consider new perspectives, see the world with a new light, enter someone else's headspace, and generally encourage you to become a more thoughtful and intellectual person. It's hardly a reflection of yourself when a work tells you something you didn't consider. While you could say it reflects its subject matter- be it a given ideology, a group or organization, contemporary society, you name it- such a statement dismisses the true power of art: to send a message, and communicate with the viewer in a very personal way. Maybe even in a way only that artist could create.

  Wait... would that make basic AI prompts the artistic equivalent of using text-to-speech instead of your voice in a youtube video?!