- This topic has 58 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@d0gg0d AI isn't strictly rolling dice (although it can be, if thats your desire, of course, to just let it spit something out and accept it). But it doesn't need to be. For instance, take a picture and feed it to stable diffusion in image2image. Mask the eyes/eyebrows area, prompt to change the eyes, in a batch of 8. Look at the results. One might be ok, most likely none will be, and you will need to change settings. RE-render. Make more changes. Some will be deformed or just plain wrong for what you want. This is the SAME thing as if you fiddled with sliders in DAZ or experimented with brushes in photoshop or whatever else. You learn the settings and how to use them, the results will not be so random. You can get what you want if you know the settings and wield them like a brush. You can limit the random creativity you allow or disallow the AI to have on the result.
The nice thing about AI is a person like Stephen could be a master artist.
This opens up the art world to people with severe disabilities.
Maybe more of a personal belief than an argument. I believe it cheapens talent. Now anyone can make a picture with a few words.
Anyone can write music
Its like calling anyone with a cellphone camera a photographer. Technically the are but are they? Anyone with a computer is now an artist and a musician as well as a film director.
Sure there will be those that stand out but overall it will make thing so common that not much will be impressive. I can do in a few minutes or even seconds with little effort what takes some people years to learn and weeks to do.And while you may use a photograph as a template you at least choose that. AI chooses to screw up the hands, chooses what shade of red you meant when you said red dress. I seriously doubt you'll be able to put into text absolutely ever detail an image requires. Its like trying to describe a picture to a person with no reference. Spinning a dial might be the same as saying make her eyes 1mm larger but saying make the eyes a little larger without a perfect prompt allows the computer to decide how much a little is
Yes you can choose shades of colors, and NO, you dont have to put everything into text every detail. Theres many, many tools available to use in stable diffusion, and text prompting is just one small part of it. Theres things like references, etc. People are led to believe its just someone putting in text and shitting out art, and thats not the case, theres a ton of tools available in the interface. I'd say maybe 10% of what I use it for requires any text prompting at all.
Ive watch a few people on YT make AI Art.
Lots of branches leading into branches to modify the outcome. Ive not watch many and haven't got invested enough to make a 100% accurate analysis. So my opinion is loosely based on limited information.What i have seen is someone take a picture and say make this look like junk art and in a minute or so the AI gives its interpretation of what your image looks like as Junk art. You feed it the image a few lines of text and poof...Art. Now other than selecting the image and a few words to govern AIs perspective youve done nothing. Now you can of course tweak the image it chose to provide you but...It chose the outcome. You didn't decide to make the eyes from coffee saucers. AI did.
You didn't choose to make the hair from a straw broom. AI did. Now you can prompt this to happen but its not necessary if you let AI think for you. You could say straw hair but AI picked a darker yellow. AI..PICKED..the color. You can of course change this but again. AI picked the color. AI picked the shade. AI picked the texture. AI decide what you meant by long hair. Ect... unless you have a ridiculous amounts of control. AI is deciding a lot for you. You of course can feel free to take the credit of AI ripping the hair from a 20 year old image it found from DA.Honestly i think the technology is amazing. I also think people take more credit than they should. Like i said before. Its like commissioning a piece of art and saying you did it.
You didn't decide to make the eyes from coffee saucers. AI did.
You didn't choose to make the hair from a straw broom. AI did. Now you can prompt this to happen but its not necessary if you let AI think for you. You could say straw hair but AI picked a darker yellow. AI..PICKED..the color. You can of course change this but again. AI picked the color. AI picked the shade. AI picked the texture. AI decide what you meant by long hair. Ect... unless you have a ridiculous amounts of control.That's incorrect. You CAN actively select these things ( the aforementioned references, controlNets,etc). You "guide" the AI, and the more explicit you are, the more accurate (YES, that is a learned SKILL, learning and knowing how to utilize all those functions and make them work for you).
You CAN actively
My point. You have to actively select absolutely everything for AI not to make a decision for you.
if you say lighting from the left it decides how much unless you tell it. If you don't say eye color it selects it. If you dont say height or weight it selects it. Ect... Unless you feed it an image that you or someone else composed it will selected nearly everything unless you say do/don't. And while I may be splitting hairs on I select what morphs to use and what lighting to use in daz, you can do something similar in AI. Its similar but not the same. Im not saying daz art is better its still a crutch for various reasons. It however is less affected by an outside force like AI
The girls posted in the videos have talent. They have an amazing gift to be able to do something this extraordinary without a computer. Something a person with a couple days or weeks of asking a computer to do it for them can do now. And if someone can really compare what they do on a computer to what these girls can do without one I find that ridiculous.
My point. You have to actively select absolutely everything for AI not to make a decision for you.
well, YES... that's what we are talking about, no? At the beginning you said the operator is doing nothing, its all AI, no skill, no art, etc.. Now, you're saying what i've been saying: its NOT all random AI (unless you choose that to be and just accept whatever crap it throws out), you CAN, if you choose to, control it, specify what you want, and get shit done the way you want ( also known as "doing some work")
I'm a very 'techy' type, so I find AI fascinating, but regardless of results, AI is not an 'art' form.
Artists, whether performance, painting, sculpting or music, also 'derive' from the work/techniques of others.
They take those derivations/tools and use them in conjunction with their own human experience to express themselves via their chosen art form. Art is using a medium to express oneself in an alternate 'voice'.
The 'Art' is in the unique, individual expression. Done well, it's evocative. It's yet another means of communicating intent, reaction and emotion to fellow humans.
The same goes for the crafts, it's the 'personal', the 'individual' nuance that results in 'Art'.
On the other hand, prompt-engineering and settings manipulation in an effort to guide a random outcome is definitively less than 'Art'. The *outcome* may be considered art in some contexts, but it's devoid of personal expression, the end result being a cacophony of prompt, settings and random 'mix 'n match' algorithmic decisions.
But it may 'look nice' and so, many would call it 'Art'. But it's not. That's not what 'Art' is.
If the argument posits that the ability of the 'artist' to prompt and compose settings is just as valid as those who use instruments to create music or a palette to paint with, I could accept that, if that's where it ended.
But as soon as it's given over to an algorithm to randomly select from 'samples' of other's artistic works, in order to effect 'diffusion', the argument's lost.
In the end, an AI user is not an 'artist', they are an 'operator'.
It's more of a 'discovery' mechanism than an 'expression' medium.
But even though its just 'clued-in entropy', I still have a lot of fun messing with it!
Nonsense. By that logic, anyone who sculpts something from clay didnt create art because they bought the clay and didnt dig the shit out of the dirt themselves
You miss the point, it's about personal expression vs random results - but you may define 'art' differently.
but its NOT strictly random results..... after continuous example scenarios of how it is not.
Its not much different than someone taking a couple of digital music samples and using them in a song.
I go into an art store, close my eyes and randomly select 5 different paints.
I lay a canvas down and close my eyes and randomly pour the paints on the canvas.
Poof im an artist. Art is loosely defined.
Nearly any expression of self could be considered art.I think Jorgen possibly expressed it better than me.
If i stood over a painter and told them what to paint and how to paint it then who gets credit for painting it? Does the writer of a book get credit for making the movie? Its their Idea but they didnt turn it into eye candy. Dune 2 was relatively decent movie. Did the writer produce it? Govern every specific detail or did someone else visualize what they thought it should be? While LotR tried to stay true to the books who selected the cast? Decided what to leave in and take out?
Soon if not already a computer will make most of those decisions for you and people wont have to think creatively.
If i stood over a painter and told them what to paint and how to paint it then who gets credit for painting it?Without you, there would be no such painting. Who gets the credit? You can either take it or share it?
Does the writer of a book get credit for making the movie?Actually, yes, in that case the role of each person is clearly defined.
Soon, if not already, a computer will make most of those decisions for you and people won't have to think creatively.Do you really think that you are making decisions that are not made by (genetic) programming?
Choice is an illusion created between those with power, and those without.signed, The Merovingian.
There are sculpters who "make there own clay. Because they understand the limits of the respective different sorts of clay. I myself am not that skilled, so I buy my clay( Plus there is no good clay to be dug up where I live).
I buy different types, for different surfaces on the end result.Still I think Jorgen has a valid point.
But Adam to.There was a artist collective called cobra in the sixties/seventies in holland.
Been to an exposition where a film was shown of one of the artists making a painting by simply troughing paint against the canvas. It was Karel Appel, e renowned artist.
But for me that is not art ever.
We all probably know of examples of "art" that is crazy. There was a guy making a peanut butter square on the gallery floor. When a kid put it's foot in it , it had to be restored for 150.000.So what is art?
To me it is a creation of something beautiful, be it painting, music, literature or sculpting.
One needs skills to make such a work, that come with lots and lots of practise.
There has to be something unique about it, that makes you look or listen twice, or more attentively.Computer aided art, in any form, is a different category.
Yo buy a program, buy the "Complete book on" said program, learn what all the knobs and sliders do, and you can make a picture ( photoshop) or music(Qbase)
Unless you got a learning disability, everyone can learn to do this.IF it is "analog", you can take as many lessons as you like, If you can not keep rhythm, you will never be a drummer.
But we all can program a four quarter boom tak into a drum machinebut as said above, this is a never ending discussion.
It all depends on you personal definition of:What is art?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
