/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3575583
such a low price, i guess they can't really work out how to value something like that

>>3575583
AI ngmi needs Loomis

>>3575583
this will properly eliminate the remaining shitty craftsmen and copyists and leave only actual artists to thrive and lead the bots.

>>3575583
>that tangent
RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3575583
>tfw a bot is better than you

>>3575583
That AI need more loomis

>>3575583
it's kind of funny that it's
a) not good or anything, like if you have a computer do something you'd expect precision
b) not interesting

look daddy i made teh equivalent of that 5min sketch every art student does when they're testing out the zorn palette for the first time!
>very good ai-chan, we'll sell that for $10.000! that's almost as much as a no-name artist gets selling decorative abstracts in high street shops.
i love you daddy!
>[computer delete ai-chan, we're starting again from scratch]

Please, bots can barely get through the Captcha.

I wouldn't be surprised if bots can produce amazing realistic imagery in the future but it won't have any soul to it. They'll likely fall flat at anything that requires significant imagination on the artists part and can't be drawn directly from reality.

If you're worried about a robot being better than you at painting a portrait...that already exists. Its called the camera. Something good to keep in mind is that artists nowadays shouldn't be focused on perfectly replicating an image because photography will always do that better than we can. What we do is capture an image and stylize it. Now what features to emphasize, what to diminish, what to alter etc.

>>3575723
the ones worried about bots creating soulless artwork are the ones without souls themselves. these types have settled into a niche of copying only the visual elements of other artists without any comprehension whatsoever of the human elements. so the bots are going to do exactly what they are, only better.

>>3575732
I, for one, welcome their robot übermensch.

>>3575657

Y-you can't just replace Ai-chan like that!

>>3575742
stop breathing my air you worthless thing of a human

https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/27-1013-fine-artists-including-painters-sculptors-and-illustrators

/thread

>>3575723
Your not thinking this through fully. What these bots will enable is basically what happened with computing. Any retard with an image in his mind will be able to have an AI bring that image to life (in an aesthetic manner), just like computing got dumbed down and every retard has a smartphone now. For the average person I guess this is a good thing, ppl will be able exercise their creativity that otherwise couldn't had. But for working artists it means you'll have to be in the top percentile of skill/popularity to get anywhere.

>>3575583
Don't, artists are one of the last occupations to be replaced by AI, along with scientists and engineers.

>>3575748
The only thing these AI painting softwares are able to do is use a randomized algorithm to mix paintings or photos from an existing database and give it a painterly filter. An AI being able to visualize someone's ideas is so fucking far fetched that I can guarantee you that no one alive today will ever see that happen in their lifetime. Not even on the most basic of levels where the AI would be drawing fucking stick figures or something. Let alone the level that a human artist is able to. I mean, just think about it, if you ever have done commissions yourself you know how hard it can be to pick a client's brain to produce what he actually has in mind.

>>3575748

Computing is something that can be boiled down to algorithms in the end. There is a correct way for a program to run and a wrong way. Art doesn't work like that. There is no hard equation that produces good art, because art is subjective. The closest you can come to a "correct" way of doing art is in completely realistic renditions of real objects; but again, that's something machines already do better than us with photography.

Al these computer imaging programs rely on pulling from a massive pool of images and blending them together based on their internal logic. That logic will never be able to replicate the entire creative possibilities at the hands of a skilled artist. I mean some amazing art work is done by flat out contradicting the established "rules" of good art. A program running on strict logic would never be able to do that.

I will say though, if you like doing abstract and surreal art, these primitive photobashing programs are amazing sources of inspiration. They produce the weirdest shit and you can take those nonsensical images and transform them into pieces with actual thought and meaning behind them.

>>3575748
you can guarantee that if AI are packaged to commoners through apps they will just be gamed and turned into a product like everything else right now. not exactly artistic freedom.

>>3575644
this desu

>>3575583
that looks like the repainted Jesus from the old lady

i guess i shouldnt be surprised by a board full of >aritsts showing such fundamental lack of understanding of how machine learning works

>>3575657
if it's at this level now it will put real artists out of business in couple decades, sweatie

>AI chan spends literally every second of 20 years gitting good with computer superpowers and a crack team of STEM autists in her corner

meatbags never even had a chance, she's going to blow out every artist from cave painting to today

>>3575583
I've been here for quite some time.

beep boop

>the state of modern art
Explain yourself MOMAfag.