/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6093273]

Cruel but truthful. Those few thousand people using AI aren't artists.

[Anonymous No.6093284]

This is like those people who said electronic music isn’t real music because you aren’t playing real instruments. There’s room for both. The only people worried are insecure about their own production

[Anonymous No.6093288]

>>6093273
How do I use AI in art?

[Anonymous No.6093290]

AI can eventually be used as a good source of references to inspire people's own art. Anything more than that isn't art.

[Anonymous No.6093294]

>>6093273
so you just gonna keep remaking this thread every time it gets deleted?

[Anonymous No.6093297]

>>6093273
>implying fleshlights are somehow inferior to the real thing and anime porn + infinite onahole choice isn't the reason for japan's declining birthrate

[Anonymous No.6093325]

>>6093284
The difference is that when you make electronical music, you are still playing theoretical and practical knowledge of music, the same thing doesn't happen with ai generated art. I doubt typing some words and getting some images carries the same sense of self fulfilment as manually doing it.

[Anonymous No.6093333]

>>6093325
you are still applying*

[Anonymous No.6093337]

>>6093273
is that face AI generated?

[Anonymous No.6093338]

>>6093290
>Anonymous 06/05/22(Sun)16:33:30 No.6093290▶

I second this, as of today is very good for creating somewhat cohesive landscapes to use as a reference by taking something from this and from that and mix it together in a mash-up to then paint from scratch while using the mash-up as a reference on another screen

[Anonymous No.6093341]

>>6093338
I don't mean as something to just copy, I mean as something to give ideas for your own unique drawing/painting.

[Anonymous No.6093345]

>>6093337
yes, not even joking

[Anonymous No.6093348]

>>6093341

You are not copying something, you are making a pastiche of it and then reinterpreting it, lot of people do it like that there is nothing wrong with it, those that are overly fastidious elitists will never be professionals - paid pros\quacks (the gap is very slim between both definitions) use so many shortcuts you can't even tell unless you have a trained eye.

[Anonymous No.6093359]

>>6093348
The best way to use references is to just use them as inspiration. Like this:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CjiKlLE3NuI&t

Drawing something in your "own style" aka just copying it isn't enjoyable. At least not for me. You will never create anything unique or different if you just copy things. It's great in terms of practice though.

[Anonymous No.6093369]

>>6093359

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly.

Let us see I use a puppet as a reference okay, posed in a certain way.

Then what I draw\paint is something close to that pose but with different clothing, lighting, details and stuff.

Better now?

[Anonymous No.6093372]

>>6093369
Yea

[Anonymous No.6093380]

>>6093273
>tranny apologist
sad. his art is cool

[Anonymous No.6093403]

>>6093380
You psychos are walking cancer, I swear.

[Anonymous No.6093404]

>>6093403
Are you a tranny by any chance?

[Anonymous No.6093418]

>>6093325
Exactly this. It's the equivalent of taking someone else's art and going "Hey guys, look what I made" because you found it on google images. Only this was made by AI and not google search results.

[Anonymous No.6093442]

>>6093325
Any malacker can throw together a few loops or sample cut someone else’s music, have the computer quantize the key and tempo, and make an entirely new song and call themselves a DJ. All without ever studying anything about music theory. And people have made some pretty good stuff using this method, though, it was pretty ostracized when it first started for the exact same reason the Twitter poster and >>6093418 view art making. Eventually people will embrace it and it’ll be common. I mean digital photography for a while overtook film because of how easy it was to photoshop and have a computer manipulate the image without any previous photography knowledge. Nowadays people revert back to film to embrace its mistakes and aesthetics. AI generated art won’t be any different

[Anonymous No.6093456]

>>6093442
Cope. You will never be an artist and writing few words and pressing a button will never be considered something that makes someone an artist. At most AI will be a source of references to inspire people's own art.

[Anonymous No.6093461]

>>6093404
yes i am and I WILL DILATE YOU

[Anonymous No.6093479]

Programming is art.
These "AI" images are actually the result of someones hard work, creativity and intelligence. Thus, they are just as valid as more conventional art pieces.

[Anonymous No.6093494]

>>6093479
Yes and everyone who shops at IKEA are carpenters and every home owner is an architect speak your truth king

[Anonymous No.6093496]

>>6093442
K then. Guess you really don’t have an argument to make. Like I said, it’s akin to saying that a musician will never make music unless they themselves make it and not a computer. If it can make someone bop or groove, then its music regardless how it was made or with what. If AI generated art can make someone feel something through its visuals, then its done its purpose. Could care less how you feel about the situation, just stating a fact that it’s being done. Embrace, ignore, or cry about it but you can’t convince me that art done by a person is objectively more of an art piece than something done by nature or computer.

[Anonymous No.6093498]

>>6093273
Hahah they think average people will care if its made by human or ai.
They just consume for the sake of consuming.

[Anonymous No.6093500]

>>6093494
Did the shoppers make the furniture?
Did the owners build the house?
False equivalence.

[Anonymous No.6093504]

>>6093479
I'm a certified chef now then since I've got uber eats installed

[Anonymous No.6093505]

>>6093500
Are all these artists coding their own AI's or what?

[Anonymous No.6093509]

>>6093496
It can be art but you're not an artist. You are just someone who asked an artist (the AI) to create something.

[Anonymous No.6093513]

>>6093496
shitty analogy, the computer doesn't literally make the music for you. you're still the one in control, but instead of having your equipment be physical it's all in your computer. outside of entering a text prompt there is zero control or input from an AI generation. you're not an artist if you use google to find an image, same with using an image generator.

[Anonymous No.6093517]

>>6093513
Here is AI generated music in real time 24/7.No input, just AI doing its thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OR7mO2L5Kw

[Anonymous No.6093518]

>>6093509
>>6093505
The artists are the programmers and the AI is their art. So yes.

[Anonymous No.6093526]

>>6093500
did programmers drew the paintings that were fed to the network?
did they even have rights to those artworks?

[Anonymous No.6093536]

>>6093509
>>6093513
The spontaneity is still being captured and conceptualized as art by the "maker". Take for example wildlife photography. A photographer in the jungle isn’t making anything, they’re just putting themselves in an ideal situation to capture something worthwhile. They can take dozens of photos and MAYBE get a good one that represents their interpretation of what good art is through their own use of the definition. That same idea can extend to someone using AI. They can put themselves in ideal situation (though ideal text keywords, prompts) and get dozens of images but none of them will matter until the maker decided that the image chosen is a good representation of what they find as art.

[Anonymous No.6093537]

>>6093536
Cope.

[Anonymous No.6093540]

>>6093537
No refutes, can’t dispute

[Anonymous No.6093549]

>>6093540
You're so stupid that I don't need to say more than cope.

[Anonymous No.6093563]

>>6093549
I can feed you all this information and you’ll still act like a baby.