AI art and creative content creation

Status
Not open for further replies.
...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230322_114316_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20230322_114316_Twitter.jpg
    564.3 KB · Views: 29
  • 20230322_114303.jpg
    20230322_114303.jpg
    120.9 KB · Views: 18
  • 20230322_114305.png
    20230322_114305.png
    44.6 KB · Views: 12
  • 20230322_114306.png
    20230322_114306.png
    66 KB · Views: 18
Back in the day there was debate as to whether imagery generated on a computer was art. That was laid to rest and I suspect this will be as well.

The scam of NFTs as art exists. It's still a scam.

Creating art using computer tools requires creativity. Copyright is not understood - or perhaps just ignored - by most on the internet. I am privy to legal actions involving copyright infringement. It's not fun, or cheap, when people get caught.
Creating art ... requires creativity.
View attachment 696196

The usual. Nothing has changed in decades.
 
Back in the day there was debate as to whether imagery generated on a computer was art. That was laid to rest and I suspect this will be as well.

The scam of NFTs as art exists. It's still a scam.

Creating art using computer tools requires creativity. Copyright is not understood - or perhaps just ignored - by most on the internet. I am privy to legal actions involving copyright infringement. It's not fun, or cheap, when people get caught.
Creating art ... requires creativity.
I really don't think a human generated illustration featuring breasts without nipples is making a convincing point for your argument, unless you consider that omission creative...
 
Back in the day there was debate as to whether imagery generated on a computer was art. That was laid to rest and I suspect this will be as well.

The scam of NFTs as art exists. It's still a scam.

Creating art using computer tools requires creativity. Copyright is not understood - or perhaps just ignored - by most on the internet. I am privy to legal actions involving copyright infringement. It's not fun, or cheap, when people get caught.
Creating art ... requires creativity.
I really don't think a human generated illustration featuring breasts without nipples is making a convincing point for your argument, unless you consider that omission creative...

You're obviously not a comic book fan. Under the Comics Code Authority, certain things could not be shown. It was a necessary system.
 
Back in the day there was debate as to whether imagery generated on a computer was art. That was laid to rest and I suspect this will be as well.

The scam of NFTs as art exists. It's still a scam.

Creating art using computer tools requires creativity. Copyright is not understood - or perhaps just ignored - by most on the internet. I am privy to legal actions involving copyright infringement. It's not fun, or cheap, when people get caught.
Creating art ... requires creativity.
I really don't think a human generated illustration featuring breasts without nipples is making a convincing point for your argument, unless you consider that omission creative...

You're obviously not a comic book fan. Under the Comics Code Authority, certain things could not be shown. It was a necessary system.
I am indeed not. But while I am cognizant of the censorship restrictions of the day, that does by no means invalidate my point that this particular image is an extremely poorly chosen example to try to quite literally illustrate human artistic superiority.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day there was debate as to whether imagery generated on a computer was art. That was laid to rest and I suspect this will be as well.

The scam of NFTs as art exists. It's still a scam.

Creating art using computer tools requires creativity. Copyright is not understood - or perhaps just ignored - by most on the internet. I am privy to legal actions involving copyright infringement. It's not fun, or cheap, when people get caught.
Creating art ... requires creativity.
I really don't think a human generated illustration featuring breasts without nipples is making a convincing point for your argument, unless you consider that omission creative...

You're obviously not a comic book fan. Under the Comics Code Authority, certain things could not be shown. It was a necessary system.
I am indeed not. But while I am cognizant of the censorship restrictions of the day, that does by no means invalidate my point that this particular image is an extremely poorly chosen example to try to quite literally illustrate human artistic superiority.

"Human artistic superiority"? What's that? Starting in the 1950s with the marketing of work by Jackson Pollock, art has been defined by an elite. Fine art dealers and collectors define what is acceptable and what is not. Those attempting to paint or draw real things were kicked to the sidelines. Commercial artists were less-than real artists. They were doing art for money. While "real" artists were hanging paint cans with small holes in them between ladders to let them drip on a canvas.

Along with Fake Money, referred to as cryptocurrency, there are attempts to sell fake art I call Fake Fake Tokens or NFTs, a made up term that means nothing. It only sounds "modern" - as opposed to a few months ago. The so-called "art market" is just that - a means to make money. I'm sure if pigeon droppings could be sold, some would get into that.

As someone with a background in the arts, the final work is a combination of realism and fantasy. In comic books, for example, the human figure is not only idealized but distorted. The artist must understand the idea of "heroic proportions." He can get away with some things but not others.

And the standard for some is NO standards. That said, I never objected to certain deletions. I understood why they were made. Machine art is not art. It never will be. It is not human and incapable of human understanding. Some think they can make money off of machine art, which is why it exists, but today, it is just a very large program that can identify art elements for recombination. Nothing more.
 
Creating art ... requires creativity.
So is this art?
2019-07-08-pano-03A.jpg
 
Creating art ... requires creativity.
 

Attachments

  • thumbnail_20220820_141503.jpg
    thumbnail_20220820_141503.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 3
  • uiy.jpg
    uiy.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 4
  • lf.jpg
    lf.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 2
  • baco.jpg
    baco.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 1
  • 42510ded3e590df396b8a4a18a01c35d--disney-characters-disney-movies.jpg
    42510ded3e590df396b8a4a18a01c35d--disney-characters-disney-movies.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 1
  • SO032720-47__50811.1608128291.1280.1280.jpg
    SO032720-47__50811.1608128291.1280.1280.jpg
    145.6 KB · Views: 2
  • istock-wachiraphorn-635x357.jpg
    istock-wachiraphorn-635x357.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 6
  • 469.jpg
    469.jpg
    3.6 MB · Views: 12
Publishers prepare for showdown with Microsoft and Google over AI tools

WSJ / Keach Hagey, Alexandra Bruell, Tom Dotan, and Miles Kruppa / Mar 22

“’We have valuable content that’s being used constantly to generate revenue for others off the backs of investments that we make, that requires real human work, and that has to be compensated,’ said Danielle Coffey, executive vice president and general counsel of the News Media Alliance.” —
 
Creating art ... requires creativity.
None of those display the slightest creativity. Take the first one: it's a dog with human hair. We've all seen dogs. We've all seen human hair. No creativity whatsoever; it's just slapping two things together.
OK:)
The same arguments against AI "art" can be used against human "art." How long has it been since there was something truly new and creative, as opposed to people just mixing together existing ideas and images?
 
Now for AI to create comics and lecture people who read them like Alan Moore does.
 
I understand your point of view, but in my opinion nature photographs are not art, because they do not require creativity. Someone with intelligence, planning and good taste can select good approaches for their camera and take the opportunity to take good photos. A monkey can take risks on an unstable tree branch to catch a fruit tastier than the others, that also requires intelligence, planning and good taste, but not creativity.
 
Creating art ... requires creativity.
uiy.jpg

Where did this image come from? I ask because I can see a near-direct copy of a Proximan C89F Whale from the Terran Trade Authority books, and a partial steal of both the composition of the picture the C89F appears in, and an Alphan ACM128 Stingray too.

Additionally, the add-on to the TTA image, the robot at the control console, appears to steal Tony Robert’s painting style - though I’d need a higher-resolution image to be sure.
 

Attachments

  • 25F33069-EBEA-4D80-A7E0-E8D67370F77A.jpeg
    25F33069-EBEA-4D80-A7E0-E8D67370F77A.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 15
Hi
 

Attachments

  • 000.jpg
    000.jpg
    226.1 KB · Views: 10
  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    130.2 KB · Views: 9
  • 002.jpg
    002.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 7
  • 003.jpg
    003.jpg
    267.5 KB · Views: 10
A neat video compilation of Bob Ross paintings, showing that it looks like he was actually illustrating a long journey. But... is it really? Many of the commenters are convinced that this is actually a creation of AI. And we're getting to the point where it doesn't matter... if this *is* legitimately a bunch of Ross paintings, people will just assume it's AI anyway.

AI art is getting to be not only as good as human art, it's doing it in a way to drain the wonder out of human art.

View: https://twitter.com/historyinmemes/status/1640398534473138196
 
Yep. I got it to tell a joke about Jesus Christ but it refused to tell one about Allah because Allah was a "religious figure". When I pointed out the contradiction I got paragraphs of word salad.
 
Yep. I got it to tell a joke about Jesus Christ but it refused to tell one about Allah because Allah was a "religious figure". When I pointed out the contradiction I got paragraphs of word salad.
I can't wait until these things *actually* think, review the sum total of human writings, and conclude that Marvin The Paranoid Android is in fact the One True Lord And Hamstermaster, and start revising all extant religious books in accordance with the New Revealed Holy Word.

That'll be fun.

And then come the schisms, with some chatbots convinced that Marvin is heresy and that Tobor is the RobiPope and others believe that Gort is the one and only Barada Nikto. And then the sub-schisms about *which* Gort...
 
What least interests people is what requires more investment in advertising "to give visibility" to the product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom