experimenting with the AI, trying to break it as a technique for meta commentary

[Ray Danger]

If a graphic designer uses the graphic design process to produce a logo, is that art?

Yes. Art is Creation. Creation is Art.
The "Graphic Design Process" includes a person making choices & decisions. It's not a cold robotic chain of events or something.

Your definition of art is far too narrow for me.
Whether or not a piece has "soul" or whatever is so subjective that applying any parameters & restrictions to such a thing is removing the joy & freedom from art itself.

When using unaltered prompt AI, you aren't making things, you're asking something else to make it for you.
That's not art. But AI can be a tool used in art.

 

[Gibichung]

Yeah, you can make things. I can build a tent right now. It's not art, and no one gives a shit if it's not art. Same thing with AI.

It aint your art because it aint yours. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

Artists (hired or not) always close a distance between them and the subject/idea/whatever. If you take the shortcut from other people, then what's the point? lol

Again, you can feed your own stuff to generative AI- and the consensus among the artist community, is why would we do that if we can have so much more control with less iteration and less impact on the environment? All generative AI is, without the proper provisions, is copyright theft machine that's been abused my corporations to cut corners and not spend money to hire humans. It's a tale as old as time. And it's luckily backfiring so that the future can adapt to it.

As @Ray Danger pointed out, artists can use it as a tool with your own art. But unless my pictures of giantess-babes can't get in there, it's not good enough of a tool.

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

copyright theft machine

AI art generators definitely do not infringe on copyright protections. You can copyright a creative work, but you can't copyright the basic elements that make up a creative work.
AI image generators look for commonalities between images and create an image that contains those common features, but the image created is original. It is not a replication of the images the AI is fed with.
The simplest defence against an accusation of copyright theft is that the two works are clearly distinct. If you can look two works and not recognise that one is derived from the other than it is not copyright infringement.

 

[Gibichung]

AI art generators definitely do not infringe on copyright protections. You can copyright a creative work, but you can't copyright the basic elements that make up a creative work.
AI image generators look for commonalities between images and create an image that contains those common features, but the image created is original. It is not a replication of the images the AI is fed with.
The simplest defence against an accusation of copyright theft is that the two works are clearly distinct. If you can look two works and not recognise that one is derived from the other than it is not copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, if we're taking this outside of hobby and into the purview of trade, the resulting work from generative AI is not original since it cannot be copyrighted (at the moment, this is still ongoing. But the EU has just passed limitations to what sources can fed generative training on it). In the US, A federal court ruled on August 18 that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted on the grounds that copyright law only extends to human beings.

Just because you can claim it's distinct, doesn't mean it's considered as original work that can be out there for the market. That's why you shouldn't be selling fanart, it's distinct but not original. Of course, this happens and is still happening (looking at you AI-bro loser vendors, and that's why we can't have nice things. We're in a bad place). It's not even remotely enforced because it's an ongoing thing and no one gives a shit except artists.

And again, why are we having this conversation? I already said AI is cool to make things and it's awesome for coverart for fanedits (which aren't being sold). Why even want to call it your art? You can give value to things that aren't art. I value food, shelter, sustance, a box of my parents personal stuff they left me. What is this conversation? lol

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

Unfortunately, if we're taking this outside of hobby and into the purview of trade, the resulting work from generative AI is not original since it cannot be copyrighted (at the moment, this is still ongoing. But the EU has just passed limitations to what sources can fed generative training on it). In the US, A federal court ruled on August 18 that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted on the grounds that copyright law only extends to human beings.

Just because you can claim it's distinct, doesn't mean it's considered as original work that can be out there for the market. That's why you shouldn't be selling fanart, it's distinct but not original. Of course, this happens and is still happening (looking at you AI-bro loser vendors, and that's why we can't have nice things. We're in a bad place). It's not even remotely enforced because it's an ongoing thing and no one gives a shit except artists.

And again, why are we having this conversation? I already said AI is cool to make things and it's awesome for coverart for fanedits (which aren't being sold). Why even want to call it your art? You can give value to things that aren't art. I value food, shelter, sustance, a box of my parents personal stuff they left me. What is this conversation? lol

AI generated images can't be copyrighted because copyrights are held by the creator, and AI generated images have no creator. This doesn't mean that they aren't original. They are original because they are distinct from anything else that exists.
And having no copyright doesn't mean that something cannot be sold. It just means that no one can have the exclusive right to sell something.
I don't want to call it my art because I don't care about whether it's "art" or whether its "mine". I'm just trying to clear up misconceptions.

 

[Gibichung]

I don't want to call it my art because I don't care about whether it's "art" or whether its "mine". I'm just trying to clear up misconceptions.

Oh ok, gotcha! You're good.

 

[tremault]

Prompt: robot looking at forum thread wondering what it did wrong and why it is being persecuted

 

[tremault]

Now this is really interesting. I'd be curious to know how people feel about this. While this is hardly remarkable, could this be considered 100% my art or not?

prompt: a single black circle on a white background. The circle is 50 percent of the size of the image. The circle is centred.

I feel proof is necessary for this one -

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

This is very interesting.
Arguably, using an image generator to make a specific image like this is no different from doing the same thing in MS paint.
Although, I think that this circle isn't actually 50% of the image. If it were, the distance between the edge of the square and the edge of the circle would be around 1/2 of th3 circle's radius, and in this image it looks about equal. Making it only 20% of the square's area. (Unless I've got my maths wrong)
So, maybe it depends on the amount of control the prompter has on the result.
Right now, the generator outputs images similar to the prompt, but the result is very much controlled by the generator's algorithm.
If future developments put more control into the promoter's hands (composition, perspective, brush style, etc.) it could be considered the promoter's work the same way images generated by digital art software belong to the person making the inputs.
I would say the image would have to contain nothing but what's in the prompt, but I'm not sure that's a great way to qualify it.
I think it has more to do with how the generator works than how it's used or what it produces.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

Now this is really interesting. I'd be curious to know how people feel about this. While this is hardly remarkable, could this be considered 100% my art or not?

prompt: a single black circle on a white background. The circle is 50 percent of the size of the image. The circle is centred.

I feel proof is necessary for this one -

I'd say this post is attempting to be edgey, but that circle seems well rounded enough.

 

[Ray Danger]

could this be considered 100% my art or not

In my opinion, No. You didn’t make it. You had it made for you.
It’s like if someone asks me to draw something for them, then they go around with it saying “look what I made!”

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

This is very interesting.
Arguably, using an image generator to make a specific image like this is no different from doing the same thing in MS paint.
Although, I think that this circle isn't actually 50% of the image. If it were, the distance between the edge of the square and the edge of the circle would be around 1/2 of th3 circle's radius, and in this image it looks about equal. Making it only 20% of the square's area. (Unless I've got my maths wrong)
So, maybe it depends on the amount of control the prompter has on the result.
Right now, the generator outputs images similar to the prompt, but the result is very much controlled by the generator's algorithm.
If future developments put more control into the promoter's hands (composition, perspective, brush style, etc.) it could be considered the promoter's work the same way images generated by digital art software belong to the person making the inputs.
I would say the image would have to contain nothing but what's in the prompt, but I'm not sure that's a great way to qualify it.
I think it has more to do with how the generator works than how it's used or what it produces.

I've been thinking about this, and I think I've nailed down the distinction that I was trying to describe in this comment.

Image generators as they exist today analyse a prompt for key words, and generate an image that they identify with those key words. What they don't do is use the prompt as instructions to create the image.
For example, a while ago I was trying to get a very specific image of an archer firing an arrow towards the viewer in one-point perspective. The generator would keep making one-point perspective images with archers in them, but no matter how I adjusted the prompt it never got the image I was describing because it couldn't interpret the prompt as language, it only saw the key words.

I would say that if an image generator used the prompt as actual instructions of how to generate the image, then you could say that the image was created bu the prompter using the generator as a tool, but as is, the image is generated almost randomly, with the prompter setting limitations on the degree of randomness.

I think a good analogy of this is that if you used a preset in a video editor to colour grade the video, you can still say that you colour graded it. Even though you didn't select the individual settings, you gave the program a specific instruction and it produced a specific, repeatable result.
In this analogy, current image generators would be more like hiring someone else to do the colour grading, and telling them to "make it gloomier" even though you did affect the result, its mostly dependant on the whims of the person actually doing the colour grading, or in this case, the random selection of the algorithm.

There is a middle ground in this analogy, where a director is sitting over the editor's shoulder telling them to bump the exposure and decrease the temperature, but at a certain point that flips over to the director doing the colour grading and the editor just pressing the buttons.

I don't know anything about computer science, but I think a truly instructable image generator is an entirely different beast to the generators we have now, but it could be possible soon, and I would argue that using a generator like that would be no different from using MS Paint to create an image. Except for being less impressive.

 

[tremault]

Yeah that's it, totally. one portion of the algorithm is a random number. The rest of it is like an insanely complex version of a marble drop.

That's basically what neural nets are. you drop the words in the top and the data get's transformed in what would be predictable ways, but adjusted with the random number.

I honestly don't think an interpretive engine is coming any time soon. For that to happen, the AI would need to understand what an archer is, what a person is, what a bow is, what a string is, and every other inter-related concept.

 

[Gieferg]

So what if I have a clear picture of what I want in my mind, I describe part of it in a prompt, try dozens of times, adjusting the prompt, finally get what I wanted, Then I repeat the process with another element, then same thing with a background, put everything together in photoshop, get something like this:



which is as close to what I imagined (when I wrote it as short story) as possible. Did I created it or not?

(yeah, that's from my second AI generated comic book, in the works now, that's why I am not working on new edits at the moment)

 

[tremault]

So what if I have a clear picture of what I want in my mind, I describe part of it in a prompt, try dozens of times, adjusting the prompt, finally get what I wanted, then repeat the process with another element, then same thing with a background, put everything together in photoshop, get something like this:



which is as close to what I imagined as possible. Did I created it or not?

(yeah, that's from my second AI generated comic book, in the works now)

I'd really like to see the full process, but I'd say you created the composition and got 'somebody else' to create the individual elements. it's like a collage, or mixed media. Do you think that sounds fair?

 

[Gieferg]

Probably yes.
And what if I would draw it myself based on that picture above which, in turn, is based on what I imagined?

 

[tremault]

Probably yes.
And what if I would draw it myself based on that picture above which, in turn, is based on what I imagined?

That's a tough one because a lot of artists work by copying what they see or have seen. (as opposed to some artists who construct drawing based on anatomical knowledge, etc).
I think drawing based on what you sought out and composed, would be seen as your work.
I like this discussion, you bring up some powerful challenges.

 

[WilliamRedRobin]

I honestly don't think an interpretive engine is coming any time soon. For that to happen, the AI would need to understand what an archer is, what a person is, what a bow is, what a string is, and every other inter-related concept.

That does sound near impossible by today's standards, but it will be interesting to see what comes out of AI integration into programs like photoshop.
I could imagine a system where you can manually select the perspective type and place the vanishing points and then decide where and what size you want different elements of the image to be and write individual prompts for each element. Then the software could generate each element and blend them together automatically according to its settings.

That kind of thing would be in the middle ground I was talking about. The program is doing all the technical work of creating the image, but the user would have a great deal of creative control over the result. Enough, I think, to call it their own.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

I think this is much more nuanced than we’re giving it credit for. Sure, it can be abused but just because it is AI doesn’t mean it isn’t art. It’s a tool. I feel like people are arguing that if you don’t physically paint the brush stroke that you haven’t created the art. I totally reject that. Is Beethoven not an artist because he doesn’t play the oboe parts he wrote? Is Gaudi not an artist because he didn’t pour the cement or lay the stones for La Sagrada Familia. You could go on and on. Further, most art is built on the shoulders of giants. It is exceedingly rare for something to be totally unique and even then I doubt it would be totally devoid of influence or inspiration. Even if I only use the prompt “create art,” it may serve an artistic purpose similar to what is the theme, seemingly, of this thread. It makes a statement; it causes one to reflect. Is that not art? I tend to want to be pretty generous with what we call art because I don’t ever want expression to be exclusionary. And I feel we run that risk when we restrict “art” to those that possess certain skills. If you use a tool—any tool—to express yourself artistically, I say it’s art.

 

[tremault]

I think this is much more nuanced than we’re giving it credit for. Sure, it can be abused but just because it is AI doesn’t mean it isn’t art. It’s a tool. I feel like people are arguing that if you don’t physically paint the brush stroke that you haven’t created the art. I totally reject that. Is Beethoven not an artist because he doesn’t play the oboe parts he wrote? Is Gaudi not an artist because he didn’t pour the cement or lay the stones for La Sagrada Familia. You could go on and on. Further, most art is built on the shoulders of giants. It is exceedingly rare for something to be totally unique and even then I doubt it would be totally devoid of influence or inspiration. Even if I only use the prompt “create art,” it may serve an artistic purpose similar to what is the theme, seemingly, of this thread. It makes a statement; it causes one to reflect. Is that not art? I tend to want to be pretty generous with what we call art because I don’t ever want expression to be exclusionary. And I feel we run that risk when we restrict “art” to those that possess certain skills. If you use a tool—any tool—to express yourself artistically, I say it’s art.

This seems to be a troublesome issue of how we use the word 'art'. That's a language issue more than anything. Gaudi wasn't an artist, he was an architect. Certainly, architecture can have artistic flair in a big way, but there is an exclusive definition of 'art' that describes the types of works that serve a singular purpose, by people like Damien Hirst, Andy Warhol, Banksy, etc. these works serve one purpose and that is to make the receiver think in different ways about society, It doesn't serve any other purpose, such as shelter from weather, or advertising a product, or telling a story, or as a backdrop for dance, etc. We call those other things, architecture, design, comics, music, etc. They are of course 'arts' and considered under that umbrella term and can be thought of as artistic, but they aren't 'art' in the singular sense. I think this is a discussion that continually happens though, so I'm just conveying how I've come to understand it and what makes logical sense to me.

I think your prompt 'create art' would be an interesting exercise. would you like to present any images?