Other Would You Want to See AI Art in the Arts Thread?

[AtomBombBaby]

Hi all, Atom here! I've recently made a foray into the Midjourney AI art generator and am having a blast fine tuning prompts to create OCs and scenes. My question is this: would you be interested in seeing AI art, and receiving free commissions of your OCs via AI art, in the Arts thread? I know there's some controversy surrounding AI art as "real" art -- I have a huge appreciation for artists who spend their time and talent creating images of the type of superior and beautiful quality I see AI art generators creating, which I myself would never be able to create on my own. I don't want to take up space real artists use to showcase their talent by posting AI art in the Arts thread here on RPNation. I'm curious to know your opinions!

 

[Kazami42]

Real is a false system. It is barely intellectual. In the case of an existent thread, you only don't post if specifically stated not to add certain kinds.
It is akin to the zealots screaming off that people are fake [merely illusionary is the meaning] because they do not submit to their strict demands on how reality works. It should be thrown out immediately. Same argument as unironically going "Yo boi, u a realz one if u do diz!" Leave it to the ignorant and uneducated for that. Art is art, regardless if an automaton, actual person, or some magically new heightened intelligence created it. All that persists is the little faults, errors, mistakes, and even outright failures which bring it uniqueness in the first place. This is irregardless of whether someone likes it or not. Albeit, seeing arms crossed and in reality it is like a dragon ball fusion dance of arms is kind of body horror, but the character and scenes generally make it appear like it happens casually on a friday night LOL.

I think the "real" deal is progressing onwards into the future, but retaining the past. Otherwise there is no present.
Integration is the only appropriate means forwards, and it still leaves room for purists to continue operation without fault anyway.
I think it would be more beautiful a work if it was generated, and then an artist actually spent the time to add onto it, correct what goes against their vision if they want to, and add further onto a scene to remove the uncanniness unless surrealism was the point.
AI art doesn't diminish nor hide off "AcTUaL aRt", and the only proper argument would be to go "Hey goes look at this funky looking thing, we look even better compared to it!" Otherwise the argument looks akin to someone demanding that "you take that prosthetic or bionic limb off because that is how you actually are."

If one is concerned ask a site mod that isn't busy. But separation is dumb regardless. Even when filtering is involved.
Don't let your dreams be dreams, and don't let the extremist brain rot ever hold you down. Artists were experimentalists, visionaries, some deemed as making "degenerate art", and now they are everywhere, online and in museums. They got blasted down for new techniques, and the utilization of a generator is absolutely no different. History can repeat itself out of fear, and to that I say:
They should develop a pair or fifteen and get out of the way.

 

[Blepies]

Real is a false system. It is barely intellectual. In the case of an existent thread, you only don't post if specifically stated not to add certain kinds.
It is akin to the zealots screaming off that people are fake [merely illusionary is the meaning] because they do not submit to their strict demands on how reality works. It should be thrown out immediately. Same argument as unironically going "Yo boi, u a realz one if u do diz!" Leave it to the ignorant and uneducated for that. Art is art, regardless if an automaton, actual person, or some magically new heightened intelligence created it. All that persists is the little faults, errors, mistakes, and even outright failures which bring it uniqueness in the first place. This is irregardless of whether someone likes it or not. Albeit, seeing arms crossed and in reality it is like a dragon ball fusion dance of arms is kind of body horror, but the character and scenes generally make it appear like it happens casually on a friday night LOL.

I think the "real" deal is progressing onwards into the future, but retaining the past. Otherwise there is no present.
Integration is the only appropriate means forwards, and it still leaves room for purists to continue operation without fault anyway.
I think it would be more beautiful a work if it was generated, and then an artist actually spent the time to add onto it, correct what goes against their vision if they want to, and add further onto a scene to remove the uncanniness unless surrealism was the point.
AI art doesn't diminish nor hide off "AcTUaL aRt", and the only proper argument would be to go "Hey goes look at this funky looking thing, we look even better compared to it!" Otherwise the argument looks akin to someone demanding that "you take that prosthetic or bionic limb off because that is how you actually are."

If one is concerned ask a site mod that isn't busy. But separation is dumb regardless. Even when filtering is involved.
Don't let your dreams be dreams, and don't let the extremist brain rot ever hold you down. Artists were experimentalists, visionaries, some deemed as making "degenerate art", and now they are everywhere, online and in museums. They got blasted down for new techniques, and the utilization of a generator is absolutely no different. History can repeat itself out of fear, and to that I say:
They should develop a pair or fifteen and get out of the way.

Its interesting. I think we each have our own weird definitions of “art” and what constitutes “real art”. For me personally, using a generator or simple text prompt to generate an illustration without any edits isn’t really art.


I feel like art requires a bit more than simply typing out a prompt. I feel like it requires a bit of yourself. How you interpret details and your view of the world, what you enjoy. Even things like shortcuts you take, and small decisions you make in your pieces make a difference in the final product.

Even if the piece is almost completely detached from those aspects, they’ll still find a way in your art somehow. Maybe it’s so subtle that its hard to even tell, but its definitely there.


So I guess the only way I recognize AI art as art is when it is used as a rough draft or edited with their own personal touch. It still feels weird to even consider it “real art”. But maybe thats just a bit of pettiness and bias on my side though.

 

[GojiBean]

Hoyo!

Personally I don't mind AI art being included in the Arts thread. Although, I do believe it should be labeled as such so as not to create confusion or unnecessary drama for those who are more sensitive about its use/inclusion. We want RpNation to be a drama-free space, after all.

For the sake of discussion, and a lil' bit for education...

"Art" is literally defined as being of "human creation."

For example, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (one of the pillars of the English language today, at least in America) I believe best defines "art" as: "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

AI is neither alive, nor human. It has no imagination. It has no "skill." Everything it generates is a mish mash of actual human-created art which it's been fed to teach itself how to recreate what it's been shown. In short, it's a copy machine. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Therefore, anything it generates does not qualify as "art" by the literal definition of the word.

As such, AI generated material has no copyright protections. If you were to generate AI art and sell it for profit, you are legally allowed to do so. However, someone else could take your AI art and sell it themselves and there would be zero consequences for doing so since nobody "owns" AI generated content. If you tried to sue them for copyright infringement, your case would be thrown out immediately.

In order for any copyright protections to be issued to AI generated material, a human being must draw over them or enhance them in some way. In doing so, only the parts the human being drew over or enhanced would be copyright protected. Everything else about the image is public domain and fair game for anyone else to come in and use for themselves however they wish with no consequence.


Hopefully that answers some questions about AI art.

Is it art by the literal or technical definition of the word? No, it's not.

Does it matter if it's actually art? Not really.

I myself use AI generated artwork as reference material from time to time for poses, hairstyles, faces, eyes, or other singular elements which I find appealing about the generated product. But I would never, as an amateur artist, try passing off that AI generated content as my own. I feel doing so would be disingenuous.

But for the folks who simply like sharing AI art for the fun of sharing, or sometimes even to make a game of "look what the AI was able to do," or "look how silly/stupid this turned out," I say go ahead and have fun sharing. Anything that helps spread entertainment and joy is okay in my book so long as the underlying intent is constructive.

Just my two cents.

Cheers!

- GojiBean

 

[TheCuteWitch]

I think that if I went to a thread for artists to show off their work and found a bunch of AI images there, I'd find that a bit depressing. It'd feel a bit like going to a petting zoo and only finding the cardboard cutout drawings of the animals that were supposed to be there, y'know?

It wouldn't bother me on the other hand if I found AI images in a thread for sharing pretty pictures generally. It's more so the idea of it displacing artists and defeating the purpose of an artist thread which would make me sad.