It's like how Joss Whedon's idea of "funny" writing seemed cute until it was everywhere.
Just perpetual snide fucking bathos in every god damned thing now...
I've said this before, but I went on a capeshit purge for a long time, then a friend put on Doc Strange 3 and it was unbelievable how Wheadonized every single character's dialogue was.
I'd say something about how "that happened" but I'm so tired of Whedonization that I gave up partway.
the technology is super cool even when I've just dabbled in it, but can it really be called AI if it can only mirror what it's trained on? It's a very cool toy to use for playing with and aping existing art canon but I don't see new genres or anything truly novel coming entirely from this
Right? Yes some county fair level dorks may give blue ribbon prizes to some of them in the years to come, but unless AI art is going to start coming up with its own ideas and style it's just cleverly masked plagiarism.
Being said it will definitely start fucking with the freelance illustration market very quickly
This is why I’m a pedantic prick and will only call this stuff machine learning. The ‘intelligence’ in AI is doing a lot of work…
From another article...
"I knew this would be controversial... they are simply going to create an ‘artificial intelligence art’ category I imagine for things like this." He also said he submitted the art "to make a statement" about using Midjourney "in a competitive manner."
then don't accept the award??? what a self aggrandizing shithead.
He also says he submitted the art to the competition using the words “Jason Allen via Midjourney,” although it doesn’t seem like he told the Colorado State Fair organizers what Midjourney can do.
whoopsie-doodle🙃
This is what happens when the public perception of good art is when it's realistic, have good shading, lighting, and looks "epic" like the popular movies and games :so-true:
Let's analyze this art for a moment. Who are these people supposed to be and what do they represent? What is the significance of the massive circular window that took up a great portion of the art? What emotion is it meant to convey? Of course, the answer to all of those are NOTHING, because THE CURTAIN IS BLUE.
It's good because the people, the architecture, the lighting, the shading, looks like something from a live action epic million dollar movie. Meaning, message, emotion? D-worderate nonsense.
Entartete Kunst shall have the last final laugh.
I really, really want to agree, but if I didn't know this was AI-generated then I could assign all sorts of meaning to the imagery. This gets into questions surrounding authorial intent and it's going to be interesting to see how that discourse evolves.
But I'm a designer, not an artist. This shit is going to take my job either way.
I only did a quick skim of the article, so it's possible I missed it or am unfamiliar with this specific AI, but we don't even get to see the prompt or how he went about having the AI create this piece. It's completely possible that he does have reasoning for how it turned out and ideas on what the components of the piece mean to him. Just because the AI realized his piece rather than a paintbrush doesn't make him less of an artist.
If it's just a mishmash of different pieces put out without any meaning then obviously it's a lot less of an art piece and more of "hey it'd be cool to mix all this together"
Counterpoint: the idea that points should be made with vague symbols, cryptic allusions, and obtuse subtlety is literally a CIA op that's given generations of artists brainworms and defanged their work into a more cooptable form. If you have a point it should be written in bold print on a big mallet, the face of which is also a stamp with the point engraved on it, and you should whack your viewer in the face with that mallet until the point is literally embedded in their flesh, and only then will even the smallest percent of them actually get the point. Anything less than that and you're not trying to make a point, you're trying to look clever to an in-group of trained analysts who still need the point explained to them on the side which they will then pretend they figured out on their own to look clever themselves.
I know this is true abiut art but I have no idea how to exercise such brainworms lol
Learning that a lot of "modern" artists who make art "a 5 year old can make" often are actually skilled at "traditional" art who choose the direction they took helped dewormed my brain. Personally, I went to a museum of a local expressionist artist where his works are arranged chronologically, where I saw how he went from realistic portraiture to his iconic self-portraits.
Picasso is kind of a shithead but he's a good extreme example as he can paint like the old masters at such an early age (15), yet choose to make the stuff he's famous for because he was bored with realism.
edit: Seriously, just pick any artist you consider "modernist" and google "[artist name] early work".
Picasso is cool, I like his one about the US doing warcrimes. Possibly cause I can just look at it and tell what it's about lol.
:stalin-approval: Exposing the evil of the Amerikkka is always good
https://peacehistory-usfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/massacre-in-korea-picasso1200.jpg
The victims staring at the viewer with palms open. Damn this is powerful.
Asking that question seems easy enough, but answering it...feels like I just end up at "maybe?" for everything lol
POV is an interesting avenue to consider, I hadn't really thought of that. I'll watch the video after werk ty 😊
100%. obviously the techdouche that did this sucks, but having been to and enjoyed many state fairs, they are provincial as fuck events no matter how duded up, fancy and electrified the state's biggest city is.
i don't care if it's New York or Illinois: the state fair is the event to attend if you are looking for crystal studded jeans and a custom airbrushed sleeveless t-shirt celebrating two-time Daytona 500 winner "Pied Piper" Dale Earnhardt Jr.
the real heat is coming for biggest winter squash and finest needlework & home handicraft.
Nope, that's Iowa. I had a work trip there once and that was literally the social activity they had planned... a trip to the butter cow.
No way the person who wrote that wasn't having dirty thoughts :volcel-kamala:
I think all AI has to be is 'good enough' to for capitalists to threaten artists every single price/wage negotiation to drive down wages even further. It doesn't actually have to be used much, just kinda' pointed at like how driving AI and automated restaurants are without rarely actually being used.
Ha! I know ai-generated art is the hot button issue here rn, but I still think this is funny.
Good for the computer. There is plenty of art to go around. It's not like there are a limited amount of paintings and the computer is stealing them.
This is just a commercial for some tech startup to churn out concept art for movies/vidya. It's already algorithmic even with people. Look up kitbashing.
I didn't miss the point. Of course human artists are going to have a hard time making a living in production art because capitalism. They're already treated like robots. We know that. My point is that the problem isn't that robot art exists and there's not enough regulation or aesthetic development to properly classify it.
I don't think A.I. philosophically can make art. It can create stuff for sure, but I don't think a machine can make art. As I define art as anything made with human labor and intention. That's it, a person trying to do something. Art exists in many ways I think we often overlook, but a machine can't do anything other than it's made to do, there is no intention. I would define the algorithms and code that created this AI art generators to be more art than the images they create. Human people had to work very hard to make the magic of these A.I. image generators and that's actually very cool, but the A.I.'s themselves can't do anything with intention. On some real-ass cyberpunk shit, I don't think A.I. will ever be able to make something beautiful (at least not yet given it's inability to choose for itself in a meaningful way) . The 1's and 0's organized and designed by human programmers and stuff is the art, but the product of that work is not art to me. A machine can make cool stuff, but it can't be art.
