The new algorithm will be revolutionary in making Art and who buys it. The traditional artist will likely not disappear, but they'll face increasing challenges in selling their Art.
I agree that humans seek connections with other people, being social animals. But they first seek relationships with the self. Their inner world, if you like. If that's the case, and I don't see any way it can't be true, then the first reason someone buys Art is not to connect to other people but to connect to their inner world or self.
Suppose someone is a member of a religion and sees an image painted by an artist who's also a believer that celebrates their faith. There is a high probability that the person will buy the Art if the painting's esthetics are compelling. But if the image makes a mockery of that person's faith, regardless of its esthetic value, the person will likely not buy it. In the first case, the buyer self identifies with the painting and welcomes the connection with the artist. In the second case, the buyer self fails to resonate with the work and resents any relationship with the artist. The point is that the Art must first be a metaphor for something important to the buyer. The connections to the artist are secondary.
My lifelong friend I've known for over 35 years loves to fish. He doesn't enjoy camping and is reluctant to enter forests. He has paintings and carvings of fish and boats on the water. He values that I'm a painter but doesn't like my work. I paint primarily woodland scenery. He says the paintings are terrific but remind him of all the bugs he hates in the woods. My work doesn't connect to his inner world, so he doesn't like it. But a wood fish carving from an unknown artist does, and he buys it! He doesn't accept my work even though we have a 35-year connection. My friend is an excellent example of how the link to the artist is secondary, and the Art must first be a symbol that allows the person to enter their valued inner world before they buy it.
The article mentions how photography was beneficial, but it was also harmful. It was especially true for a portrait artist, illustrators, and other figurative painters. The world had increasingly little use for their skills since the invention of photography in 1839.
But painting survived by reinventing itself. Maybe this will be true when a bot paints a concept in the coming years. We may not be all toast, though some might be.
Film did not kill painting, but digital killed film. I think digitization kills off most endeavours that require physical processing. That could include art in the future.
Agee, digital killed film, and it did so rapidly. What you imply is particularly pertinent if a robot design is to create artwork physically. What need is there for a human to do so?
They are technically correct but still lack soul. When the soul is engaged when creating, something happens that can be seen in the created piece that many times words cannot express what is seen and experienced.
The images were well-painted and clever, and I might even like to own one - or want one of my coffee mug or a calendar or AI images created by my words for a pamphlet, but they would not compete with the paintings in our art collection. Most of the artwork I own could not be painted by computer, at least not at this time. AI would be art for a different purpose - at least for me it would or me.
Well, I'm BACK! Tell ya what Clint, if you think stuff made in the manner you have been sharing is FULFILLING...then YOU GO FOR IT...BUY it, hang it in YOUR house...AND ENJOY! Those of us who disagree (with this EXTREMELY LONG discussion) can go forth and put our money and interest in ART CREATED by another human! In my home, I have over 35 ORIGINAL creations, (that I have purchased, and 28 of my own originals) and ZERO prints. My "HOME" is where my SOUL ABIDES, and it is nourished daily, being in this SPECIAL, BLESSED SPACE. Take care, and thanks for showing up and sharing your thoughts! AND if you want to see where my "soul" sets, hope you will visit my website www.bettybillups.com and got any questions, feel free to write, you or anyone else! I prefer emails vs these internet links...MUCH more personal!
I only buy original art. I didn't say it was fulfilling. I'm asking for objective reasons as to why. My answer is that it's the story and connection with a human artist, not that the images themselves are worse/better/more soulful. I LIKE connecting with artists I purchase from. Most people do.
Ok, thanks for clarifying! Just figured all the info shared, was almost a waste of your time and mine. Never had to go thru so much "?" to HOPEFULLY get my point across.
As I shared, there is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT energy that an original creation "radiates" vs the same image as a print. That's all! Glad to hear you collect art! I also do! I have over 35 originals hanging that I've purchased, and about 20 of mine that are not on the market. Wish my house was larger, cause I'm running out of wall space!! LOL
Take care Clint. And thank you again, for all you do on what you offer on the website formats you do!
There is different energy that an original radiates vs a print. I don't know think there would be a difference if the same image was created by a machine. That's the point where I was kinda disagreeing with you. You are saying you would by from a human artist because you would feel it intrinsically from the image itself that it had "soul." I'm saying, I think if a machine produced an original image on canvas, with paint, it could possibly feel exactly the same. I would buy from a human because I want to connect with another human, and I'm into what that artist does, and would want to support that artist, not because the image itself was intrinsically different. Same end result, but subtly different motivations.
I'm having extreme deja vu right now! I was a full time professional photographer for 20+ years, starting with film, switched to digital in 2004. Digital cameras made photography easy & cheap, then the market was totally flooded with billions (literally) of photos from all the new photographers, then the price/value of photos dropped into the toilet, then photographers could not make a living wage anymore. Event photography died, wedding photos are done by relatives, stock photo pricing is in cents instead of $$$, magazines won't pay for images anymore (so many have already folded anyway), studio photography is hanging by a mere thread. Why hire someone when your iPhone will do? In the span of 15 years, photography has become no longer a viable career option.
So, from this perspective I think I can easily see that AI art creation tech & software will rapidly become faster, easier, and cheaper. Been there, seen that. In fact, most new cameras and some photo processing programs already have AI built in. I think most illustrators are already working digitally, so this will be a great tool for them. However, with hordes of would-be AI artists entering the art market, I fear a drastic price race to the bottom, especially for commission work. Copying of any digital entity is so easy, so I think copyright protection will need to be a top priority. Some sort of digital lock, which exists for a lot of music now, but still not for digital images as yet.
In an increasingly crowded art market, how are we going to compete with images that can be created faster and much cheaper, maybe even free at some point in the future?
No surprise that AI is replacing art careers as it does so many other occupations. I often find computer technology amazing and frustrating at the same time. I think this would be a useful tool to visualize ideas in images as a sketching does, only faster. But it also can be perceived as a threat to creators when people can "commission" art through DELL-E. I looked at the site and it doesn't seem very user friendly if you aren't a tech.
Imagine feeding DALL-E a photo and saying "generate 100 versions of this in X style of painting." Then you could pick one to work up into a full painting. Like you say, sketching on steriods.
OK, I’m having fun with this - lots to think about here. bottom line for me: Can it produce art that looks like my body of work? If not, I will continue to produce my art - made with my individual mark-making. I am in love with the places I paint. If the answer is no, then I still have a market for my work - like you said, AI art doesn’t have a story. But yes, it will be useful for a lot of purposes. Perhaps in the future, graphic artists will design works using DALL-E and then buy the copyright or a license. It’ll save them tons of time and it will be the graphic artist’s original idea.
I'm not even currently selling BUT it strikes me immediately that DALL-E isn't even a genuine human! How can it produce REAL art???? Art is human, contains emotion & spirit & is expressive. These can only come from a real human [perhaps this is only MY opinion?...!? - I guess the question now becomes so exactly what is human? Spirit is needed I think].
I don't disagree. But the market might not care about "real art." The images feel and look like art. That may be enough for most people in most use cases. Also consider that a human is still involved - telling DALL-E what to depict. If I work with DALL-E to generate 1,000 images and then curate 5 of them as my "art" am I an artist? Hard to say no. DALL-E may become something like a new medium or, at least, a way to "sketch" 1,000X faster.
For me, the fact that DALL-E is Artificial Intelligence says it all. It's artificial. The reason I didn't go into photography when I began art [2019] was because I figured that if I wanted to depict quality art - realistic or not - photography could do it a zillion times quicker & cheaper & easier etc etc. - apps... And anyone could do it. But I guess that's also almost an argument for slowness with art. I also think that if you paint etc only for the market, you're in the wrong game. Art is tooo subjective to be a market issue. hmm lol I personally love the fact that art is so nonpressurized [a personality issue of mine], though it CAN lead to a build up of work around the home/studio etc.
I have seen the software which can create amazing pictures - copies of photos in the painting style of any painter - Monet, Rembrandt, etc etc [I'm not even sure where DALL-E comes in here..I'm obv. non-techy]. All an artist can do in these times is to express themselves - there are tooo many people on the planet now to be original, & software is also too great to be original. L
As humans why is the back story so imperative? Is the story about the buyer/seller connection, the back story of the image, a who, what, where and why and of the buyer just wants more insight into what they are buying. In my art sales, and other artists I know, hardly anyone wants to know a backstory of why this art work is attractive to them. They just like it for whatever reason and they find it intriguing or it conjures up something with them that they like. They could care less about the process, the back story etc. of course they are not spending $100K + on it either. But we continue the importance of the story the narrative between the artist and buyer.
If I sold something in that price range, I could make a lengthy narrative, truthfully of the whole process of how this piece got created and why.
It's not always backstory. It's THEIR story and connection to YOU. I can guarantee you those buyers tell their friends about "Oh, I found this artist on Instagram/whatever. Love his work. Yeah bought it directly from him. etc etc etc". The "story" has an element of the particular subplot between you and the buyer. A relationship of sorts. They are a fan, like you might be a fan of a rock band. Not always of course, always exceptions, but in general. If it's just about the images themselves then AI art is going to rule in the future.
Thanks Clint…as an old man I’m still learning. I’m horrible at marketing and my work is what it is. Trying to carve out a niche, and the niche is not working very well online, I do better at shows and exhibits, and regional art orgs. So how does one stand out in an art realm sea of a million + artists? Never going to be rich and famous and that is OK, it’s the ideas and work that propel me. Thank You.
The ideas and the work propel me too. Those are what are important. We are sharing a way to market online, but there is more than one way to do this. If shows & exhibits work, by all means, use that as your primary marketing method. No doubt there is less competition at events like that than online.
It seems to me that the AI is recreating the styles of various artists. Unless you become famous or you are a master programmer (which is it’s own form of art) it’s unlikely that AI will be able to duplicate the style and “brand” of most artists. And even if somewhere in the distant future it can, art created by humans will still have value. The story will always matter and the work that goes into a fine piece of art will always matter.
I have done some advisory work with art Ai companies. Still intrigued with process, and have bought several pieces. Still exploring. Not all the selections to buy, are that good, but the creativity side is still intriguing and I enjoy the exploration and the process! This is intriguing to me! I have produced several of my own works on open forum projects. The art works get better exponentially with more adaptive exploration. Part of my own digital exploration and creative process over the years is also getting better. I am still exploring and creating new art outside of the algorithms process. Tools are tools to learn and explore. I don’t know if there are other digital artists on FASO, I have not connected to any. Traditional art appears the norm and bread & butter of FASO. That’s part of what frustrates artists is trying to find others who are of a like mind.
I think owning an actual work that exists in three dimensions and has texture and is made by a human being will always be preferred by other human beings. Many buy reproductions because they can’t afford the original - but most folks would definitely want the original artwork, made once by human hands and heart than a print. By the same token, although people buy recordings of their favorite artists, going to a live concert is still desirable. Therefore, I’m surmising that there will always be a market for a one-of-a-kind work - we humans seem to enjoy a visual and tactile connection better than one produced by AI.
That all said, I think you’re right about AI art being a useful tool for idea graphic art. Perhaps there will be a market for both, just as there’s a reason for selling prints and for selling originals and very often, those are different buyers.
You said DALL-E retains the copyright to the images it creates for our words. How does that work if i want the image for an album cover or a commission? Do I need to lease the image from DALL-E or buy the copyright to have mugs made? Just thinking of logistics.
It would be trivial to pump DALL-E into a printer that created texture and dimension. I don't know how the copyrights with DALL-E work in practice because it's not open to people on a commercial basis yet.
Yes, I realize a print out of a DALL-E would be easy. I imagine it’ll become a popular way to make images for decor and other uses. As I said above, it could also be used for entertainment. I do see a future for it. On the other hand, it is too easy to produce and if most anyone can do it, it’ll just be a fun thing to do, but I don’t believe it’ll ever replace original fine art because there’s something intrinsic about seeing what another human being is capable of with time, effort and thoughtfulness… especially when it’s something that most of us just can’t pull off. There’s a guy on YouTube - Wings of Pegasus. He features watching the voices of performers and groups (like The Beach Boys) singing live and how beautiful their voices sound - shows when they hit the note and the “key” of their personal vibrato. Then he shows the same technology where auto tune was added on more recent singers. It sounds artificial and the vibrato has no personal signature. It starts to all sound the same and the human connection is lost. It can be a cool tool, but there’s something truly fascinating about hearing someone who has developed their “art” without any help from a computer. We fall in love with it. The computer output is fun and interesting and can fool us for now, but it can’t paint a Joe McGurl.
AI is more like a machine knit sweater. Hand knit work is almost always more beautiful. OK enough allegories. I am not worried about AI taking over my sales for original art.
I think this is where copyrights are crucial because AI can’t produce anything from just binary code, it has to borrow existing imagery. I mentioned this to my son who just graduated with a BFA and he said, “You’re just now hearing about this?!”… and then he said they had discussed it in school and what they found is that the images didn’t look that good to the human eye. The quality wasn’t there because the computer just isn’t able to discern like humans can. I personally found all of the example images boring and somewhat dated because if you are in the illustration industry like I was for years then most of that has been done. Human beings will always be more successfully creative than AI because they have intuition!
These images probably didn't exist when your son was in school. This is a brand new AI never seen before the past few months. The images I chose were just examples, the range of images it can produce is far wider including photorealistic.
I say that because I agree with what your son said for every AI I had seen up until two months ago. DALL-E shocked me in how it is able to render accurate images that do look "correct" (to me). Granted I shared ones that got shared on Twitter, there are probably "bad" ones too that people didn't share. Of course human artists burn paintings....
Well look, I could be completely wrong about DALL-E. And even if not, this may take quite a while to work it's way into mainstream. Likely the tech will be used to augment existing illustration work rather than replacing it.
So are you saying the if I use DALL-E, the company owns the copyright of the image that my words generated? Would using the image my words created mean I’d have to pay the company for use of that image for any purpose other than my own digital enjoyment?
You won't likely be able to get access to DALL-E. But if you did, they created DALL-E so they can dictate the terms. There would likely be some sort of license on what you can and can't do with the images it creates.
Thanks Clint. This could be a cool way to produce art for objects. It could put graphic artists and those who license art for products out of business… that is unless graphic artists begin to use AI to generate their graphic art. Perhaps DALL-E could eventually imitate the style of a particular graphic artist. That would be a great tool for them.
I guess it’s copying photos then? It needs something to copy from. It’s like a person who has never seen a cat try to draw a cat. There has to be a reference.
No. It was trained on millions of images. But it doesn't copy them. It now can reliably convert "cat" to an image of a cat. That's no different than how a human, how *you* learned. You saw images of cats or real cats until you could draw one. Every image I posted was unique to DALL-E.
Years ago, I visited a B&B. Each of the 5 rooms had different "art" shown in them. One room had ONLY FRAMED PRINTS. The others had original art. As I stood in each room, with my eyes closed, to FEEL the energy each seemed to have...I felt ZERO emotions (in my gut) when I was in the "Print Room"! I asked myself WHY? What I have come to believe, that ORIGINAL ART Carries with it the ENERGY or the SOUL of the creator! You may not "see it", but the soul can certainly FEEL IT! AND prints, or anything "invented" by any sort of machine, has NO SOUL, thus it cannot impart this aspect to what it creates! These items are created with the MIND, or "intelligence", where there are FACTS, IDEAS, but has zero FEELINGS< which can ONLY come from the SOUL!
Well, you can fool the eye, but the SOUL KNOWS! Just as the creation of "Life" in any form, cannot come from a set of rules, man-created items, or mere "intelligence". Actually the only thing "intelligence" will give you: is KNOWLEDGE that "creation" can only come from deeper elements, as deep as the soul!!
If the soul, inner self, or essence is an emergent property of synaptic activity of the brain, then an AI scientist Might be able to install a way to fool the soul into the algorithm
This is an amazing story but, it is, of course, anecdotal. What if a machine can produce images made by paint and brushes on a canvas. How do you know you wouldn't feel the same way? If I post two images here, one by a human and one by DALL-E, would you be able to tell the difference?
Clint...if you are sending me both images, aren't you using a "Machine"? THUS NIETHER is in my PHYSICAL PRESENCE in their original "state". My comment was for BEING IN THE PRESENCE of ANY "ART"....physically!!! That of prints or other machine made items, OR ORIGINAL ART, the ACTUAL physical CREATION, touched by the artist, actually BEING there, CREATING either one. IN THAT SITUATION, a REAL PERSON, who has a soul, the MACHINE CREATED item, has NOTHING TO IMPART, except an image. An ORIGINAL creation, < I believe THAT has an energy of the artist, still attached to it...thus why my soul picks up on it! AND it has NOTHING to "pick up on" from a machine created item!! (boy, the more I try to explain, sure is complicating the simple statement I made! Sorry!)
Clint this is a very important topic and I read because I am exploring the NFT space. My thoughts are that I totally agree that artistic expression can not be artificially produced. This is not because of the thinking processes, but because of the ability of painting for instance to show the work. Work equals struggle and effort that takes discipline and commitment. These things show in authenticity and can be felt when in the presence of a beautiful work of painting. In music, it too is self expression first and foremost and an interesting topic to explore... what are your thoughts about the story in music? Do humans innately know if something is authentic? Is not our development from the babe to the grave about trust, truth and love of our fellow humans. We need art now more then ever.
I agree about "Proof of Work." However, do you think these images don't have "artistic expression" or that we can't tell if they are authentic? If an artist had posted these on OpenSea as NFTs, I think they would have been purchased like hotcakes. I've seen worse art (based soley on the images) made by humans than what DALL-E is putting out. How would a human purchaser know that these are not "innately authentic?"
So, will authenticity become a thing of the past? If there’s no way to determine authenticity - what does that do to the NFT market if creators aren’t honest?
I think this is more an example of the inauthenticity of NFT's than it is the value of real art. The buyers of NFTs are not the same collectors of authentic art by humans.
The images have nothing to do with NFTs. I was just using that as an example. If any of these images had been on a FASO website, I would not have known by looking they were not created by a human hand. If I got one as a print, I wouldn't know either.
I agree. I would not have known that they weren’t created by a human. That said, can I get AI to create my work in my style? If so, then that can change things drastically. I’ve worked hard to build a style and new body of work. I put it out there often so people can recognize it and come to know it. If I can begin to do this without supplies and “speak it into being”, I might get really lazy about getting the paints out. But I actually enjoy putting brush to canvas.
I agree that manipulating media gives painting a physical expression. A proof work. In music, sound is manipulated. The sound of real instruments in a stage performance can add an extra layer of expression to the music. But a sound recording of the concert will move us as well.
Likewise, a good AI art can be expressive and compelling
I think people may be forgetting that the ultimate Turing Complete Computer is the human brain.
The article is excellent persuasive writing.
The new algorithm will be revolutionary in making Art and who buys it. The traditional artist will likely not disappear, but they'll face increasing challenges in selling their Art.
I agree that humans seek connections with other people, being social animals. But they first seek relationships with the self. Their inner world, if you like. If that's the case, and I don't see any way it can't be true, then the first reason someone buys Art is not to connect to other people but to connect to their inner world or self.
Suppose someone is a member of a religion and sees an image painted by an artist who's also a believer that celebrates their faith. There is a high probability that the person will buy the Art if the painting's esthetics are compelling. But if the image makes a mockery of that person's faith, regardless of its esthetic value, the person will likely not buy it. In the first case, the buyer self identifies with the painting and welcomes the connection with the artist. In the second case, the buyer self fails to resonate with the work and resents any relationship with the artist. The point is that the Art must first be a metaphor for something important to the buyer. The connections to the artist are secondary.
My lifelong friend I've known for over 35 years loves to fish. He doesn't enjoy camping and is reluctant to enter forests. He has paintings and carvings of fish and boats on the water. He values that I'm a painter but doesn't like my work. I paint primarily woodland scenery. He says the paintings are terrific but remind him of all the bugs he hates in the woods. My work doesn't connect to his inner world, so he doesn't like it. But a wood fish carving from an unknown artist does, and he buys it! He doesn't accept my work even though we have a 35-year connection. My friend is an excellent example of how the link to the artist is secondary, and the Art must first be a symbol that allows the person to enter their valued inner world before they buy it.
The article mentions how photography was beneficial, but it was also harmful. It was especially true for a portrait artist, illustrators, and other figurative painters. The world had increasingly little use for their skills since the invention of photography in 1839.
But painting survived by reinventing itself. Maybe this will be true when a bot paints a concept in the coming years. We may not be all toast, though some might be.
Very well put.
Film did not kill painting, but digital killed film. I think digitization kills off most endeavours that require physical processing. That could include art in the future.
Agee, digital killed film, and it did so rapidly. What you imply is particularly pertinent if a robot design is to create artwork physically. What need is there for a human to do so?
Thanks for your good thoughts Ed. Appreciate your taking the time.
Having access to DALL-E could be a fun party game.. Extremely entertaining. But if anyone can do it, and it’s easy, what makes it valuable?
I would love having accesss for this reason. It'll be extremely valuable for the people that own it.
True art can only be created by someone who has a soul and spirit. AI has neither.
Did the images in this article feel soul-less?
They are technically correct but still lack soul. When the soul is engaged when creating, something happens that can be seen in the created piece that many times words cannot express what is seen and experienced.
The images were well-painted and clever, and I might even like to own one - or want one of my coffee mug or a calendar or AI images created by my words for a pamphlet, but they would not compete with the paintings in our art collection. Most of the artwork I own could not be painted by computer, at least not at this time. AI would be art for a different purpose - at least for me it would or me.
Well, I'm BACK! Tell ya what Clint, if you think stuff made in the manner you have been sharing is FULFILLING...then YOU GO FOR IT...BUY it, hang it in YOUR house...AND ENJOY! Those of us who disagree (with this EXTREMELY LONG discussion) can go forth and put our money and interest in ART CREATED by another human! In my home, I have over 35 ORIGINAL creations, (that I have purchased, and 28 of my own originals) and ZERO prints. My "HOME" is where my SOUL ABIDES, and it is nourished daily, being in this SPECIAL, BLESSED SPACE. Take care, and thanks for showing up and sharing your thoughts! AND if you want to see where my "soul" sets, hope you will visit my website www.bettybillups.com and got any questions, feel free to write, you or anyone else! I prefer emails vs these internet links...MUCH more personal!
I only buy original art. I didn't say it was fulfilling. I'm asking for objective reasons as to why. My answer is that it's the story and connection with a human artist, not that the images themselves are worse/better/more soulful. I LIKE connecting with artists I purchase from. Most people do.
Ok, thanks for clarifying! Just figured all the info shared, was almost a waste of your time and mine. Never had to go thru so much "?" to HOPEFULLY get my point across.
As I shared, there is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT energy that an original creation "radiates" vs the same image as a print. That's all! Glad to hear you collect art! I also do! I have over 35 originals hanging that I've purchased, and about 20 of mine that are not on the market. Wish my house was larger, cause I'm running out of wall space!! LOL
Take care Clint. And thank you again, for all you do on what you offer on the website formats you do!
Betty
There is different energy that an original radiates vs a print. I don't know think there would be a difference if the same image was created by a machine. That's the point where I was kinda disagreeing with you. You are saying you would by from a human artist because you would feel it intrinsically from the image itself that it had "soul." I'm saying, I think if a machine produced an original image on canvas, with paint, it could possibly feel exactly the same. I would buy from a human because I want to connect with another human, and I'm into what that artist does, and would want to support that artist, not because the image itself was intrinsically different. Same end result, but subtly different motivations.
I'm having extreme deja vu right now! I was a full time professional photographer for 20+ years, starting with film, switched to digital in 2004. Digital cameras made photography easy & cheap, then the market was totally flooded with billions (literally) of photos from all the new photographers, then the price/value of photos dropped into the toilet, then photographers could not make a living wage anymore. Event photography died, wedding photos are done by relatives, stock photo pricing is in cents instead of $$$, magazines won't pay for images anymore (so many have already folded anyway), studio photography is hanging by a mere thread. Why hire someone when your iPhone will do? In the span of 15 years, photography has become no longer a viable career option.
So, from this perspective I think I can easily see that AI art creation tech & software will rapidly become faster, easier, and cheaper. Been there, seen that. In fact, most new cameras and some photo processing programs already have AI built in. I think most illustrators are already working digitally, so this will be a great tool for them. However, with hordes of would-be AI artists entering the art market, I fear a drastic price race to the bottom, especially for commission work. Copying of any digital entity is so easy, so I think copyright protection will need to be a top priority. Some sort of digital lock, which exists for a lot of music now, but still not for digital images as yet.
In an increasingly crowded art market, how are we going to compete with images that can be created faster and much cheaper, maybe even free at some point in the future?
No surprise that AI is replacing art careers as it does so many other occupations. I often find computer technology amazing and frustrating at the same time. I think this would be a useful tool to visualize ideas in images as a sketching does, only faster. But it also can be perceived as a threat to creators when people can "commission" art through DELL-E. I looked at the site and it doesn't seem very user friendly if you aren't a tech.
Imagine feeding DALL-E a photo and saying "generate 100 versions of this in X style of painting." Then you could pick one to work up into a full painting. Like you say, sketching on steriods.
Matrix revisited
OK, I’m having fun with this - lots to think about here. bottom line for me: Can it produce art that looks like my body of work? If not, I will continue to produce my art - made with my individual mark-making. I am in love with the places I paint. If the answer is no, then I still have a market for my work - like you said, AI art doesn’t have a story. But yes, it will be useful for a lot of purposes. Perhaps in the future, graphic artists will design works using DALL-E and then buy the copyright or a license. It’ll save them tons of time and it will be the graphic artist’s original idea.
I'm not even currently selling BUT it strikes me immediately that DALL-E isn't even a genuine human! How can it produce REAL art???? Art is human, contains emotion & spirit & is expressive. These can only come from a real human [perhaps this is only MY opinion?...!? - I guess the question now becomes so exactly what is human? Spirit is needed I think].
I don't disagree. But the market might not care about "real art." The images feel and look like art. That may be enough for most people in most use cases. Also consider that a human is still involved - telling DALL-E what to depict. If I work with DALL-E to generate 1,000 images and then curate 5 of them as my "art" am I an artist? Hard to say no. DALL-E may become something like a new medium or, at least, a way to "sketch" 1,000X faster.
For me, the fact that DALL-E is Artificial Intelligence says it all. It's artificial. The reason I didn't go into photography when I began art [2019] was because I figured that if I wanted to depict quality art - realistic or not - photography could do it a zillion times quicker & cheaper & easier etc etc. - apps... And anyone could do it. But I guess that's also almost an argument for slowness with art. I also think that if you paint etc only for the market, you're in the wrong game. Art is tooo subjective to be a market issue. hmm lol I personally love the fact that art is so nonpressurized [a personality issue of mine], though it CAN lead to a build up of work around the home/studio etc.
I have seen the software which can create amazing pictures - copies of photos in the painting style of any painter - Monet, Rembrandt, etc etc [I'm not even sure where DALL-E comes in here..I'm obv. non-techy]. All an artist can do in these times is to express themselves - there are tooo many people on the planet now to be original, & software is also too great to be original. L
mm
As humans why is the back story so imperative? Is the story about the buyer/seller connection, the back story of the image, a who, what, where and why and of the buyer just wants more insight into what they are buying. In my art sales, and other artists I know, hardly anyone wants to know a backstory of why this art work is attractive to them. They just like it for whatever reason and they find it intriguing or it conjures up something with them that they like. They could care less about the process, the back story etc. of course they are not spending $100K + on it either. But we continue the importance of the story the narrative between the artist and buyer.
If I sold something in that price range, I could make a lengthy narrative, truthfully of the whole process of how this piece got created and why.
It's not always backstory. It's THEIR story and connection to YOU. I can guarantee you those buyers tell their friends about "Oh, I found this artist on Instagram/whatever. Love his work. Yeah bought it directly from him. etc etc etc". The "story" has an element of the particular subplot between you and the buyer. A relationship of sorts. They are a fan, like you might be a fan of a rock band. Not always of course, always exceptions, but in general. If it's just about the images themselves then AI art is going to rule in the future.
Thanks Clint…as an old man I’m still learning. I’m horrible at marketing and my work is what it is. Trying to carve out a niche, and the niche is not working very well online, I do better at shows and exhibits, and regional art orgs. So how does one stand out in an art realm sea of a million + artists? Never going to be rich and famous and that is OK, it’s the ideas and work that propel me. Thank You.
The ideas and the work propel me too. Those are what are important. We are sharing a way to market online, but there is more than one way to do this. If shows & exhibits work, by all means, use that as your primary marketing method. No doubt there is less competition at events like that than online.
It seems to me that the AI is recreating the styles of various artists. Unless you become famous or you are a master programmer (which is it’s own form of art) it’s unlikely that AI will be able to duplicate the style and “brand” of most artists. And even if somewhere in the distant future it can, art created by humans will still have value. The story will always matter and the work that goes into a fine piece of art will always matter.
I have done some advisory work with art Ai companies. Still intrigued with process, and have bought several pieces. Still exploring. Not all the selections to buy, are that good, but the creativity side is still intriguing and I enjoy the exploration and the process! This is intriguing to me! I have produced several of my own works on open forum projects. The art works get better exponentially with more adaptive exploration. Part of my own digital exploration and creative process over the years is also getting better. I am still exploring and creating new art outside of the algorithms process. Tools are tools to learn and explore. I don’t know if there are other digital artists on FASO, I have not connected to any. Traditional art appears the norm and bread & butter of FASO. That’s part of what frustrates artists is trying to find others who are of a like mind.
We have tons of non-traditional artists.
I have tried painting digitally, but I don't get the satisfaction that I'd do when I have paint and palette in hand.
I think owning an actual work that exists in three dimensions and has texture and is made by a human being will always be preferred by other human beings. Many buy reproductions because they can’t afford the original - but most folks would definitely want the original artwork, made once by human hands and heart than a print. By the same token, although people buy recordings of their favorite artists, going to a live concert is still desirable. Therefore, I’m surmising that there will always be a market for a one-of-a-kind work - we humans seem to enjoy a visual and tactile connection better than one produced by AI.
That all said, I think you’re right about AI art being a useful tool for idea graphic art. Perhaps there will be a market for both, just as there’s a reason for selling prints and for selling originals and very often, those are different buyers.
You said DALL-E retains the copyright to the images it creates for our words. How does that work if i want the image for an album cover or a commission? Do I need to lease the image from DALL-E or buy the copyright to have mugs made? Just thinking of logistics.
It would be trivial to pump DALL-E into a printer that created texture and dimension. I don't know how the copyrights with DALL-E work in practice because it's not open to people on a commercial basis yet.
Yes, I realize a print out of a DALL-E would be easy. I imagine it’ll become a popular way to make images for decor and other uses. As I said above, it could also be used for entertainment. I do see a future for it. On the other hand, it is too easy to produce and if most anyone can do it, it’ll just be a fun thing to do, but I don’t believe it’ll ever replace original fine art because there’s something intrinsic about seeing what another human being is capable of with time, effort and thoughtfulness… especially when it’s something that most of us just can’t pull off. There’s a guy on YouTube - Wings of Pegasus. He features watching the voices of performers and groups (like The Beach Boys) singing live and how beautiful their voices sound - shows when they hit the note and the “key” of their personal vibrato. Then he shows the same technology where auto tune was added on more recent singers. It sounds artificial and the vibrato has no personal signature. It starts to all sound the same and the human connection is lost. It can be a cool tool, but there’s something truly fascinating about hearing someone who has developed their “art” without any help from a computer. We fall in love with it. The computer output is fun and interesting and can fool us for now, but it can’t paint a Joe McGurl.
AI is more like a machine knit sweater. Hand knit work is almost always more beautiful. OK enough allegories. I am not worried about AI taking over my sales for original art.
I think this is where copyrights are crucial because AI can’t produce anything from just binary code, it has to borrow existing imagery. I mentioned this to my son who just graduated with a BFA and he said, “You’re just now hearing about this?!”… and then he said they had discussed it in school and what they found is that the images didn’t look that good to the human eye. The quality wasn’t there because the computer just isn’t able to discern like humans can. I personally found all of the example images boring and somewhat dated because if you are in the illustration industry like I was for years then most of that has been done. Human beings will always be more successfully creative than AI because they have intuition!
These images probably didn't exist when your son was in school. This is a brand new AI never seen before the past few months. The images I chose were just examples, the range of images it can produce is far wider including photorealistic.
He just graduated and he is very much up to date on current technology.
I say that because I agree with what your son said for every AI I had seen up until two months ago. DALL-E shocked me in how it is able to render accurate images that do look "correct" (to me). Granted I shared ones that got shared on Twitter, there are probably "bad" ones too that people didn't share. Of course human artists burn paintings....
Ask him about DALL-E. There are tons more images online in the past two months. I think it was publicly unveiled around two months or so ago.
thanks… I will! Especially since he just started his full-time job as a designer/illustrator! 😬
Well look, I could be completely wrong about DALL-E. And even if not, this may take quite a while to work it's way into mainstream. Likely the tech will be used to augment existing illustration work rather than replacing it.
DALL-E is producing new images. It's not just copying images. DALL-E images are copyrighted by OpenAI - the company that developed DALL-E.
So are you saying the if I use DALL-E, the company owns the copyright of the image that my words generated? Would using the image my words created mean I’d have to pay the company for use of that image for any purpose other than my own digital enjoyment?
You won't likely be able to get access to DALL-E. But if you did, they created DALL-E so they can dictate the terms. There would likely be some sort of license on what you can and can't do with the images it creates.
Thanks Clint. This could be a cool way to produce art for objects. It could put graphic artists and those who license art for products out of business… that is unless graphic artists begin to use AI to generate their graphic art. Perhaps DALL-E could eventually imitate the style of a particular graphic artist. That would be a great tool for them.
I guess it’s copying photos then? It needs something to copy from. It’s like a person who has never seen a cat try to draw a cat. There has to be a reference.
No. It was trained on millions of images. But it doesn't copy them. It now can reliably convert "cat" to an image of a cat. That's no different than how a human, how *you* learned. You saw images of cats or real cats until you could draw one. Every image I posted was unique to DALL-E.
So creepy!!! 😳
Years ago, I visited a B&B. Each of the 5 rooms had different "art" shown in them. One room had ONLY FRAMED PRINTS. The others had original art. As I stood in each room, with my eyes closed, to FEEL the energy each seemed to have...I felt ZERO emotions (in my gut) when I was in the "Print Room"! I asked myself WHY? What I have come to believe, that ORIGINAL ART Carries with it the ENERGY or the SOUL of the creator! You may not "see it", but the soul can certainly FEEL IT! AND prints, or anything "invented" by any sort of machine, has NO SOUL, thus it cannot impart this aspect to what it creates! These items are created with the MIND, or "intelligence", where there are FACTS, IDEAS, but has zero FEELINGS< which can ONLY come from the SOUL!
Well, you can fool the eye, but the SOUL KNOWS! Just as the creation of "Life" in any form, cannot come from a set of rules, man-created items, or mere "intelligence". Actually the only thing "intelligence" will give you: is KNOWLEDGE that "creation" can only come from deeper elements, as deep as the soul!!
If the soul, inner self, or essence is an emergent property of synaptic activity of the brain, then an AI scientist Might be able to install a way to fool the soul into the algorithm
This is an amazing story but, it is, of course, anecdotal. What if a machine can produce images made by paint and brushes on a canvas. How do you know you wouldn't feel the same way? If I post two images here, one by a human and one by DALL-E, would you be able to tell the difference?
Clint...if you are sending me both images, aren't you using a "Machine"? THUS NIETHER is in my PHYSICAL PRESENCE in their original "state". My comment was for BEING IN THE PRESENCE of ANY "ART"....physically!!! That of prints or other machine made items, OR ORIGINAL ART, the ACTUAL physical CREATION, touched by the artist, actually BEING there, CREATING either one. IN THAT SITUATION, a REAL PERSON, who has a soul, the MACHINE CREATED item, has NOTHING TO IMPART, except an image. An ORIGINAL creation, < I believe THAT has an energy of the artist, still attached to it...thus why my soul picks up on it! AND it has NOTHING to "pick up on" from a machine created item!! (boy, the more I try to explain, sure is complicating the simple statement I made! Sorry!)
Clint this is a very important topic and I read because I am exploring the NFT space. My thoughts are that I totally agree that artistic expression can not be artificially produced. This is not because of the thinking processes, but because of the ability of painting for instance to show the work. Work equals struggle and effort that takes discipline and commitment. These things show in authenticity and can be felt when in the presence of a beautiful work of painting. In music, it too is self expression first and foremost and an interesting topic to explore... what are your thoughts about the story in music? Do humans innately know if something is authentic? Is not our development from the babe to the grave about trust, truth and love of our fellow humans. We need art now more then ever.
I agree about "Proof of Work." However, do you think these images don't have "artistic expression" or that we can't tell if they are authentic? If an artist had posted these on OpenSea as NFTs, I think they would have been purchased like hotcakes. I've seen worse art (based soley on the images) made by humans than what DALL-E is putting out. How would a human purchaser know that these are not "innately authentic?"
So, will authenticity become a thing of the past? If there’s no way to determine authenticity - what does that do to the NFT market if creators aren’t honest?
I think this is more an example of the inauthenticity of NFT's than it is the value of real art. The buyers of NFTs are not the same collectors of authentic art by humans.
The images have nothing to do with NFTs. I was just using that as an example. If any of these images had been on a FASO website, I would not have known by looking they were not created by a human hand. If I got one as a print, I wouldn't know either.
I agree. I would not have known that they weren’t created by a human. That said, can I get AI to create my work in my style? If so, then that can change things drastically. I’ve worked hard to build a style and new body of work. I put it out there often so people can recognize it and come to know it. If I can begin to do this without supplies and “speak it into being”, I might get really lazy about getting the paints out. But I actually enjoy putting brush to canvas.
I agree that manipulating media gives painting a physical expression. A proof work. In music, sound is manipulated. The sound of real instruments in a stage performance can add an extra layer of expression to the music. But a sound recording of the concert will move us as well.
Likewise, a good AI art can be expressive and compelling
Agree. GPT-3 has written remarkably creative and compelling poetry.