Realistic view on AI art as an Artist – Zee Bashew

6 Comments

• When the printing press was invented it put a whole class of skilled artisans out of work. Scribes never thought that a machine could replace their talented and valuable skills.

  January 20, 2023 at 8:09 pm

  Reply

• Love Zee’s work and this video was quite touching!

  January 20, 2023 at 10:02 pm

  Reply

• Art is a means by which an artist can scope and communicate and their innermost thoughts, feelings, desires and pains. An AI has no feelings. Aside from working off a prompt, it’s not really communicating any sort of nuanced message. AI might make some aspects of simple graphic art obsolete, and maybe it’ll write a few shitty Marvel movies – but I don’t think it’ll ever be regarded in the same way as high art.

  Would an AI conception of war ever be more valuable or moving than Picasso’s *Guernica*, or Wilfred Owen’s *Dulce et Decorum Est*? An AI has never felt any of the emotions associated with going to war; it’s just been fed a load of information about it. It would be like hearing about war from an innocent bystander; a well-informed one but a bystander nonetheless.

  Simply put, who gives a shit what an AI thinks?

  January 20, 2023 at 11:28 pm

  Reply

• While the idea of an “art union” that gets compensated for the AI data scraping is nice – there is enough royalty free / open source / no longer under copyright material out there that the AI art generators would still be pretty good.

  Also you could argue data scraping isn’t copyright infringement. It’s not copyright infringement if I have an idea that is inspired by something I saw, so why is it copyright infringement if 0.01% of an AI generated image was influenced by a copyrighted work?

  January 21, 2023 at 12:40 am

  Reply

• All artists have influences. In other words, all human-created work is a sub-conscious amalgamation of their memories.

  Nothing we create is every truly new. We have always known this as the foundation of art- rearranging that exists into new forms for emotional effect.

  Do current human artists pay royalties to all the artists they’ve ever seen and been consciously and unconsciously inspired by?

  On the flip side I can see the argument for paying royalties to artists when a prompt specifically includes the artists name.

  To insensitivity the creation of new style for which A.I to then imitate. Without that, new styles could completely stop in many areas of art.

  But it’s complex, as such a situation wouldn’t occur if a human artist sold art in the style of another.

  Or do new talented artists simply become acquired by A.I companies like companies do, giving their styles exclusive access to only certain platforms?

  Without some financial incentive it’s just not realistic to expect the younger generation to turn to art as a career. It will undoubtedly slow the creation of new styles – unless we can use A.I to form new styles also.

  In the inevitable transition from work dependance to national paid living allowance, such area of work will for a time result in much less human artists.

  Like the future of electric and hydrogen cars, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

  January 21, 2023 at 2:04 am

  Reply

• The idea of scraping content is pretty bad, I don’t like that at all. But as far as AI art goes, I feel like it’s similar to the invention of the photograph. Instead of sitting down for a skilled painter to render your portrait, someone can just point a box at you a press a button.

  Of course it doesn’t just come down to pushing a button, just as it doesn’t come down to telling an AI to make a great picture. It’s still going to take some skill to use these new tools.

  January 21, 2023 at 4:31 am

  Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.