ART IS DEAD (without AI)

/ samhamperart
New Website coming 11th Feb 2024
www.samhamper.com/
Strange times are coming but art, regardless of its medium, can offer comfort and understanding in any time of confusion. Here I Explore the impact of technological progress, particularly Artificial Intelligence, on traditional and digital art. What will AI bring to the artistic realm? How do we maintain a connection to human emotions and the 'real world' subtleties of life? Do we need to?

[@SylvesterLazarus]

I personally call myself a kitsch maker instead of an artist since the idea of kitsch is closer to my heart, but it's not that important.. Some time last year I decided that I want all my works that I ever made to be public domain. I don't have an audience, I doubt I'll ever get one. I make youtube videos about my digital paintings, I showcase my works by themselves on social media, I'll definitely pull myself together some day to upload all my works properly in HD on one place.. knowing that most likely nobody will ever download a single one of them to use it for anything, I doubt that there will be a single person who will even look at all of my pieces. I just want to share them with anyone who wants to see them. I hope that person will one day find me. Back to my stuff, I have some graphite drawings to finish too beyond the digital works.

[@radradder]

I just checked your channel you art is really nice. It recommends of old graphic adventure games but with a smooth polish of graphic novels.

[@SylvesterLazarus]

@@radradder Thanks for that! I mostly call it digital semi-realism, I'm sure both of those mediums approach imagery in a similar way.

[@kirtjames1353]

True art will only be appreciated more and go up in value.

[@homemacai]

This level of eloquence is art in itself.

[@spacekitt.n]

this guys voice is so calming good lord

[@drawinghorseproject]

Nice Sam, the moment you talked about with a piece inside a museum or gallery is grounding, I would add the amount of personal solitude and time involved in many of those works resonates as well, the human senses that were activated, present, and heightened as they engaged in their process

[@artsoundmedicinewoman]

Wow, an incredible piece of cinematographic art poetry. Chapeau!! I have recently gone through a phase where my eyes couldn't handle screens, I simply couldn't read or watch anything on them. Using my phone was pure torture. It entirely brought me back to art journaling and reading paper books, and it fully made me aware of my souls aching to make art with my hands. To feel the paper, the canvas, the paint, the movement of the brushes and pencils and fingers, and how it tickles my brain and heart turning it into a full (human!) body experience. Thank you for making me realize the worth of all that on an even deeper level. Wishing you a wonderful journey and yes please, keep painting :)

[@TheIgnoramus]

Thank you for sharing. As a someone who dares to consider themselves an artist, this helped me. Hearing your “success”. Thank you. ❤

[@pedxing]

Thank you.

[@daemoncluster]

Keep painting. Don't ever stop. ❤️

[@Kewpiiie]

This is just a flowery puff piece that ignores the main issue that you just skimmed over 10 minutes into the video. When the creators of mid journey openly talked about purposely losing the names of the artists who art they used to not have to credit them, when dead artist can’t opt out of their art being stolen because websites that existed for decades are suddenly auto opt in for your work to be harvested, when poor, queer, disabled, people of color can be starving while the rich pays to reproduce our art with out our consent, then the “tools” are just glorified plagiarism. A system that is BUILT on exploitation is the problem. You say that digital art “hasn’t stood the test of time” as if we haven’t had decades of video games, graphic design, graphic novels, movies, art galleries, tv shows, animation, ect for over 40+ years, digital art and media is one of the biggest industries in the world, A.I couldn’t even stand the test of copy right and crediting the artist. Quite literally no one would care about computer generated images if it wasn’t constantly an abuse of power. No previous art form is based off of plagiarism and lack of consent, no previous art form has women afraid of posting their face because people are making “artistic pornography” with their faces, no other art form has white “artist” generating photo realistic images of African fashion on a runway instead of hiring black models. Some how the “humanity” you’re saying we don’t see through a screen doesn’t hold against sexual harassment, racism, and exploitation. The ignorance of the ethnical problems you and other A.I supports ignore is such a sign of privilege it’s actually gross. Problems artist have been facing in relatively easy to handle pockets, (I.E Art theft, plagiarism, copy right issues, exploitation, ect) has been turned into a subscription based commodity with no ethics.

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

I don't believe things are as black and white as you pretend they are, I don't agree that the reason why people are interested in using computer/A.I. generated images and video has anything to do with it being "an abuse of power" whatever that's supposed to mean. It is rather telling to me that none of the ethical issues you associate with A.I. Art, save for deepfake pornography, are at all unique to it as a medium.

[@tp.lovecraft1446]

this comment reminded that i should engage more critically with what hes saying instead of letting it seep into my head as background information

[@Kewpiiie]

@@tp.lovecraft1446 tbh that’s all i can ask. Some people speak very confidently and convincingly, while avoiding genuine ethical concerns and while ignoring the impact things have on marginalized communities. It’s easy to sound good while answering your own concerns and not the ones brought up by marginalized people. Literally just thinking about other groups of people and how they are impacted is the first step against oppression.

[@nicejungle]

'Good artists copy, great artists steal' - Picasso

[@kirtjames1353]

The truth is that is was only a matter of time before the AI revolution was going to happen. People will continue to hold true artists in high esteem and will appreciate their work even more.

[@HoofCreaition]

Loveley. Great somebody looks to the state and meaning of art in an eloquent and decent manner. State-of-the-art story!

[@pawz212]

i was so mad about the title and now after i watch the video im so mad i was mad about the title

[@jammin5252]

love these insights, nice one

[@amanitamuscaria5863]

7:00 People also can't read my cursive hand writing today. Hell, even I can't read my own hand writing.

[@DavidTamang]

Well spoken.

[@jameshughes3014]

Art is the expression of human emotion. As long as humans have emotions, art will live on. In the world of music which I also love, it might be easy to lump Trent Reznor into the same category as those people who make elevator muzak. I mean, they both use computers and synthesizers to make music. But to me, Trent is a real artist. The same will happen with AI tools. Real artists can, and have already used it to do some unique things. Sure, synths were used to make a ton of heartless, soulless synth trash in the 80s and 90s. But that didn't stop real musicians from using them to create some great stuff. And it didn't stop people from playing real , actual, analog instruments. The trash will fade into oblivion. Real art will never die. What matters is if you put your heart into what you do, no matter what tools you use to do it.

[@samhamper]

Well said 🎉

[@artstudent1237]

Art will live but as a livelihood it will be near impossible to make a career of it. Good enough for less money is what most will choose.

[@roxtar79ify]

Love this episode. You sir are not only an artist but also a philosopher.

[@heavenseek]

I appreciate your subtle diplomacy and your sense to let it play out. The people will eventually decide: according to their own sense of value / authenticity / purity.

[@rubb3rmind]

I Love your Content Man! New subscriber earned

[@vulbvibe]

There is no such thing as an AI Artists. You can use AI in art but if the AI is creating the work then it is simply theft. The theft is sometimes even the point of AI art which is why they don’t tell you the sources for their training models. Everyone’s acting as though AI art is its own style when really it’s a bargain bin collage of other people’s hard work. You’re stealthy focusing on the emotional impact people get from art and not the thing AI in art is actually built for, monetization. The thing humans need to survive. If AI art was really about advancing the craft, then the fact it can’t be monetized in the same way as a Picasso shouldn’t be a problem.

[@radradder]

Van Gogh's artstyle is more popular than that all living artist today. So besides photorealism, and the (generic) anime style: AI will naturally gravitate to popular dead artists because for better or worse the artists most people wants to imitate are all dead not the ones still making a living making original art. Sure a minority of people will use these tools to copy artist still alive but it's the same way a minority of people will use a kitchen knife to hurt others. You won't convinces people to ban AI images.. because photo filters uses AI, people wants to imitiate dead artists, mimes are easier to create, create custom avatars, ads are easier to make, attractive body photographs.. the kitchen knife is too useful.

[@imoses]

I come in peace! However, I take issue with your first three sentences. If your second sentence is true, then the same could be said of hip-hop producers like J. Dilla, or The Bomb Squad or RZA. One could say the same of collage artists who use bits from magazines and newspapers or found thing artists or photo manipulation artists, because they are all repurposing other things to create something new. But I disagree with that assertion. Seems silly to me to use permission to utilize elements or lack of permission as the basis to say the resulting creation is or is not art. I hear and understand what you're saying about giving credit to the original artists if you're using their work. We are not in complete disagreement on that point. As to whether or not AI art is not art because the AI is doing the creating, yes and no. At its most fundamental, it's the difference between a GWC (gal/guy with camera) and an artistic photographer. One simply wants to snap a picture to capture the moment ("say cheese!"). The other, first of all, has an eye for what is abstract, striking, ironic, proportionate, disproportionate, relays mood and impact. They see physical and emotional symmetry. He or she has mastered the ins and outs of the camera, lighting, composition etc and are able to utilize this expertise and their natural skill to tell a more complete story. That artist photographer knows how to make their camera to speak things that impact people and are able to evoke emotion and make people think. Similarly, the majority of people making AI "art" are not artists. They are the AI art versions of GWCs. I have been a photographer and a photo manipulation/photo collage artist and graphic designer for 20+ years. I also create music, poems and short stories. My own art has been scraped and is in the brain of Midjourney, stable diffusion, etc. I accept that and keep it moving, recognizing that at it's fundamental, the way AI art generators process information to get to the image is but a digital reflection of how the human brain works when it pictures or imagines things. AI art generators are for me another tool that I use in a very similar way that one might use Photoshop to composite several images into a single artwork or manipulate images into stories. I also use my AI art in conjunction with my photography and in conjunction with Photoshop. A number of other artist/graphic designers, whom I know personally, use it in a similar way. So to me, the determining factor of what makes AI art, art primarily is whether or not the person generating it was already an artist before they came to AI.

[@davidselander3951]

It's nice to hear someone have a nuanced take on AI and creativity. It would be interesting to hear what you have to say about the following paragraphs if you find the time. While perhaps possible in the future, I believe AI right now is not taking over the creative roles of humans. Maybe it shifts the roles? I don’t know. AI is rather automating the craft component in the creation of things which can express creativity. Craft to me is not creativity. They sometimes come with each other, and you can be creative with the craft of something, but craft seems more like the documentation aspect of creation, a sign or representation for the thing that is eventually creative. If you have an idea that is creative and intentionally make an image of it with AI, it is creative in the same way as if you drew it by hand, or painted it or sculpted it. The creative quality that shines through an image does not come from the quality of the craft but rather in the quality of the creative observation that is being materialized in the image. This is different from AI's role in creative production today. Most AI images are not creative, because there is little creative effort or intention in them. It is usually by and large a regurgitation of previously expressed and often exhausted signs and symbols, because those are the most statistically likely outcomes in the AI's probability calculation. The AI images that I have seen where I feel creativity is being expressed are not so easy to come by. They are not so apparent that they should be selected out of thousands of generations and not so easy to understand that they should be viewed as creative. If they were easy to make, there would be more of them. By automating the time-consuming craft of something, individuals get more creative autonomy. While in previous paradigms you had to have money to employ people with technical expertise to realise grand creative projects, this opportunity will now become available to a much larger audience.

[@Mooooty]

love your philosophical observations.

[@chukwunta]

Dude, you are crazy intelligent. 😮 I hope you know that. Awesome channel 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

[@DusanPavlicek78]

Very nice video! Only at the very end of it, it occurred to me that you look a bit like Van Gogh in that hat and with that beard. It was probably purely accidental. But now I can't unsee it 😁

[@deprogramr]

Cool channel, Sam. Feels like you're a friend or something...

[@jobautomation]

Thanks

[@dsepko1]

Any painting you have ever seen cmyk printed or on an rgb screen is not what what it is. When you see it you see it. Art is and will always be an original. Completely depends on the ambient light in the room and the age of your eyes. Originals are still the only way to see the human experience. 🤘

[@MagicPigGames]

I share your thinking -- your videos -- with folks at the day job who are scared (often aggressively so) of AI. At a company that has an AI service that does images, text, and more.

[@StephenStaver]

I love art. I've tried dabbling in every art method I can. I suck at making art. There's like a disconnect in my head between knowing what I like and being able to appreciate art, and being able to actually create something to meet those standards. That's probably why I love playing with AI art. It gives me a chance to essentially create something new that has never existed before, while being free from the constraints of my ability. That doesn't stop me from still trying to make physical art. I have tons and tons of paint and canvas sitting behind me in my home office, taunting me, and waiting for me to just dive in and try painting. It's just taking so much mental effort to realize that the act of painting is for me, rather than worrying about what other people might think of it. It doesn't need to be "good enough". It is just something that I can say I made this. It may look like a kindergarten child made, but I still made it. And maybe I'll get better eventually. Maybe I won't. But I'll still be able to make fun and silly things with AI as well to scratch that itch. There will always exist the human desire to make art. AI isn't going to take that away, it's only going to make it easier for more people to be able to experience art in their own way.

[@ThePortjumper]

I think AI art won't be about how good you can draw, that'll belong to more traditional mediums. Since everyone can make high quality images or video with AI that will be pedestrian in the medium. I think it'll be something else that makes AI artist's 'good', perhaps it'll be a directorial role rather than a craftsman's role.

[@suzannebreeze3316]

I think we're all going to be okay too.

[@phillblake6829]

The comparison between the expressionists and AI is definitely the reach of the year so far 😂.

[@nicejungle]

awesome video and awesome message

[@ethanmurray72]

ai cant make mistakes. only intentional "mistakes". this is what separates it from art.

[@edshanks2189]

Great video! You should start a podcast.

[@Allenmayesallenmayes]

the market demands subterfuge.you wont find genuine art in the marketplace

[@danielbast352]

I like AI art, but this cannot replace any hand drawn art. Today or the first cave paintings.

[@Mooooty]

AI has already replaced hand drawn art...Adapt, Evolve or Go Extinct.

[@braveheroanimator4166]

​@@Mooooty Not replaced, but become apart of it. Yes, you need to adapt, yes you need to evolve, but never let it go extinct.

[@badobadoinkbabiboingbioohb6054]

@@Mooooty 🤓☝

[@onikaizer]

If malarkey would be a form of art, this discourse would be it. I love how you dismiss the market to focus completely on what art has become: a discourse to make you feel important.

[@samhamper]

I do enjoy the discourse around art, sorry if I came across entitled to you, just sharing what I find interesting. If you feel that the power of art is highly correlated to ‘market’ value then i don’t think my channel is for you. There are plenty of other channels who do

[@jacotromp59581]

All this means is that those who truly can make original art will be able to sell their art for a lot more. Because it's one of a kind and people will get tired of thing that are all the same. Sure, everyone can buy a table at IKEA, but those who can make a one of a kind of table will make serious money. Same with art. Never give up on traditional art people, you may just become one of a kind in a world where everyone can make "art". I am excited to make my own art grow in the next few years.

[@artstudent1237]

There are many who are great artists now and they struggle. The client pool isn’t going to be big enough for every artist no matter how good they are. Most clients are not going to pay for great when they can get good enough for free.

[@dnavid]

I concur.

[@garygarcia3142]

I couldn't agree more stay strong to all my fellow artist 👍👍👍✊✊✊🔥🔥🔥

[@VultureSkins]

Title and thumb nail is an extremely hard sell

[@f1shze4lot]

Thank god

[@rijodan]

Anyone who really thinks that "if a machine can do it, then what's the point in drawing" is not an artist. Because we all know very well that the point is making it and put our soul into it. NOT having it magically appearing it before our eyes. And that's what AI does. AI is a product of savage capitalism and the only purpose it serves is money. It's not art. AI in art is something we didn't need. Art doesn't need to be democratized. Because any artistic craft is a personal journey. It's either you pursue it if you have passion or don't.

[@artstudent1237]

Sure keep drawing as long as you know it will be very hard to nigh impossible to make a living off it. Because potential clients do not care about the "magical journey of the artist" when they commission an art piece. They only care about if you can do it and how much it costs. If A.I. can do it for cheap or free then that's what they'll use. So yes, you can still be an artist and have a passion for it but be content with the possibility that you may not be able to make a living off it. That's the big issue

[@CatTriping]

There is division, there was division and there will be division.

[@nikicherry1234]

mhm.

[@kyer9677]

Find it hard to enjoy the AI art movement when it births from companies that absolutely do not have our best interests in mind (no matter how much they try to convince us they do...) AI art is art. But it has a stench surrounding it that I cannot overlook.

[@nicejungle]

There are stable diffusion models fully free and open source. Learn some shit about a subject before criticizing

[@kyer9677]

@@nicejungle eat shit

[@itonyhowlett]

@@nicejungle There are some* not most. Most are exploiting the existing and the dead artist. learn about a subject before rallying behind it blindly.

[@nicejungle]

@@itonyhowlett "There are some* not most." Did I write "most", no, I wrote "there are". Please go back to school And by the way, intellectual property is theft

[@Hakajin]

I'm not sure if I've ever heard anyone argue that AI art is art, and it's refreshing to hear that perspective. I mean, sure, I get all the issues with like copyright; I understand why artists are upset about it. But it seems to me that the problem here is money. Not that that makes it unreal; money is something we have to deal with. But my point is that I don't think there's anything inherently bad about AI art. In fact, as someone for whom diffraction (the new comes out of the intra-action of difference), I'm very interested in its potential. If I had any critiques here... Maslow's hierarchy of needs is outdated, and it's not true that pre-civilization we were all struggling to survive. That having been said, I don't think now is "worse." It's worse in some ways, certainly, but then... We can communicate with people all over the world, instantaneously. What I really think is that there's nothing "unnatural" about any of it, because humans and our civilizations are a part of nature; we're the only ones that make any kind of distinction.

[@ThePortjumper]

that's such a quixotic take. The issue for those working artists is 'money' this technology will cause a lot of human suffering and job loss, and not for artists, obviously for a wide variety of folks, even if it is an inevitability, that doesn't take away from their VERY REAL, life threatening, existential anxiety. I mean, AI, potentially, will encroach on your field and mine, and we'll feel the same way that is more immediate for working artists --and if you think your field is too complex, specific, niche, etc that's very naive. The technology isn't inherently bad. No technology really is. But, technology in REAL LIFE is mostly used as a tool (in bad faith) for profit, not for utopian, humanitarian endeavours. And, for the time being, it'll be bad for a ton of REAL people like you and me. Already, the companies who 'promised' to make these technologies 'free for everyone' are changing their tune. I feel like most people excited about tech always have pie-in-the-sky views about their use in the real world, where nefarious intent for profit and use is the norm, now more than ever. So, no, AI might not be 'philosophically' bad, but it is bad for these very real artists. Also, to think that the society and civilization we live in today is just 'the natural course of nature' is incredibly naive. No, it was designed by politics, opportunity, and as a hodge podge experiment, just like every other govermental form --and just like monarchies are mostly extinct, they change volitilely in centuries/decades because they are imperfect forms.

[@SisavatManthong-yb1yn]

The kar name art'! 🙀😺👾

[@amanitamuscaria5863]

Well, what's the point of drawing when I can pay an artist on fiver to draw for me?

[@calebzone]

Your takes will age like fine wine. And not just because 'every generation fears the new art form of their time, and it's happening to us again'. Thinking in this way helps resist the urge to fear the unknown. But I think we can go deeper. I'm optimistic for more reasons than trusting in change. I have a specific theory about the future of ai art in our world. Any given art software has a lot of functions, the ability to undo, the possiblity of adding existing images, etc.- but when it comes to the final product, the potential still relies heavily on the user's ability to draw/paint. It cut's out the need to buy a huge range of brushes, pencils, and paper, but tools aside, you still need a level of skill similar to artsits of the past to make anything 'good'. Meanwhile, ai art is literally just using a language you already know, twisting it slightly, and getting instant, high quality results. One day, people will use 3-d modelling software as a hobby, purely for the art and challenge of it. It's like creating pottery the way people did thousands of years ago, choosing not to use the tools we've invented that make it easier. The more we explore ai art, the more it's limitations will present themselves. If you're trying to create a realistic portrait of someone, throwing a bucket of paint at all wall might make that kinda hard. But it's perfect for capturing energy and expression. Ai art may be the least limited art form in history, but it will still have weakness (and strengths) that stand out. Those who know how better to pull out those strengths and avoid the weaknesses will create things that resonate more with a larger group of people. A 'good' director has more people enjoy their movie. There will be people we consider the 'best' creators. But the skill floor of ai image prompting is much lower than a director. This means everyone with an internet connection can compete to be the best. Art is subjective, but the longer everyone can compete on an even playing field with ai, the more 'skilled' users of it will shine. That all being said, I feel like there's also a ceiling for ai images. It's not THAT hard to get a beautiful/cool output. The real future for ai art is ai video. Everyone talks about custom ai tv shows that generate episodes tailored perfectly for whoever happens to be watching. Maybe that's coming too, but I don't think that is going to produce the best stories. I think once ai video generation has as much range and simplicity as image generation, a new artform will be born. Imagine something somewhere between a movie, a tv show, and a youtube video. A category with such infinite potential, and so many people scrambling to be the best, that any rules and standards will fall away. It will be a human's vision, not a script/idea conceptualized by an ai. These tools will allow any idea to be realized fully, without limitations of budget, the right actors, the technology of the era, or disagreements between collaborators. If the quality of ai video improves, and this is the route we go, I don't see hollywood suriving. But the creators at the top, the ones who have trained their minds to be effective story tellers, aren't going to be replaced. They'll be fully unleashed. Limitations create cool stuff, but because nearly everyone will have access to the same tools, SOMEONE's gonna make something good. And someone else is gonna want to top it. It'll be a species-wide arms race to be the best story tellers. We're already seeing this online. Now that everyone has a camera and a place to share their work, so many new ideas are spreading every day. Sure, people are also getting good at abusing video and using it to manipulate people into wasting their time and emotions and money. Thanks to ai, spam online is about be fucking EVERYWHERE. But eventually, the best creators who are doing it for the right reasons, and creating things actually pushing art forward will rise to the top. I know this is vague but it'd be hard to speculate on what form this new style of creation might take. Maybe it will just be people uploading to youtube. Maybe the movie studios will get a hold on the best creative minds and maintain their hold on high quality productions. Whatever the case, a new category of video is coming. I'm sorry to all the designers, artists, and online creators that are going to lose their jobs. Maybe if my income relied on visual art, I'd have a different tone. But when talking specifically about the quality of art that humanity can create, I believe shit is about to go crazy.

[@BlackMita]

TRUUUUUUUUEEE

[@ShopDogProductions13]

I’ve been using the adobe ai apps and even though I have seen some things I liked, I will still fill my studio with traditional art because I don’t think traditional is going to go away. AI is just another tool. An environmentally unsafe and at times unethical, tool. But I certainly use it to generate thumbnails. I still want to see practical effects in film in a world of digital. I think we will see a variety of tools used in the future. Why use only one tool if you can use the whole toolbox?!

[@DailySketch101]

I listened to this guy at 2x speed and i can say he's a true comedian lol

[@videosideeffect]

I like you :)

[@henriquejsanchez]

Very true, as someone that just released an AI artbook its insane how much I get shit on. I even discuss many of the arguments against AI art within the artbook itself. One of the ways I have navigated the release of the artbook has been by placing all the images inside of it under the public domain for free digital download, and to use all the revenues from the sales to purchase legacy art.

[@ALWO-xn9nk]

i never liked futuristic art and i think a.i. picture art is shit. for video, music, stories a.i. is more promising in my opinion but creating virtual or real very good painting nah i don't beleive it will.

[@search895]

Art was not needing AI at all. We live in the most prolific era of all arts EVER. No one has time to enjoy every single canvas, mural, comic book, movie, series, book, musical release of a single year. We were not needing more speed nor more ease. There was nothing preventing anyone to make art of any genre in developed countries. Sorry i have no time nor intention to watch the video. I'm a human and it takes me real time to contemplate and process information and got better things to do. And if I'm probably seeing the tired arguments that "no one makes good music anymore" or "modern art sucks", sorry but everyone sheltering those ideas should look beyond their noses.

[@samhamper]

You should try watching it 🙃

[@kevinh.9939]

AI isn't a tool for artists, it's a replacement for artists. You're deluding yourself.

[@blazearmoru]

so many artists say that art is what defined a human, but all i see are subhumans pointing at the next group of humans and saying "that's not art" every single step of the way. All i see are barking dogs. edit great vids btw. One of your videos reminded me of how people had to be very creative with how they made their 'paint' as to get not only the color but the texture they desired. And then when a mistake was made, they couldn't simply press an UNDO button but had to incorperate the mistake into something intentional and beautiful. It's shit like these that make it so hard to look at modern artists who screech about their art being the ONLY ART, that makes it difficult to see them as human beings. With all the people who are saying art requires skill, I'd like to see them go to every child of 3, of 4, of 5, of whatever age they feel is inadequate in terms of ART SKILL and tell them their shit is in fact shit. And if they won't, I hope they will resign as human beings. If they won't then we know they're liar and conmen who don't have a human bone in their body even after they recognize they were wrong. I await the day modern artists compensate future artists in the same way I await previous artists to compensate photographers.

[@VultureSkins]

“Subhumans”? “Dogs”???? Jesus Christ man, touch some fucking grass

[@Andonchoto]

blahblahblaaa

[@mrd736]

To be honest, the more I used AI art, the more I felt this need to go back to basics. So I did. We're all on our unique creative journeys. Sure, we have to move with the times, but we must never lose our own ways. There must be a balance.

[@TheSonic1685]

If you can't understand why comparing an ai artist to a digital photographer or a painter is just insulting then you have no appreciation for the thousands of hours it takes to get good at those things.

[@flamart9703]

This video is a very good speech mixed with sarcasm! :) Kudos! I'm not that eloquent, so I'll recreate it roughly. "AI artists are generating images and videos and voices without the need for any artist at all", "AI artists" aren't artists, but anyone who can type some words and wait for AI algorithm to do all the work. AI is taking away human creativity, here is the problem - AI isn't a tool, it's replacement. Back in the day digital tools replaced traditional tools, not artists and their creativity. Now, any random person can get ready-made images made by AI - like a pig that receives ready-made food from its owner, without any mental or physical effort, just eats and lies around all day. Yeah, now everything is about to change - welcome to era of creative decline, the game is almost over. Art stores are flooded with AI "art" made by people who have no idea what art is, clients use AI to generate their content, where is creativity here? Just factory production. They just generate AI until the AI "artist" is satisfied, or bored with choosing between hundreds of AI products. Technologically we are moving away from our origins, but this is just technological development, not development of the human kind. AI will make great things, indeed - soon web will be over flooded with images made by AI, and AI will learn mostly by its own soulless abomination, which could lead to a human revolution and Renaissance. :)

[@My_Darkest_Hearts]

As a proud AI Artist I needed to see this. Thank you sir!

[@kenzorman]

Just no. Ai is already eating away the livelihoods of artists, eating the profession from the bottom up. Ai is a pay to win game in which everybody losses except the billionaires

[@bloxidine]

Huh...? Ai art can and WILL never take away your livelihood. This just sounds like cope. For some ai art, you don't even have to pay for anything. So, I don't really get your point about "billionares".

[@kenzorman]

​@@bloxidine sigh . 1. flood any market with cheap reproductions and the entire market is devalued. 2. Junior concept artists and illustrators are being replaced right now. Ai is cheaper , easier , and quicker than hiring a freelancer. This effect will grow into all digital industries. 3 You don't pay for facebook yet Mark Zuckerberg is one of the richest people in the world. Information has value , and LLMs need lots and lots of data. Ai is an amazing tool for harvesting data from users. 4. I'm already replacing Indian rotoscope teams with Ai. The human work is immaculate, much much better than Ai but, Ai is 100 times cheaper. 5. As the price of digital art is drive down it will become impossible not to use Ai. Humans will be too expensive. 6. To be a human 'expert' takes about 10 years. Ai will improve and expand faster than people can reskill. So what do we do ? Ai scales with computing power. If you want to win you need bigger computers and bigger data sets . you don't need to be smart ..just rich. but the richest people will be the ones selling you Ai tools .

[@samhamper]

You make some interesting points here. Your original point states Ai is taking the livelihoods away from artists, here you now say ‘I’m already replacing Indian rotoscope teams with Ai’ - because it’s cheaper. To blanket blame Ai and the billionaires for replacing artists and to not see your own contribution, in not using artists to make your company richer is perhaps a beautiful irony.

[@kenzorman]

​@@samhamper Indeed its a fare point , but but you miss the point where i say that the cost is being driven down from the top. If the client says we want the moon on a stick but we only what to pay for cheese what do you do? I want to favour humans but I'm also running a small business in the worst economic climate I can remember. Bigger people than me are going under. I'm not using Ai to make me richer I'm using Ai to survive. Ai needs legislating to protect humans.

[@samhamper]

I understand, there will be a lot of change to artistic industries. I don’t mean to dismiss these problems. My focus on art here is not on its economic value and the effect on artistic industries, which just as lawyers, accountants and doctors are not excluded from what some people are calling the 4th Industrial Revolution. I was trying to keep the focus on how art is useful on human level.

[@insecuredoge1718]

Art is art and if you treat it like a product to sell then you can't complain when some cheaper products came to the market. Art is not a tool to boost your ego, it's something that help you look inward of yourself and not a tool to let other people see you, evaluate, judge or put a price tag on it.

[@ThePortjumper]

no, it is a tool to let other people see you; it's a form of communication as well --that doesn't exclude its use as self-reflection. Also, that argument is kinda crap. These are REAL people with REAL jobs that involve their art on which they make a living. Most of them probably dedicated a large amount of time, effort, and money into making this their full-time gig. Those people definitely have a lot to complain about. Sure, it's sold for commerce, but they are ARTISTS as well: they create for their own enjoyment and self-reflection while working their day job and on their time off. But, we all live in a horrible, spiraling commerce based society where we have to work to survive and thrive, and that currently means having a career. I'm sure if/when AI comes into your line of 'day-job' work you'll be right there with them: it's nice to talk about the philosophy and possibilities of this technology, but let's face it it's wider implications will have horrible consequences for day to day living that will last for generations before petering off, including misinformation, automation of entire white collar/ working class fields, propagandists, etc. and the main use of AI in the real world, without a doubt, will be to make profit 100 percent. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be here in the first place --that's how all technology is used primarily under a capitalist society and I think it's going to be bad for a majority of folk for a long time.

[@insecuredoge1718]

@@ThePortjumper Apologize for not making it clear. I'm speaking on behalf of myself, someone who doing art for more than a decade now and making a living out of it. The thing that you are mixing up and confusing yourself is stealing and making. Thieves will steal, no matter how. AI just enable bad people doing bad things more efficent.

[@ThePortjumper]

@@insecuredoge1718 Yeah, I see what you're saying. I agree on the intrinsic human value of art, and that is the true value of art (philosophically/idealistically). I'm also an artist (writer/recently picked up watercolor) -who doesn't make a living out of his art. But, I do sympathize with these people (who make art to live and are being replaced.) I do feel like they have a right to complain loudly and fight back against AI in their fields in whatever way possible. Yes, this is what is sad to me. I see all the 'possibilities' of AI in art, but then I see the 'current realities' of AI in art, and it is frankly disgusting, like the beginning of a decimation. I guess, I see why these people are fighting against AI art. If I were in a similar position I'd also fight: after all, they're work is being stolen without compensation and they're up against the monster of industry that created their liveable condition as working artists in the first place, where they are able to nurture their talents and once in a while eek out true art --after all, no artist, no matter how commercial they become eventually, goes into art to pull in the big industry dollars, it is almost always out of love for their creations.

[@DoriterEater]

When I heard "Art is dead" I laughed, because human's have innately made art for time immemorial. We believe art means it must be valued by others. It has lost it's purpose, you are right. The irony is that if you are making art for money, you aren't making art you are making a product. Your creation is preceded by what you assume other people want and it's so impersonal that it's not "real art" any longer. That is not completely purposeless, but people think they want to make art as their job because they enjoy making art. They are mad that AI is taking that opportunity away from them, and the reality is that people that make art for money tend to eventually dread their job as much as they would any other job. There are real ethical implications with AI, and that's a conversation to be had, but it's not the entire conversation. What we resist persists, and AI has been unleashed. Art is never going to die, and I think people need to ask themselves why they make art at all. For self-expression or for validation? I realize what I am saying is angering, but personally when I learned that I don't need my future to play out in a specific way to find happiness and meaning in my life I felt free. If you believe being an artists that sustains themselves on their art is the only route to happiness, you will never be happy.

[@stez7199]

AI will allow human artists to express themselves in more complex and nuanced ways than we can currently imagine. Just as the medium of film greatly elevated the means of expression available to humanity before its arrival, the art that we will see in the near future will be so immersive and potent that we will never be able to go back.

[@ArielTavori]

AI is the BIRTH of art. It's the democratization of time itself, allowing entire life paths to great numbers that were previously only available to the few. I have been lucky to know many incredible artists. The vast majority of them never made a single penny from art. Of the few actual professionals I've known who have any talent or skills to speak of, most of their best work is completely selfish and passing, and rarely recorded or shared. The food, education, equipment, physical and mental health to discover new passions and develop new skills and friendships. 🎨≠💰

[@timsmith502]

Al is sub human

[@braziliandutchy6170]

True art didn't exist before AI 😠

[@jodie2025]

Is this sarcasm? I wouldn’t want to think that anyone is really that uneducated.

[@jodie2025]

And by uneducated I really mean stupid.

[@JohnHoganArtist]

AI is not Art.

[@nicejungle]

it's like saying a brush is not art it's like saying photoshop is not art Everyone agrees on that. The tool does not make the artist

[@JohnHoganArtist]

@@nicejungle Clarify please. A brush is directly connected to the artists hand and mind. Ai is created by computer programmers (non-artists) who borrow art to create a poor copy.

[@nicejungle]

@@JohnHoganArtist painters don't create their brushes

[@JohnHoganArtist]

@@nicejungle The Bottom line is you cannot compare painting to AI. Painting has a solemnity that no other medium can replicate.

[@OriginalDramagirl]

Thank you.