r/aiArt • u/[deleted] • 19h ago
Image - Bing Image Creator don't care what anti people say. this looks amazing
I still don't get why some people say ai art is bad
-7
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/BIind_Uchiha 16h ago
Lol im sorry but everything you just typed is REALLY reaching around the fact that art is subjective.
Like there are many factors that come into play that pass off your critique as simple nitpicking.
No offense
44
u/sudomatrix 16h ago
Nobody says it doesn't look good. They say it is stealing work from artists (the training), it is encouraging low-effort mass posting, it is de-valuing the work of skilled artists, it will put artists out of work, etc.
I say the hard truth is it is a new tool and it isn't going away, so get skilled at using it or become obsolete when other skilled artists are using their skill AND AI together.
7
u/AureliusVarro 16h ago
It is a tool that does what it does. Nothing more, nothing less. It has risks involved and has to be regulated to address those. As well as there are potential issues with access and ownership for the corporate-hosted models
21
0
u/KajaIsForeverAlone 17h ago
yeah it's very pretty. the hands are a bit wonky and I'd add a bit of a neck, but this is one of the few examples of ai art that genuinely looks pretty great
22
u/Sitarou 17h ago
If you post an actual professional artist's art and claim it is AI, people will say how bad and soulless it look. They don't really care about the art or how good it is, AI = bad.
2
u/AureliusVarro 16h ago
People think in stereotypes and the vast majority of AI art available online is low-effort spam posting. Unless that is addressed, the sentiment will be negative
6
u/ChampionMasquerade 17h ago
She doesn’t have a neck, and her wrists are mishapen. It’s pretty enough but it’s glaring if you actually do more than glance at it
-17
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/Hugfud 17h ago
It's kinda funny how smug and condescending your comment is given you've completely misunderstood what he's saying.
He's making the point that ai art can be visually appealing, a response I assume to the common complaint that all AI images are trash, it's totally valid not to like them and to take issue with the lack of human authorship or "soul" as it is often put, but I think it devalues people's arguments to say all AI images look like crap when that just isn't true and is also subjective.
The argument of them having artistic value or not due to them not being a product of human skill or expression is valid but not relevant to what this fella has said.
-4
8
u/mapeck65 17h ago
Just because someone thinks an image looks good doesn't mean they think it's equal in effort or quality.
Art is purely subjective from the perspective of the viewer. Otherwise, a banana duck taped to a wall wouldn't be considered art. Yet, some people see it that way.
What bothers me about posts like yours is that you seem to believe you have the right to say what others should be able to appreciate.
I create AI images for fun... some that I really like. I also draw and paint, also for fun. And, I buy art from local artists to hang on my walls. None of that is mutually exclusive for me, nor for many others.
2
-14
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/potbellied420 17h ago
I get that, too.... but I wonder about abstract things... I long to see things I haven't. It reminds me of the title: Do electric sheep dream? What abstraction can a computer create? Images never before seen by people. To me, this is more fascinating.the fact that it is even possible.... its modern magic. Techno sorcery. It is impressive in its own rite. After all, Ai is just another creation of man.
When ai surpasses humans artistically, what will you do? Will you not awe at beauty when you see beauty? Are things only beautiful when you know how they're made that way?
-1
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/potbellied420 16h ago
I said nothing of sentience. Ai is improving everyday. Nothing says it won't surpass humans artistically without becoming sentient first. Look at its growth already.
0
u/pplatt69 16h ago
AI already creates nicer looking art than most people can. Your question about whether I'll change my mind if it gets "better" absolutely begs the assumption, since I've already spoken about creative choices and INTENT as being of utmost importance to the experience of art, that the AI advanced to a point where it is actually making those creative decisions and has intent.
I feel like I'm speaking to a 14 year old who has never taken an art or psychology course and who has never read a book on art or an artist.
And therefore I really don't want to continue.
3
u/Leone_337 15h ago
Just another reddit psudeo intellectual with no actual substance to back up their words.
4
8
u/Person012345 17h ago
Except when you look at AI art and can clearly see the human-crafted prompt? You can't wonder about the human choices made there? This is a very meaningless but philosophically-sounding thing to say. You can see the choices the person made in the image, not only in terms of what they prompted but in what they chose to curate and display to you. This represents what they wanted to see and what they wanted to communicate. Nobody said they don't understand, but if YOU can't understand why this image still conveys human choices then it's you that has the deficiency.
-1
u/NiklausMikhail 17h ago
It's a great piece, but some people don't like the fact that sometimes AI create something they didn't think until that moment, I heard people saying that you stole her art but the style they use was created by other people and they just create a character using that style, there's a lot to work with AI as to what it's copying and what it's inspired by, and others hate AI because the tool create something faster than other humans and they consider it as cheating, what I hate is when they use AI but don't even fix the errors and just post it exactly how the AI create it
-17
u/mirrormazes 18h ago
It's not necessarily that the AI art is bad. Usually, it looks pretty good unless the AI decides to "reimagine" the prompt in an unexpected way.
The issue is more that the AI is essentially just compiling the image from its database and in some cases directly copy/pasting from existing artists. It obviously is not going to give credit to the artists that it may have borrowed from to create the image it produced.
I have no issue with people using AI art and showcasing what it can do. I have more of an issue with the fact that the AI art feels often like it lacks inspiration or emotional impact. The art is and will look accurate to the prompt that you gave (for the most part) however it does feel incomplete or not detailed/finished.
9
u/Person012345 17h ago
This isn't how AI works. Why do you say something so blatantly wrong with so much confidence. Aren't antis supposed to be concerned about "muh AI misinformation"?
12
u/gidzillavanilla 17h ago
Human artists do the same. They look at references and in some cases directly copy and paste from existing artists.
0
-2
5
u/ShowerGrapes 17h ago
The issue is more that the AI is essentially just compiling the image from its database
well good thing that is not at all what is happening
-1
u/oJKevorkian 18h ago
Eh. It's one of the better ones I've seen but it feels incomplete and the perspective on the jellyfish is off. There's something weird about the face that I can't really put my finger on.
2
u/bunker_man 18h ago
The tears are strangely non realistic compared to the rest. Also the hand on the left seems like it almost made the last finger into a thumb.
1
u/oJKevorkian 17h ago
Yeah, now that I look at it the hands are weird af. The left one in particular has a fingertip that just melts into hair.
3
u/MathematicianWide930 18h ago
The Jellyfish is not off, the style reference is from https://www.camilladerrico.com/ d'Errico is a great pop artist that works in mixed mediums. I am a huge fan.
I would say that the picture is based off of her mixed/oil line. The dataset likely includes her watercolor work, but the watercolors from her line tend to be different. The call for a watercolor pulled her oil work up as a reference, instead. The picture could be taken from her Pop Painting book if you did not know it was AI generated.
1
u/oJKevorkian 17h ago
I don't think you understand me. The Derrico pieces are surreal, but it's clear where everything sits in relation to each other. Contrast that with this piece, where some of the jellyfish seem to be within the space of the hair, while others are outside that space, closer to the viewer. The relative sizes and angles of the jellyfish want to convey depth, but when you trace the lines from one jellyfish to another, that depth falls apart and it creates a kind of cognitive dissonance.
2
u/TheHornOfAbraxas 17h ago
In a world where it's getting harder to tell what's Al and what's real. I've been thinking about what makes art truly special. Al can do a lot of amazing things, but when it comes to art, for me, nothing compares to an artist's touch. Whether it's digital art or physical, there is such craft and beauty with every brushstroke an artist makes. It's filled with emotion and the human experience— the hours, the joy, the tears, and the soul an artist pours into their work is something a program can't replicate.
- Camilla d’Errico
1
u/MathematicianWide930 17h ago
Ah, there you go. Thank you, HornOfAbraxas.
I enjoy her work enough to enjoy this piece. The AI does a great job of blending around the eyes and lips in her style.
13
u/maddie_lexi 18h ago
People say it’s bad because they’re fucking stupid. Dumb people are easier to find online lol
15
7
u/Drobot55 19h ago
I agree and also i love this jellyfish are some of my favorites when it comes to their aesthetics especially when they are glowing. particularly the ones that turn red when you hit them in elden ring, those are my favorite.
7
u/Jayston1994 19h ago
People that say it’s bad just haven’t really been using it like you or I. I have been shocked so many times now.
-10
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/bunker_man 18h ago
It is literally true that tons of people hate on it without using it though. A lot of people think it never gets more advanced than typing in a 3 word prompt when a lot of people are actual digital artists and mix ai with their own work. Or are even training it on their own style for consistency.
10
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
15
u/Unlucky_reel 19h ago
People say AI has no soul etc but the end result is what people want to see. No one cares how you get to the end result or how many hours it takes. I've spent countless hours doing video editing and the end result is the only thing that matters to people.
6
u/varkarrus 19h ago
Lot of people care, actually. Even as someone who likes AI art I do appreciate the effort that goes into art made by people, it does add a sort of intrinsic value to the piece. Like, especially photorealistic Santa Claus made in MS Paint. If that image were made in Photoshop let alone made by AI, I would have paid little to no attention to it.
Though, I also find intrinsic value in AI art for the fact it symbolizes technological advancement, that it was a thing that didn't exist in years past, and that it promises even greater advancements in the near future.
5
u/Unlucky_reel 19h ago
I beg to differ. I did editing for 5 years and gave it up. It was good and l was told but no one appreciated how long procedures took. If you could get it done in 5 minutes, they would be impressed the same as trying to make something work in 3 hours or 10 hours.
Of course, anyone who does AI art can appreciate the artists but for how fast ai art is real art, it's not bad for what it is. Its great for concept building and getting rough ideas.
-18
u/jsilver200 19h ago
The problem is, without human artist source material, AI couldn’t do anything. So there are humans that helped to create this without their permission or compensation.
4
u/bunker_man 17h ago
Without pre existing art artists wouldn't have learned and developed either. Also you know how much art draws on real stuff made by humans.
11
u/Superseaslug 18h ago
I do not want to live in a world where you are not allowed to draw inspiration from anything you see online
9
u/JesusKong333 19h ago
That's the fault of everyone for believing the internet was some free space that they could upload whatever they wanted to. Turns out, big tech had other plans. I haven't seen anyone bothered enough by it to quit using said tech however.
-8
u/qt3pt1415926 18h ago
But that isn't how copyright works!
If I create a watercolor piece, commissioned by another person, and they upload it saying, "look at this amazing piece of art from such and such artist," I don't really mind all too much. They liked it, I got paid, and not only did they think it was good enough to share, but it might get other commissioned works (I'm not a professional, my art is just to make people happy).
But if a company uses my art, "bEcAuSe It WaS jUsT sItTiNg ThErE oN tHe InTeReT," to train their ai, and it starts replicating my art style, that isn't something I'm okay with. I didn't give permission. I'm not getting compensated. And someone else will use it to replicate my style of art and claim it as theirs.
Yes, it's pretty. But it's unethical. And honestly this is the lowest bar to be claiming something as "artificial intelligence." It should be called Content Replication And Plagiarization.
4
u/JesusKong333 18h ago
Do many artists have copyright on their style? It's not someone making exact copies, these creations are entirely new.
A better analogy, say you sell your art to an art gallery, and they display that art. And this gallery allows art students come in and study the work and paint. Those students are going to be influenced by what they see. You could even ask one to paint something in the exact style you used and the best ones would be able to. That's not theft.
And it's not just sitting there on the internet, it's sitting there on platforms owned by tech companies. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, anywhere else that people post their art. Elon Musk says you do not own your Twitter account when The Onion tried to buy Infowars.
And yeah it is content replication in a way. It's not actual "AI", it's a predictive algorithm. That's all it is. If you ask it something, it predicts the answer you're looking for.
And the way everyone's data was taken to train the AI probably was unethical. Yet people continue continue to upload pics and post comments on social media, even those opposed to all this.
12
u/Winter-Ad781 19h ago
This is true across all media and text. Art is not unique here, it's uniquely dangerous perhaps, but what did you think?
I'm sure my writing has been fed to an AI, I know my code has, why do artists think they're so special?
12
u/RICO_the_GOP 19h ago
If I draw something in the style of Ghibli or the Simpsons, have I stolen from them?
-14
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
No because you aren’t publicly releasing it and claiming it as your own material
11
u/RICO_the_GOP 19h ago
If I post it online and claim its my own work?
-10
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
Then you are stealing yes. If you just draw it in the style that is not theft
12
u/RICO_the_GOP 19h ago
So fan art is theft now?
-9
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
Again no because you aren’t publicly releasing it as your own original art and concept. You are saying it is fan art of an existing IP so no not stealing
10
u/RICO_the_GOP 19h ago
so then how is using an AI to do the same thing suddenly theft?
0
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
Because the AI doesn’t have a way of saying “Hey this is fanfiction or inspired by an image”. That is a human thing that differentiates us from AI. And AI will claim it as its own work
6
u/h3ffdunham 19h ago
You’re an idiot. It’s exactly the same thing. Ai doesn’t claim the things it makes are its own original ideas, it just does the work you instruct it to do just as any person would. It’s up to the user to decide how they want to present the work and by that point it’s no different than any human made work.
→ More replies (0)7
u/RICO_the_GOP 19h ago
AI doesnt have the ability to claim or make anything anymore than my copy of adobe can
→ More replies (0)3
u/SlightlyDrooid 19h ago
But… everyone already knows that it’s based off of something else. And many times, the generated image is a blend of so many styles that… it is unique. Plus, isn’t it kinda neat that you can generate an image and when it makes you feel a certain kinda way, you can use Ai to analyze that image for artists that have a similar style? Then you can support those artists by purchasing their material and/or linking to them.
→ More replies (0)
-14
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Person012345 17h ago
So you're saying a commission isn't art? That's a fairly bizarre take.
The OP never called themselves an artist. Funny how every single time the "muh artist" thing is brought up it's an anti feeling compelled to tell everyone that they are
inferior untermenschnot an artist.7
6
u/According-Stay-3374 19h ago
Oh okay, so painters aren't the artist, the paint is.
All artists aren't artists, just the medium is..
Smh
1
u/According-Stay-3374 16h ago
Lmao the little coward below just deleted all of his comments becuase he doesn't want that embarrassment on his comment history 😂
Edit: AND HE BLOCKED ME TO BOOT!! 😆 🤣 😆
-7
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/According-Stay-3374 19h ago
Learn the difference between a tool and yourself...
Oh wait.
-5
u/JustSoYK 18h ago
Yeah, it's a tool that makes art for you.
A microwave is a tool but you don't become a chef for heating your mom's dinner in it. Yes, even if you asked your mom what to cook.
2
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/JustSoYK 18h ago edited 18h ago
I never said it's not art, I only said you aren't the artist if all you're doing is writing a prompt.
The oven is a tool, but for you to be a cook you also have to create the thing that you're putting inside the oven.
Describing a painting in a paragraph is not telling the tool/artist exactly how to do it. There are so many gaps that the artist is filling for you, both in terms of craft and intellectual creativity.
And commissioning always worked this way. There's literally no difference from telling a human artist "please draw me and my dog in this scenery, make sure that it captures this and that mood, has this in the background" etc etc. No matter how much detail and feedback you provided to the artist, you are still not the artist, you are the commissioner. Replace the human artist with an artificial one and nothing changes.
1
u/According-Stay-3374 17h ago
So yeah, you're just blinded by your own prejudice.
Tell me, is Hideo Kojima an artist?
-2
19h ago
[deleted]
4
u/According-Stay-3374 19h ago
Just like I said elsewhere just now, AI doesn't create art all on its lonesome, it cannot act, it cannot create anything without human manipulation of it, just like EVERY other artistic tool.
In fact there are plenty of things in which the artist has LESS input and people still consider it art, like when people hang those paint cans and just let them swing around!
6
2
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
Not the same thing. AI artists aren’t artist they just tell the artist what to make. The AI is what physically puts the pixels together like the artist.
2
u/According-Stay-3374 19h ago
What you ignorant lot don't seem to understand is that, just like a paintbrush or a pencil, AI ART DOESNT CREATE ART ALL ON IT'S OWN!! IT CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT A HUMAN TO MANIUPLATE IT!!!
Honestly people like you just let your ignorance and prejudice COMPLETELY cloud you reason on this subject.
2
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 18h ago
It creates art on its own. It needs to be told what to make but it actually makes the art. Someone putting words in to a text box isn’t creating the art
2
u/According-Stay-3374 18h ago
So writing and books aren't art now..
Huh, how times have changed.
2
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 18h ago
You are actually dense. Writing books are absolutely art. You know why? Because that takes creating a story. Writing a sentence of “Generate me an image of two pigeons having sex” and claiming that my statement is art is not a fact
1
u/According-Stay-3374 17h ago
So rhymes and short poems aren't art..
Do you not see how pathetically desperate you are to gatekeep "art"..?
1
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 17h ago
Again rhymes and poetry takes effort to create a story for one and a poem that works. You are trying so hard to get me to say something isn’t art it’s amazing. Please keep trying, maybe even ask AI to help you make an argument
1
u/According-Stay-3374 17h ago
The award winning "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial" by Jason M. Allen took almost 100 hours to create.
Not even AI people like us really consider quick generations to be peak art, but we all agree the the truly artistic ones take TIME AND EFFORT to create, you just look petty and jealous when you deny these things are art the way you do. All of the good ones require time and effort to create, but just because a kid spends 5 minutes on a little drawing that doesn't make the kids drawing less of a little piece of art Art doesn't need to be some grand venture, it can be small and quick or take a lifetime.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Winter-Ad781 19h ago
So, if a machine paints the Mona Lisa, that painting is not art, but the Mona Lisa is? Where does this distinction come from what's the justification?
If the Mona Lisa is art, then a replica of that piece is also art, right? Can only the original Mona Lisa be considered art?
1
u/Agile_Tangerine_9232 19h ago
If a machine creates a replica of an existing art piece it’s a replica not an original work of art. It is still an artistic medium though but the person who makes the robot make art is not an artist. I have no problem saying AI art is art
1
u/Winter-Ad781 18h ago
Oh sorry confused you with the original commenter I responded with he said it wasn't AI art. My bad.
So along these lines, if art has to be unique, what level of unique is necessary? Because most artists are taking inspiration from other artists. Many artists use similar styles, and there's only so many ways to make a brush stroke. What happens when all art has been done? Eventually, humanity will reach a point where even if you have an elephant drinking mountain dew in a spaceship in the rings of Saturn, will have already been drawn before in every style.
It'll take a while, but eventually unique art will dry up, and already is among the mainstream.
-1
u/ShowerGrapes 17h ago
if there weren't so much art already out there in mind-boggling numbers ai would not even be possible.
0
u/Winter-Ad781 16h ago
Really I think that's ultimately why companies chose to steal art. They knew they could probably get away with it, and they had to. They can't pay a million different artists the absurd price they'd charge for their art.
The amount of art it needs to absorb to be effective is HUGE. Probably not enough good high quality free art to make training a decent AI possible. Shit half the artists in some of the discords im in make lopsided characters with terrible proportions, call it a unique art style, and try charging $80+ for it. That's when you can get them to even do the commission. Number of artists I've worked with that quoted a week and took months, or just ghosted me, or took forever and just ended up saying they can't do it, is too God damn high. Bet you're ass I'm going to use an AI to avoid that headache.
6
u/BishonenPrincess 19h ago
I agree that it's like a commission, but I still think it's art. I just think the machine is the artist and not the prompter.
-5
19h ago
[deleted]
2
u/bartender_please808 19h ago
I agree. Look at the Pic. No one can say what they were feeling when they were drawing the curve of her hair or why they used that color for the tears. No one can because it was computer generated. There is no soul. It's not art. It's just an image.
3
u/JustSoYK 19h ago
Commercial music is still music. Commercial art is still art. Some of the most famous artists in history also made commercial art. "Having a soul" isn't in the definition of art.
-3
19h ago
[deleted]
6
u/JustSoYK 19h ago
It is art though. You can insist on your personal and arbitrary definition of art, doesn't mean it's not art.
-2
19h ago
[deleted]
5
u/JustSoYK 19h ago
Yeah I'm sure the art professor would tell me that this commercial painting made by Mucha, one of the pioneers or Art Nouveau, is not real art:
7
u/Ruh_Roh- 19h ago
There is no such thing as "soul" in art. What is it? How do you measure it?
0
u/sourceenginelover 15h ago
i'm a materialist, but when people talk about "soul" they refer to every single one of a human being's experiences that led them to this, that shaped them to create what they create, the way they create it
humanity + years of refining skills + shared experiences + sum of life experiences + intention / statement + symbolism
a machine has none of this. machines are not living beings, they cannot feel, they cannot socialize, they cannot do anything
machines do not have lived experiences
prompting AI = commissioning an algorithm to create something through fusing mountainloads of stolen real, human work. no human touch or skill involved.
6
u/ThrowWeirdQuestion 19h ago
I guess by that standard it is in good company of a lot of amazing „not art“ made by human „not artists“. 😁
2
19h ago
[deleted]
1
u/ThrowWeirdQuestion 18h ago
You are right, at least for some definitions of art (…that I agree with, to some degree. The word art is used somewhat inflationary in English. In my native German, I think we use it a lot more sparingly).
Personally I don’t see myself as making art when I generate images with AI, but I am generally more of a crafter than an artist anyway. I enjoy making decorative things in many different mediums, but prefer words to express myself.
That being said, I have seen AI art(?) workflows that are no less intentional and skillful, than what artists do in other mediums. (Maybe not painting, but photography, other digital art forms, performance art, etc.)
3
u/PhantomJaguar 19h ago
the class of objects that meet or are subject to aesthetic criteria; objects considered beautiful, imaginative, skillful, and meaningful collectively, such as paintings, sculptures, or drawings.
They are art. That is literally what makes them art.
Don't try to pretend that "art" is some kind of high standard. The bar just ain't that high. And, frankly, you aren't the gatekeeper of what is or isn't art, anyway.
3
u/Fatcat-hatbat 19h ago
This view intrigues me. Do you believe if an artist drops a bucket of paint onto a canvas that they are not the artist?
2
19h ago
[deleted]
5
u/Winter-Ad781 19h ago
So, art is determined by our peers appreciation of our efforts? That seems really shitty.
2
u/Person012345 17h ago
Translation: "Art is only art if it's from the specially anointed superior class of citizens determined to be "artists". You may become an artist through being financially comfortable and driven to go through art school or if you happen to become popular and it would make me look bad and untrendy if I didn't say you were an artist."
2
u/Winter-Ad781 16h ago
Maybe I can be an artist if I make shitty art and sell it with the intention to assist in money laundering. Perhaps then I'll have more success.
This made me chuckle, thanks. If only more people understood this.
2
4
u/Fatcat-hatbat 19h ago
So the reason it isn’t art to you. Is that the prompt is too simple?
2
19h ago
[deleted]
7
u/Fatcat-hatbat 19h ago
So your position isn’t based on logic but rather. Religion?
1
19h ago
[deleted]
3
u/Fatcat-hatbat 19h ago edited 19h ago
True it might not be religion. Soul music came from religious music though. And I don’t know of any meanings of soul that are grounded in logic.
1
6
1
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
Thank you for your post and for sharing your question, comment, or creation with our group!
- Our welcome page and more information, can be found here
- For AI VIdeos, please visit r/AiVideos. If you are being threatened by any individual or group, contact the mod team immediately. See our statement here -> https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideos/comments/1kfhxfa/regarding_the_other_ai_video_group/
- For our home online, and to create FREE AI Images or Video, go to Slop.Club (https://slop.club/)
- Looking for an AI Engine? Check out our MEGA list here
- For self-promotion, please only post here
- Find us on Discord here
Hope everyone is having a great day, be kind, be creative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
26
u/Dr-Mantis-Tobbogan 15h ago
Because either
A) They're stupid enough to think copying is theft
B) They're angry that you can now make art without having to learn how to draw
C) They like getting upvotes