Are AI artists considered real artists? - Discuss whether or not the people who use AI to create art are True and Honest Artists

[Michaelsoft]

They're more qualified to call themselves artists than the idiots who tape bananas to a wall or paint a canvas red and call it art

 

[Abimelech]

As someone who has used one of those "art" websites which generated AI art from a prompt, I will say that I explicitly do NOT consider myself an artist just because I told an AI what to create for me.

It was amusing to horse around with and with tremendous effort, experimenting with different prompts and multiple tries it could produce cool stuff. But mostly it misunderstood what I wanted and generated almost entirely random garbage. Among the few worthwhile images the AI produced, if you asked me to try to create them myself without the AI, I would never be able to do it. I eventually got bored with it and stopped creating entirely. Thus I am not an artist.

With that said however, I did note that some other users of the site were actual artists who created their own artwork without AI. And some were also what you might call a "hybrid" where they had the AI generate an image, then they manually used their own artistic talent to correct any fuck-ups the AI introduced to the work. Those people might still be able to call themselves artists, as AI was simply one tool they were using to add to their own existing abilities.

 

[Johnny Salami]

Yes, only because it makes art chuds seethe

 

[Jimjamflimflam]

If you "prompt" a human by asking them to draw or paint something and instruct them on making adjustments along the way, does that make you the artist? Same logic applies here.

Isn't that pretty much what a director does? Tells the other artists (actors, lighting, scripting, etc) what to do to make their vision. Pretty sure they get called artists and get the majority of credit for the artist output of a movie.

 

[The Deep State]

Isn't that pretty much what a director does? Tells the other artists (actors, lighting, scripting, etc) what to do to make their vision. Pretty sure they get called artists and get the majority of credit for the artist output of a movie.

Directors don't take credit for the skills of actors or musicians. They're playing their own part by splicing things together in an intentional, meaningful way.

AI could have utility as an artistic tool, but AI image generators in their current state are burping out complete images in a single step. Anyone can say "this is exactly what I had in mind, trust me bro". When you paint or digitally illustrate something, I know for sure that you made deliberate decisions every step of the way. But when you ask a program to give you that image, the whole decision-making aspect goes out the window. Even if your prompts are thorough and you mess around with the image for a while, they're still just prompts. It's like selecting the toppings for a pizza, making some changes to your order for the next pizza based on what you liked/disliked about the first one, and then pretending you're the chef.

The correct analogy in direction terms would be asking someone else to direct a movie with some requirements (like it has to be suspenseful, romantic, have a twist ending, etc.) and then taking credit for their finished work.

 

[Balanced Boomer]

The AI is the artist. The person who coached the AI into making the art is not. They're the equivalent of that Ash Ketchum nigger hogging all the credit after all his pocket bitches carry his faggot ass.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

You do have to curate the prompts and such to generate the picture you want and have some artistic knowledge to know if it's good or not. At the end of the day it's another tool, but it does take some skill to use. The drawing tablet didn't replace the sketchbook, people are just excited and scared about new tech is all.

best way of describing it imo.

the faggots who just type in "cool dragon" and shit it out on facebook are usually nonsentient pajeets and those types aren't artists to me personally. but people who use it as a tool and have artistic knowledge are already artists by default, or they at least have the mindset and this is their medium of choice.

 

[std::string]

They're basically using computer programs to mix and mash content sourced from elsewhere to make something comprehensible.

Yeah just like when them kids installed that Fruity Loops bullshit and ruined music.

AI art from people who spend hours curating a LoRA and fixing stuff up in Photoshop is different from Pajeets posting pictures they generate with the prompt "cool flaming grim reaper." Eventually I think we'll settle into an actual distinction between the two.

 

[Google.com]

No, using AI to make art doesn't make you an artist.

If some C-Level executive tells me to like program something so he can take credit for it and get promoted that doesn't make him a coder either he is just a nigger.

AI Prompters = Niggers.

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

You tell me

cool flaming grim reaper

I gotchu

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

People who whine about AI being "not real art" are massive faggots. It's like saying a mass-produced chair shat out of a factory isn't a chair.
There will always be a market for exceptional artists just as there will for skilled carpenters. But if all you want is a place to rest your ass or a visual aide that represents the idea you're presenting, there's nothing wrong with having a machine do the heavy lifting for you.

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

People who whine about AI being "not real art" are massive faggots. It's like saying a mass-produced chair shat out of a factory isn't a chair.
There will always be a market for exceptional artists just as there will for skilled carpenters. But if all you want is a place to rest your ass or a visual aide that represents the idea you're presenting, there's nothing wrong with having a machine do the heavy lifting for you.

The only people I see seethe about AI art are fetish / low tier anime artist types, most the people I know that actually create stuff are mostly just shrugging at it or figuring out how to incorporate it.

Also, doesn't help that there are the easy prompt shits you see from like dalle and such, but if you want to make something good you have to know how to mask shit and all sorts of other things.

 

[Fishmalk Observer]

Artist can win this argument by being better than AI art. Good luck, faggots. Furry """artist""" on suicide watch

 

[SentinentCloud]

i am a AI srtist and i am a superioir artist

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

Artist can win this argument by being better than AI art. Good luck, faggots. Furry """artist""" on suicide watch

Legit this, anybody I've seen complain either consumes ton of shitty fetish art or produces a ton of shitty fetish art.

Failing that it's art for some fagged up RPG / CCG in the modern era, and hell even most of the more talented ones there aren't worried. It's just the niggas that make shit that looks like AI art to begin with. lol.

The problem is most of these "artists" don't know how to actually make any physical art, just fuck around in photoshop / illustrator.

Like the easiest way to beat the AI is just make your own physical art in a somewhat unique style, it's not hard... but then they can't trace everything like they do now.

 

[Gangstalker #32194]

artist isnt a real job anyway, it's like being an actor or a prostitute, gatekeeping isnt going to help or hurt the integrity of that title too much, so go ahead and call yourself an artist if you want to

somebody found a low effort way to have something draw pictures for them, sorry if that means you make less money now, but at least you and chris chan can take comfort in the fact that your drawings are the creations of a human and not a machine

 

[Yellow Rose Of Texas]

Western artist deserve to get replace by AI cause either they're all hacks or woke as shit.

 

[Buttigieg2020]

AI is really cool but until we get to the point where that soulless stink isn't obvious on AI photos it won't be """art""" to me, more on the level of stock photography. I don't think we're very far from that though.

That point was about 2 years ago fortunately.

 

[augment]

No they aren't really artists, what they've acquired is an expedite method of replicating what others have produced as art, without permission. But this often flies in the face of the counterargument "but real artists trace, copy and steal all the time" which misses the point of having an untrained or unskilled person puppeteering a dump-database generator. Just like dance and music, you can build a prompter that can screech back at you the same way taylor swift would, but that would not be a singer.

People who whine about AI being "not real art" are massive faggots. It's like saying a mass-produced chair shat out of a factory isn't a chair.
There will always be a market for exceptional artists just as there will for skilled carpenters. But if all you want is a place to rest your ass or a visual aide that represents the idea you're presenting, there's nothing wrong with having a machine do the heavy lifting for you.

I see your point, but do you understand that art serves no purpose whatsoever, and that a chair, while not without artistic merit through carpentry and engraving, is essentially a piece of furniture whose purpose is to hold someone's ass so they don't sit on the floor.

 

[Hatter]

That point was about 2 years ago fortunately.


View attachment 6078636

Bizzare how that shit won since only 3 fucking things can be made out.