Regular artists will receive no benefit from digital art.
Regular artists will receive no benefit from photography.
Regular artists will receive no benefit from paint.
Regular artists will receive no benefit from pigmentation.
Artist have no good reason for not use soot on cave.
Why settle for nasty soot when Grug head has all art he could ever imagine?
See you in 20 years when AI is a standard part of professional workflows, a respected medium of artistic expression, and this entire saga of anti AI lunacy is entirely forgotten because "Why would someone be against AI art? That's as dumb as being against digital art."
Here’s the logic I run on.
Art = physical object that has been given meaning by a human action. By this definition, anything from smearing a single thumb of soot on a wall, to a michelangelo fresco is art. Digital also counts, since it is essentially a ‘meaning’ smeared on storage space. AI illustrations are art by this definition (more specifically the prompts are the art)
Good art = a physical object that has been given an extremely high amount of meaning by human action. A regular artist goes for a manual tool like a paintbrush (also a thing that has existed since grug times) because it allows them to do more actions.
Bad art = a physical object that has been given a very low amount of meaning by human action.
I don’t care that my logic is arbitrary. It is a system of beliefs that has made me a strong artist, and I wouldn’t change them.
From this statement, I stand by my view that AI is bad because singleminded reliance on it lowers the amount of actions a human being is capable of manually applying to an illustration.
Grug could not do art because his imagination could not leave his head and affect the physical world without soot.
Soot opened up the ability to control shapes. Pigment gave control over colors. Paint gave control over texture manipulation and color blending. Photography gave control over the props of the real world (even more than usual). Digital gave the ability to simulate any of these, and allowed artists to start controlling pixels, and even gave them full control over
Meanwhile, what do I get from AI? Some pathetic quality of life improvements? All the while I’ll sell my own ability to control what elements I can directly micro in a work, in exchange for a few tricks that end up being basically the same as photocollage. Oops, tried to install a gas filter on this helmet that I’m illustrating, now the entire design is deformed slightly. I’ve tried it, I’ve seen it, and the tool gets raped by photocollage + blending techniques, because those don’t deform every other stroke in the piece.
People aren't supposed to do anything. They'll do what's necessary to achieve their goals, to the extent necessary and desired.
That’s nihilism.
Not possible.
Like saying MATLAB makes math-related tasks too easy, and good old-fashioned paper and pencil mathematicians are dying out, hopefully everyone will suddenly stop using MATLAB and similar software.
AI image generators losing funding and getting technologically raped by traditional artists overtaking them is a good way. Micro in digital illustration is by no means completely known.
As a final note, don’t take me as a screecher or a pure luddite. AI has been a fun downgrade to collage, is efficient in hyper-specific circumstances like operation gr-ACK!, and I hate modern western artists enough to say they deserve this kind of punishment. But I’m not going to pretend that AI is anything but a blunt and uncontrollable tool that at best is capable of making something with as much meaning as art museum sloppa.
sources for my beliefs btw:
switched to digital from ink award
learned to paint award
experimented with AI award
appeal to experience award
