Wanna Bicker about/discuss Digital Art vs digital "art"?

[THROBBS]

A good, charitable attitude towards the plagiarists and their new weapons. I can chalk you up as being the non-complaining type whenever push comes to shove, then.

I voice my opinions on plagiarism. I also will complain, when appropriate.

Not everyone who uses AI (specifically) is even aware of how it works, or how it impacts (hurts) the source artists.
I have spoken out in other arenas.

 

[THROBBS]

Oh, and the RA has never been given to bouts of faddism, right? Most people would believe a rejection from the RA to be quite a feather in the cap, to judge from what I've heard, almost a mark of distinction.

You can use whatever cool-sounding newspeak terms you like. As long as I can manage it, I shall refuse to look at the inventions of machines masquerading as human creations.

I personally feel let down when I discover that the 100metres sprint champion got to the finish line first by virtue of stuffing himself full of chemicals. Presumably you cheered him on, beyond his fellow athletes, in the full knowledge of the deceit..?

Do these 'artists' not have even the slightest feeling of remorse or shame when they claim it's 'all their own work'..?

Do you not see why this should be a cause for concern, or are you like the climate change deniers... bury head in sand/hope the crunch doesn't come in their lifetimes..?

You talking to me?

Are you, talking to me?

Who is "the RA"? EDIT: ah! I missed the prior post on the Royal Academy. sorry


Many/most of those utilizing this technology do not have any remorse. I suspect that they have no idea why it is unethical.

I totally get the concern and have some myself. Do not presume to think that I am cheering cheaters on.

 

[THROBBS]

One can rant and rave about the cheating, but if the rules are not laid out, then... there are no rules.

That is where we are now (regarding AI "art"... and writing) — rules, laws, are being discussed.
There a a LOT of vocal (and articulate) artists who are speaking out and advocating for their lives (lively hood).

I'm not standing by passively.

Fuck, I made this thread just for that.

 

[THROBBS]

From ARTnews. <READ THE ARTICLE)

"An artist declined an award at a prominent photography contest because he had submitted an AI-generated work, proving, he said, the competition couldn’t deal with art made by that means. The contest’s organizers, in turn, said they didn’t know the extent to which the work utilized AI.

Boris Eldagsen won the World Photography Organization’s Sony World Photography Awards for a piece titled The Electrician. The work appears like an old photograph showing two women, one of whom crouches behind the other. Another person’s hand extends toward the front woman’s body."

...
“AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this,” he wrote in a statement on April 13. “They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.”

 

[THROBBS]

Also seems to be worth reading in The Guardian
(I've only just started this article)- EDIT: Finished the article.
BTW, I found this article by reverse search the image from @Prudence_Art 's post.

It is included in the article.
"I (Jonathan Jones, the author of the article) challenged six outstanding human artists, including three Turner prize-winners, to experiment with AI."

 

[THROBBS]

Digital TOOLS*, do not make one an Artist.

Just as using conventional tools does not.

Most anyone can hold a pencil and make marks. Are the marks Art? I say "no".
With intent (non-random), they may be "self-expresion"
With practice and facility, they may become pleasing, disturbing, descriptive.
With a message, they can become powerful.
With imagination added in, perhaps those marks become "Art".

Yes?

 

[SteelPoint]

Digital TOOLS*, do not make one an Artist.

Just as using conventional tools does not.

Most anyone can hold a pencil and make marks. Are the marks Art? I say "no".
With intent (non-random), they may be "self-expresion"
With practice and facility, they may become pleasing, disturbing, descriptive.
With a message, they can become powerful.
With imagination added in, perhaps those marks become "Art".

Yes?

And just where along that progress chart do you think your average AI "artist" is placed? They are using other people's "marks". They are using other people's "self-expression", "messages" and "imagination".

If that's an artist, it's a piss-poor one.

I stand with Mr Eldagsen. Someone who knows chicanery when they see it. The inventors of AI should be taken to court and sent to jail, as they have knowingly and intentionally, in the pursuit of personal gain, set loose upon the world computer programmes which thieve.

 

[THROBBS]

And just where along that progress chart do you think your average AI "artist" is placed? They are using other people's "marks". They are using other people's "self-expression", "messages" and "imagination".

If that's an artist, it's a piss-poor one.

I stand with Mr Eldagsen. Someone who knows chicanery when they see it. The inventors of AI should be taken to court and sent to jail, as they have knowingly and intentionally, in the pursuit of personal gain, set loose upon the world computer programmes which thieve.

the average user?
Not far at all. Therefore the need for discourse and education.
Read the articles. The second describes actual Artists using the technology.

Pssst!
I am pretty sure most everyone is in pursuit of personal gain.

I believe there should be some accountability for the thievery.

 

[jaF0]

I don't normally visit this section, but the discussion spilled over into another board.

It's one thing to create your own work from a blank canvas or screen using the various media mentioned in the OP. It doesn't matter if it's digital or physical. What matters is if it's original. Modifying someone else's work is not always the best way.

Somebody upthread mentioned taking a known work and making changes, then calling it your own 'creation'.

I can only point to this:

Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright ...​

May 18, 2023In a 7-2 vote on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Andy Warhol infringed on photographer Lynn Goldsmith's copyright when he created a series of silk screen images based on a photograph...

And the PDF version of the ruling:

Supreme Court of The United States​

https://www.supremecourt.gov › opinions › 22pdf › 21-869_87ad.pdf
No. 21-869. Argued October 12, 2022—Decided May 18, 2023 In 2016, petitioner Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) licensed to Condé Nast for $10,000 an image of "Orange Prince"—an orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince created by pop artist Andy Warhol—to appear on the cover of a magazine commemorating Prince.

 

[jaF0]

If I'm understanding the other thread correctly, the OP used photographs and edited them using PhotoShop filters or something similar. If that's what happened, that is not art. If they used a brush/stylus to apply the alterations, that may be closer to art, but still not legal in the US in light of the court ruling.

 

[Prudence_Art]

first of all may i ask you to quote or tag me when replying please...i only saw the following by accident,....( one way to get the last word i suppose)

Oh, and the RA has never been given to bouts of faddism, right? Most people would believe a rejection from the RA to be quite a feather in the cap, to judge from what I've heard, almost a mark of distinction.

its good they can see it that way, better than getting all bitter and twisted

You can use whatever cool-sounding newspeak terms you like. As long as I can manage it, I shall refuse to look at the inventions of machines masquerading as human creations.

sorry, youre now mocking the way i articulate....who do you think you are ? and no one is forcing you to look at it ffs, maybe you should invest in some blinkers just in case....oh wait, you already did.

I personally feel let down when I discover that the 100metres sprint champion got to the finish line first by virtue of stuffing himself full of chemicals. Presumably you cheered him on, beyond his fellow athletes, in the full knowledge of the deceit..?

im not into sports tbh, but a separate category for genetically/ chemically enhanced sports people might pique my interest...just out of curiosity

Do these 'artists' not have even the slightest feeling of remorse or shame when they claim it's 'all their own work'..?

i dont do it you'd need to ask someone who does

Do you not see why this should be a cause for concern,

yes there is cause for concern about a.i taking jobs and worse if you want to get properly dystopian, i think problems around copyright, and being all precious about what other people do with a.i art pales into insignicance by comparison...

or are you like the climate change deniers... bury head in sand/hope the crunch doesn't come in their lifetimes..?

...i dont imagine most climate change deniers think there will be a crunch at all...

may i ask are you an artist yourself ?

 

[Prudence_Art]

From ARTnews. <READ THE ARTICLE)

"An artist declined an award at a prominent photography contest because he had submitted an AI-generated work, proving, he said, the competition couldn’t deal with art made by that means. The contest’s organizers, in turn, said they didn’t know the extent to which the work utilized AI.

Boris Eldagsen won the World Photography Organization’s Sony World Photography Awards for a piece titled The Electrician. The work appears like an old photograph showing two women, one of whom crouches behind the other. Another person’s hand extends toward the front woman’s body."

...
“AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this,” he wrote in a statement on April 13. “They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.”

fair enough, using a.i to create fake photographs in a competition is cheating, no question, for the same reason digital should not compete with film

Also seems to be worth reading in The Guardian
(I've only just started this article)- EDIT: Finished the article.
BTW, I found this article by reverse search the image from @Prudence_Art 's post.

It is included in the article.
"I (Jonathan Jones, the author of the article) challenged six outstanding human artists, including three Turner prize-winners, to experiment with AI."

i didnt see this article before, its an interesting read, one small point about the gillian wearing piece previously posted, she would not have used a start image with dall-e because theyre not supported, (at least on the version i have seen) ...so there may more to this we are not being told. < edit yes it says dall-e 2 is prompt only>

 

[THROBBS]

If I'm understanding the other thread correctly, the OP used photographs and edited them using PhotoShop filters or something similar. If that's what happened, that is not art. If they used a brush/stylus to apply the alterations, that may be closer to art, but still not legal in the US in light of the court ruling.

Therefore I asked. No response at this time.

 

[THROBBS]

I don't normally visit this section, but the discussion spilled over into another board.

It's one thing to create your own work from a blank canvas or screen using the various media mentioned in the OP. It doesn't matter if it's digital or physical. What matters is if it's original. Modifying someone else's work is not always the best way.

Somebody upthread mentioned taking a known work and making changes, then calling it your own 'creation'.

I can only point to this:

Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright ...​

May 18, 2023In a 7-2 vote on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Andy Warhol infringed on photographer Lynn Goldsmith's copyright when he created a series of silk screen images based on a photograph...

And the PDF version of the ruling:

Supreme Court of The United States​

https://www.supremecourt.gov › opinions › 22pdf › 21-869_87ad.pdf
No. 21-869. Argued October 12, 2022—Decided May 18, 2023 In 2016, petitioner Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) licensed to Condé Nast for $10,000 an image of "Orange Prince"—an orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince created by pop artist Andy Warhol—to appear on the cover of a magazine commemorating Prince.

Interesting.
The ONE image (Purple Prince) was paid for and licensed (for one time use) with credit. Andy Worhol died before another image (Orange Prince) was published WITHOUT permission from the photographer. Seems that the Andy Worhol FOUNDATION's attorneys were lax. (I have not finished reading the ruling) I reckon that had the foundation asked, that the photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, would have agreed to a second use, with credit and payment.

So Andy is not "the bad guy"

 

[THROBBS]

fair enough, using a.i to create fake photographs in a competition is cheating, no question, for the same reason digital should not compete with film

Conversely, using photographs to create fake paintings is also cheating.

 

[Prudence_Art]

Conversely, using photographs to create fake paintings is also cheating.

no because you missed out the crucial part....'in competition'.
my take on art is that its not a competition, no competition no cheating.

 

[THROBBS]

no because you missed out the crucial part....'in competition'.
my take on art is that its not a competition, no competition no cheating.

"No" to you.

"Yes" to me.

How about "pretending"? "posing"?

Faking.

The creativity is absent.

 

[THROBBS]

LOOK! I'm an Artist!!!

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

That about sums it up, Throbbs.

The problem with the whole situation is that certain people don't want to be deprived of their new gadgets which suddenly catapult them from no-hopers without an artistic bone in their bodies to supreme 'artists' worthy of veneration. A dubious legality, technology-enabled ego-trip in other words.

To cap it off, most of them don't even realise how much laughter and even actual pity this gives rise to among those who can think.

 

[Prudence_Art]

"No" to you.

"Yes" to me.

How about "pretending"? "posing"?

Faking.

The creativity is absent.

well all art is pretence to somedegree isnt it......?

LOOK! I'm an Artist!!!
View attachment 2245295
View attachment 2245296

this post makes my point for me, juxtaposing two images to make a statement, it even has a title, and you got likes for it too, so not only is it art but good art in some peoples opinion.
(btw using an image of a penis in this context is another interesting thing, consciously or subconsciously you are using it as a symbol of masculine authority /dominance, similar to the way a flasher would, the red underwear underlines this ....
https://www.colorpsychology.org/RED/
....btw if it was intentional it didnt work )

That about sums it up, Throbbs.

The problem with the whole situation is that certain people don't want to be deprived of their new gadgets which suddenly catapult them from no-hopers without an artistic bone in their bodies to supreme 'artists' worthy of veneration. A dubious legality, technology-enabled ego-trip in other words.

To cap it off, most of them don't even realise how much laughter and even actual pity this gives rise to among those who can think.

your only contribution here seems to be ego tripping as a self appointed authority on everything with a large dollop of gaslighting and projection ' 'certain people' 'no-hopers' blah blah blah .... i dont imagine many of the people youre slagging off think they are deserving of veneration, that sounds more like you...

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

your only contribution here seems to be ego tripping as a self appointed authority on everything with a large dollop of gaslighting and projection ' 'certain people' 'no-hopers' blah blah blah .... i dont imagine many of the people youre slagging off think they are deserving of veneration, that sounds more like you...

Oh, they do. They do. It's all in pursuit of personal plaudits for what a machine has actually accomplished. If they were happy with what they'd done in its own right they'd simply keep it and the 'job satisfaction' to themselves... but no, it's put up for public admiration. Look-at-me-ism.

My contribution here is reasoned argument. Your 'counter argument' can be searched in vain for anything other than spluttering nonsense. We've yet to hear your reasoned defence of the ripping off of original artwork. Come on... let's hear it.

 

[THROBBS]

well all art is pretence to somedegree isnt it......?

this post makes my point for me, juxtaposing two images to make a statement, it even has a title, and you got likes for it too, so not only is it art but good art in some peoples opinion.
(btw using an image of a penis in this context is another interesting thing, consciously or subconsciously you are using it as a symbol of masculine authority /dominance, similar to the way a flasher would, the red underwear underlines this ....
https://www.colorpsychology.org/RED/
....btw if it was intentional it didnt work )

Art is often pretense. Not always. Duchamp was making (Artistic) statements about Art.

My post(s) are decidedly NOT "good Art". Even has a "title"! Ha, that is barely a qualification. It's mostly library science.
You are reading quite a bit into the subject matter as well. This is LitEROTICA and my original post was focused on erotic Art/imagery. If I had intended to create an Art piece, I would have done much better than that, conceptually, and with actual effort and facility. I do have a degree in Art. The point of the the two images — Take a photo and simply, quickly make it appear (to the untrained eye), by photoshop tools, to be a drawing/painting. Not creative, not requiring years of study and practice. The only legit aspect, is that it is my own photo.

Also— You could have just as well said, "Why are you objectifying a man? Is a cock all a man is? Why don't you show his face?"

Applying your knowledge of art and critique to a non-art piece is more artistic or creative than the actual image.

TREMBLE BEFORE MY RED CLAD STAFF OF AUTHORITY!

By the way, all figurative art is objectifying. The artist is reducing a human being to a 2-dimensional (or 3) object, literally.

 

[Prudence_Art]

Oh, they do. They do. It's all in pursuit of personal plaudits for what a machine has actually accomplished. If they were happy with what they'd done in its own right they'd simply keep it and the 'job satisfaction' to themselves... but no, it's put up for public admiration. Look-at-me-ism.

My contribution here is reasoned argument. Your 'counter argument' can be searched in vain for anything other than spluttering nonsense. We've yet to hear your reasoned defence of the ripping off of original artwork. Come on... let's hear it.

in short i dont give a toss about original artwork.
its there to be plundered and mucked about with...who cares
artists should be less up their own arses.

Art is often pretense. Not always. Duchamp was making (Artistic) statements about Art.

My post(s) are decidedly NOT "good Art". Even has a "title"! Ha, that is barely a qualification. It's mostly library science.
You are reading quite a bit into the subject matter as well. This is LitEROTICA and my original post was focused on erotic Art/imagery. If I had intended to create an Art piece, I would have done much better than that, conceptually, and with actual effort and facility. I do have a degree in Art. The point of the the two images — Take a photo and simply, quickly make it appear (to the untrained eye), by photoshop tools, to be a drawing/painting. Not creative, not requiring years of study and practice. The only legit aspect, is that it is my own photo.

Also— You could have just as well said, "Why are you objectifying a man? Is a cock all a man is? Why don't you show his face?"

Applying your knowledge of art and critique to a non-art piece is more artistic or creative than the actual image.

TREMBLE BEFORE MY RED CLAD STAFF OF AUTHORITY!

By the way, all figurative art is objectifying. The artist is reducing a human being to a 2-dimensional (or 3) object, literally.

art should not be limited by rules
i'm for openness and demystifying art
a bit of iconoclasm is a welcome relief from conventionality

slagging of a whole medium becaus some of it is a bit shit and self indulgent is
ridiculous, what actual harm does it cause, fair enough judge individual creators or
works on their own merits but hating the whole oeuvre is ignorant and bigotted.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Condemned by his/her/its own words...

... and a grand, if illiterate illustration of just how much value we should attach to any future contributions made by this worthy...

 

[THROBBS]

art should not be limited by rules
i'm for openness and demystifying art
a bit of iconoclasm is a welcome relief from conventionality

slagging of a whole medium becaus some of it is a bit shit and self indulgent is
ridiculous, what actual harm does it cause, fair enough judge individual creators or
works on their own merits but hating the whole oeuvre is ignorant and bigotted.

If one is to talk about/discuss Art, then there need be some sort of definition of just what art is (and isn't). That is indeed a rule.
to say it "should not be limited by rules" is kinda being "up one's own arse". kinda pompous.

I am not "slagging a medium" (digital art), I am calling out specific uses and claims.
I use digital tools. I do not try and pass off poorly manipulated photos as "paintings" (digital or otherwise).
It DOES have harm to do so. It is misleading, and undermines the hard work and craftsmanship of actual artists.

Just as AI "art" being passed off as a prompter's "work", it isn't.