• @Crampon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    563 months ago

    AI artist Jason Allen

    Absolute degenerate.

    I have also spent some time screwing around with AI art generators. No way I’m addressing my self as an artist for it. AI art can be useful in certain situations such as whipping together a stupid meme to share between some friends. It’s not any talent involved, and it’s not something you should consider as copyright worthy.

    Creating nice art is available to anyone. It just require some creativity and talent if you want to love of it. Being an artist is not some basic human right. As plenty of “artists” believe.

    • Jonathan Hendry
      link
      fedilink
      223 months ago

      @Crampon

      AI artists are just the new version of “fractal artists” who for the most part just pick a color palette and run a Mandelbrot generator until they find an appealing image.

      It’s not nothing but it’s not going to get you very far.

      • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Some AI artists actually take the time to touch up the image in something like phtoshop once they get the idea they want but there are still problems with the image.

        As the images get better though that might stop

          • Jonathan Hendry
            link
            fedilink
            53 months ago

            @dgerard

            I had a bit making an exception for the value of “fine art” because that can get weird, like “unmade bed with a bunch of trash around it” or a signed urinal.

            But I seem to have left that part on the cutting room floor.

            If a piece of purely prompt-generated AI art hits a price like a shark in formaldehyde I strongly suspect it’ll be some kind of inorganic AI industry insider self-dealing to hype up the AI art market, similar to the big Beeple NFT sale.

            • @V0ldek
              link
              English
              53 months ago

              Okay but the shark in formaldehyde is fucking awesome to see in person.

              It’s a shark! In formaldehyde!!

              • @Amoeba_Girl
                link
                English
                33 months ago

                yeah, Hirst can be a bit of a hack and the names of the pieces are super cheugy but he’s definitely made some really evocative stuff

              • Jonathan Hendry
                link
                fedilink
                33 months ago

                @V0ldek

                Yeah I’m not dismissing that. It’s a big ass shark in a tank.

                Or the guy who made a cast of his own head using his own frozen blood, that’s kept in a special refrigerated display case.

            • @corbin
              link
              English
              43 months ago

              I think it might be worth reflecting on exactly why Fountain seems to “get weird;” it had a context and complaints about it are part of that context. I liked this recent video which explores the politics of Fountain.

              • Jonathan Hendry
                link
                fedilink
                33 months ago

                @corbin

                I just mean “weird” in terms of “valued far higher than the average person might expect” but I’m not implying that that value isn’t merited. I’m not one to dismiss a Rothko.

    • Meursault
      link
      fedilink
      English
      43 months ago

      Right? I used to think Kinkade was the pompous narcissist. That anyone would consider themselves an AI “artist” is absolutely wild.

      • @militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        283 months ago

        I instructed the Ford dealer to sell me a new Focus with leather interior and aluminum wheels. I am a car designer and manufacturer. I made this.

      • @Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 months ago

        It’s not a protected title. Go to town with it.

        But it’s diluting the value of it if you carry no talent but want all the recognition.

          • @V0ldek
            link
            English
            173 months ago

            What’s next, value of products being directly tied to their quality??

            • @YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -83 months ago

              What’re you defining ‘value’? Monetary, sure but what of emotional value? What’re you defining as ‘quality’? What’s high quality art to you? What’s valuable in your view? I garuntee that’s not the same for everyone.

              • @Amoeba_Girl
                link
                English
                83 months ago

                Very true, since it’s all relative no one should ever make an aesthetic judgement. No one should have thoughts about the value of art. No one should have any reaction to art other than an acknowledgement of its existence.

              • @V0ldek
                link
                English
                63 months ago

                True J. Benzo Peterson vibes

                What do you mean by VALUE? What do you mean by QUALITY? What do you mean by PRODUCTS?? What do you mean by WHAT???

            • @YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -2
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No, the value of art is specific to each individual. A picture made by someone with no talent can be of enormous value to someone because of what it means, the relationship they have with the creator, the emotions it makes them feel etc.

              Tieing value to talent suggests that a picture by someone who has trained for 5 years is somehow more ‘valuable’ than a picture by someone who has only trained for 4. Why? What metric is being used to determine ‘value’? What metric determines ‘talent’? Art is entirely subjective. To try and define it’s value is missing the point, because it means something different to everyone.

          • Jonathan Hendry
            link
            fedilink
            43 months ago

            @YungOnions

            What do you mean value?

            Emotional value? No. Many parents value their small child’s drawings.

            Market value? Mostly yes. Especially in commercial art like art commissioned for book covers. Untalented artists aren’t going to be very successful.

      • @o7___o7
        link
        English
        123 months ago

        Thank heavens we have people like you to police who gets to be called the police…

      • @gerikson
        link
        English
        53 months ago

        Your position seems to be that art is whatever the US Copyright Office deems worthy of copyright.

    • @umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -6
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      i mean, it IS art. you are just using a tool that makes it much much easier to put your mind into the screen.

      • @Amoeba_Girl
        link
        English
        83 months ago

        art is a process not a thing on a screen. get rid of the tension between idea and realisation and you get rid of most of what is interesting about art. (besides i’m sorry for your mind if your imagination is adequately represented by the output of stock image generators.)

        • @umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -43 months ago

          ai art is also a process, albeit a different one. its not easy to get good creative results.

          • @Amoeba_Girl
            link
            English
            53 months ago

            i’d tend to agree if we were talking about something that is actually interesting instead of an incredibly generic piece of kitsch art.

      • @froztbyte
        link
        English
        73 months ago

        wow look at this one, too good to headbutt a screen like is tradition

  • luciole (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    193 months ago

    We all know what it means when Midjourney churns out pictures that look like your art: their model got trained on your stuff. I think it’s time for Jason Allen to go full uroboros and sue Midjourney for using his art without permission.

  • Lime Buzz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    They’re so close to figuring it out but don’t have that much self awareness, or perhaps just have cognitive disonance about it.

  • @FormallyKnown@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    153 months ago

    “All Allen could copyright was what he did to the image himself” - so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable? Does that mean midjourney has the copyright of all the images created with it?

    • David GerardOPMA
      link
      English
      23
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The image gatcha does not create a new copyright. There might be a copyright in the text of a complex prompt (do you feel lucky in court?) Mere “sweat of the brow” does not generate a new copyright in the US, so e.g. retouching work on a photo does not generate a new copyright and photos of a public domain artwork do not create a new copyright.

      This doesn’t touch on the old copyrights of the stuff Midjourney trained on to make its computer-mediated collages. Those copyrights still exist.

      Does the computer-mediated collage launder the previous copyrights? The answer is “do you feel lucky in court?”

      • @o7___o7
        link
        English
        103 months ago

        It’s Tornado Cash, but for pictures of Garfield with a machete.

        • David GerardOPMA
          link
          English
          63 months ago

          North Korea: “AUGH MY EYES”

    • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      203 months ago

      so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?

      I think if he “trained” the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.

      • @anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        73 months ago

        Not in the US, there art can only be created by a human.
        If it’s created by an algorithm or animal supernatural being it’s public domain.

        Interesting facts:

        • when photography was invented there was a debate whether photos can be copyrighted
        • if you claim to have written down something revealed to you by a supernatural entity, it’s public domain
        • the following image is public domain because it was taken by a monkey