Page 1 of 2 :: Viewing 1-25 of 40
Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art? - Started by: BatmanWilliams
Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 15 Jun 2024, 06:33 PM

I've been so confused as to peoples' stance on what makes good art. Suppose I talk to someone about AI art and whether it's considered valuable. I get exchanges like this.

"Why are you mistreating AI art?"

"It has no soul and is derivative. It is inherently garbage."

"Inherently?"

"Yes, it was born garbage and beyond what anyone should support."

"So then you believe in a hierarchy of art?"

"What, no. The value of art is subjective, that's what makes art beautiful. One person's trash is another person's treasure."

"That's a relief, my friend was wondering what to do with all this AI art."

"She should throw it away, it will never not be trash."

At various times in artistic history, various genres such as memes and child scribbles have been considered "below" normal art, but ever since the advent of AI art, the overwhelming number of people who believe any art to be above any other art put AI art and only AI art in a lower category, no longer applying their logic to other lazy mediums on a mass scale, at the same time though saying they oppose a hierarchy of art. I am indifferent whatever the case is as long as it's consistent (including this site; I respect this site and its stance on AI, but the arguments often imply, well, all this), but I know there are some of us who believe in a hierarchy to some extent who have gone so far as to lay out suggestions on hierarchy criteria. Most sites don't have such a thing codified, but the front page of DA is filled with what many might call effortless content of a variety of kinds, and I'm wondering if there are any sites that think they should codify such a thing. What do you think? Is this all valid and seemingly worthy of consideration?

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 16 Jun 2024, 06:16 AM
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edit on 16 Jun 2024, 06:20 AM.

I think there's a bit of a false equivalency here in your framing. Rejecting generative AI content is not the same thing as assigning art to a "heirarchy" of value. true, some people have phrased it as though it is, but from what I can tell, that is simply poor choice of wording. not everyone online is academically versed in how to structure a debate point.

what I believe most folks are really getting at, is the idea that generative AI content cannot be worth the same as human artistic endeavors - expressly because it is both exploitative and devoid of human expression. when humans make derivative art, it is filtered through their own perceptions, biases, experiences, and agendas - even if done so in a "harmful" way, which is another discussion entirely. but generative AI image creation - at least as it exists now - is explicitly empty of human experience. it is a program, designed to strip material sorted by an algorithm without consent or approval from the artists who created the work stolen to "feed" it. it cannot place its own perceptions onto what it is creating (because it does not have them), and creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

edit: also I would say I personally am in the camp of calling it "generative AI content" rather than "art," and not even setting up the comparison as "AI art is lesser than other forms of art" and rather "'art' and 'generative AI content' are two seperate things."

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 16 Jun 2024, 07:00 AM

An objective hierarchy would make judging the value of art easier, but, like all else, nothing is ever that simple. You seem to be addressing the idea that there should be a universal application to the notion that art done in a specific way should be judged objectively higher or lower quality when compared to others of a different medium or source. Even if you could persuade everyone that such a hierarchy even exists, there would never be any universal agreement on what kind of boundaries should be set. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" is, indeed, an appropriate saying in this matter.

I think something to keep in mind is that A.I. art has some noteworthy factors working against it when it comes to the public's opinion about it. First, A.I. artwork has come under fire because of the behavior of the artists who use A.I. to create their art. There is a general fear of the proliferation of A.I. art supplanting more traditional forms of art both as display pieces and in commerce. We feel threatened that our own artwork will be ignored because loyal patrons find the works produced by an A.I. artist attractive enough to spend money on, an inherently unfair situation given the difference between the time and effort spent in production. A.I. artists are marketing the pieces they generate as if they were works produced by sweat, blood, and cramped muscles. At the same time, there appears to have been an intrusion in the professional industry due to stories of companies electing to use an A.I. to generate art as a cost-cutting measure.

Second, and, perhaps, more noteworthy, is the fact that A.I. art has dubious legal status. Whereas an artist who can sit and doodle on a sheet of paper until the art unfolds into a complete piece is unquestionably an artist with rights over their own work (and a cheater traces over their computer screen with a pen and scribbles the color too far outside the lines to be taken seriously), an A.I. is trained to mimic works found in a database of traditional artwork collected from perhaps something within the realm of hundreds of thousands of pieces and examples and thus has some questionable circumstances behind their output. When it was discovered that this database was constructed without the consent of the artists whose artwork was sampled, the logical reaction was outrage and attempts to protect artwork from being used as data to feed the programs. There still seems to be a question of whether A.I. art can be counted as legally permissible for sale as a copyrightable entity, permissible under the rules governing derivative works given that its construction is based on sampling others' art without any indication of creativity coming out of either program or user, or fraudulent as a work of plagiarism due to the lack of permission given by the artists who consider their work stolen.

Third is, of course, the fact that A.I. art requires little (if any) work from the user. This is perhaps the greatest of complaints in regard to the proliferation of A.I.-generated imagery. An A.I. uses prompts and keywords to generate any number of images is a short amount of time, while other artists have whole, hours-long or even days-long processes to churn out artwork of at least equal value. The user does not have to do much other than sit and judge which samples look worthy enough to post. When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort. It is easy to equate poor artwork with a lack of effort, and I think such has been an easy judgement call to make given that, in traditional art, a lack of effort generally shows in the quality of artwork produced. If there is no effort, why should the art be considered art?

I think a fourth consideration should be the relative youth of A.I. art. Use of A.I. to generate art is still a very recent development, and all new things are always bound to have detractors hate it for simply being new. While I do not expect opinions to drastically change based on the passage of time, it is a persistent item in many modern innovations.

What it comes down to is that, at this point in time, it is hard to have any objective appraisal of A.I. artwork because far too many things are going on in the background with most of them steering the opinion of other artists and Internet users to a highly negative reaction by default. It is easier to carry this opinion because the above issues are a valid form of outrage which would greatly color a person's perception of A.I.-generated artwork. An objective hierarchy in artwork has already failed considering the foothold A.I. art has gained with some users who find such content about as desireable as non-A.I. art. I myself am willing to admit that I have occasionally found an A.I.-generated image visually appealing if only for being able to express a new concept. At the same time, my opinion of A.I. art tends to be low based on recurring visual flaws that ruin most images I have encountered. Even if we could factor out the news and events that have caused anger and derision, there would never be any sort of overriding objective observation that all people would agree on, and this goes with all art, not just A.I.-generated art.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 16 Jun 2024, 02:13 PM
This post has been edited 3 times. Last edit on 16 Jun 2024, 02:16 PM.

Ok, I'm gonna break a personal rule here an actually give me opinion on something since I'm a member of that lower working class and we're all under the very real risk here of losing our jobs to a bunch robots since unlike us, robots don't get sick, need salaries, have families or just overall complain.

 

Now, not gonna lie, getting back home from a long hardous day of work, sitting on my ass on the couch and start the slow, tedious process of sloooooooowly producing my poorly drawn rabbits and abstract backgrounds (because suck at drawing environments), I take a break in every 2 hours to check DA and see what the others are up too. Every time, even with the settings blocking AI art, I still get a lot of suggestions showing AI art or ads with porn, AI or even AI porn.

Feels great man :> I do quite enjoy seeing these things, know why? They're a motivation.

I don't know anatomy, I don't know what values are, I have no idea about prespective or dynamic poses, I can't draw with colors and I'm not exactly great at worldbuilding, but at least the crap I produce is mine :3 Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing. Its some good shit, you might say and at the end of the day I get to look at it at say "I made this!"

At least I'm not using AI. For real, mate, if you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. It doesn't matter if it looks bad, trust me, you gotta try this, its the shit! I would say its better than sex but hey, I have no idea what that is so... XD

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 16 Jun 2024, 11:00 PM

Basically seconding all other replies, with the observation that "art is subjective" and "art can be objectively ranked" are antithetical propositions.

As mentioned, the essential issue is whether AI-gen ontologically constitutes art in the first place. There was a fellow on DeviantArt (of course) who does digital fractals and misunderstood the argument over flagging AI content, lamenting that they were "taking away" his tools. Setting aside that proper labelling is not censorship (and the "Created with AI" disclaimer isn't meant for fractal modelling), it did get me thinking: Digital fractals are typically created through a mathematical formula inputted into a renderer—it's more like engineering than art, in the sense the actual generation is conducted by the software.

And yet, fractals still involve conscious effort to achieve an intended output; direct authorship is diluted, but the numbers are inputted with expectation they will render a specific result. I don't think anyone seriously argues against using tools to facilitate the creative process; a puritanical definition would argue any form of digital illustration is "cheating". The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary: prompts are literally a search filtre to a glorified collage. The user has almost no actual ability to direct the output, which is confined to whatever's available within the dataset. It's like trying to dart a bullseye blindfolded, while the boards are moving on a belt: you can define the general bounds, but after that getting what you want is all down to luck.

MeatchCleaver:
Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing.

Excuse me, but have you seen my cartoons? At least your characters keep to consistent model! :^D 

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 16 Jun 2024, 11:51 PM
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edit on 16 Jun 2024, 11:53 PM.

MeatchCleaver:
If you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. I would say its better than sex

NSFW artists laughing in the distance.

All jokes aside though, I wouldn't see AI art as any less artistic if they would have just built more ethical software using only royalty free artwork that anyone can use for whatever, or better yet, have volunteers who agree to create art for the algorithm to use.

I also never understood why art made by young children is considered "crappy" in the first place when they're clearly just starting off like everyone else did, including us, much less their art being compared to AI art when 1. they're at least trying, and 2. While AI art looks as though it was made by an expert, it more often than not takes only 10 or so seconds to create. I always thought it was cute, and I hate how we treat art made by kids as "not art" just because they aren't masters capable of recreating The Mona Lisa. At the end of the day, it's the thought that counts.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 07:22 AM

A convo on DA late last year put this issue of "proof of work" in startling relief: someone who used to draw their own art went all in on AI prompting, and when a watcher expressed disappointment, they said they "never really enjoyed drawing" and even if AI generation was literally outlawed they'd never pick up a pencil again. Now there are legitimate reasons someone might quit cold turkey, and it's not even the first time I've seen genuine talent "defect to the enemy" as it were, and while I'll never understand it except as a cutthroat business gambit, it's their conscience to confront.

But then this other person swoops in on the ex-fan with one of the most contemptuous posts I've ever read: "Respectfully, you're not entitled to other peoples free labor. It takes years, even decades of constant, repetitive work to get to even an moderate level of skill in traditional art, so why should they endure all that when you can get what you need in a few minutes with AI?" Because nothing smacks of entitlement like tasteless consumers chasing after pure volume. :V The watcher attracted to this user's unique style isn't "entitled" to "free labor"—yet the AI prompters using a glorified search engine to remix data dumps compiled without the original creators' consent or reimbursement are? America learned the hard way that outsourcing its entire manufacturing sector means no-one's left who knows how to actually build anything anymore (see: Boeing); if this AIpologist had their way and we all just took to prompting for a living, how soon would it take for art to hollow out the same way? Tech journals say the LLMs are already starting to cannibalize themselves, and based on how you can browse through 30 separate accounts on DA that all look the damn same, I believe it.

Fihyn:
creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

fragmented_imagination:
When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort.

MeatchCleaver:
at least the crap I produce is mine

Thorvald:
The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary

I was going to raise this question with staff, but it might be worth exploring here: I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters. Compared to what he's tracing over it's literally cartoons, but the fact they're redrawn as OCs gives them a sense of genuine investment lacking in even the most visually detailed prompt-spam. It's like the opposite of the first artist: he claims he doesn't have the skill to work from scratch, but is competent enough to make significant changes to the base design, essentially using the prompt as a template to an own YCH in the first I've ever seen this stuff used as a crutch instead of a WALL-E hoverchair. I was heartbroken to learn it's AI-based, because both his aesthetic and the characters' vibes nail my taste. :p

Anyway, a point for procedural consideration is whether this sort of "AI-assist" with tangible authorship could be tolerable, or is too risky for Trojan horses.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 02:42 PM

Dionysus:
I was going to raise this question with staff, but it might be worth exploring here: I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters. Compared to what he's tracing over it's literally cartoons, but the fact they're redrawn as OCs gives them a sense of genuine investment lacking in even the most visually detailed prompt-spam. It's like the opposite of the first artist: he claims he doesn't have the skill to work from scratch, but is competent enough to make significant changes to the base design, essentially using the prompt as a template to an own YCH in the first I've ever seen this stuff used as a crutch instead of a WALL-E hoverchair. I was heartbroken to learn it's AI-based, because both his aesthetic and the characters' vibes nail my taste. :p

Anyway, a point for procedural consideration is whether this sort of "AI-assist" with tangible authorship could be tolerable, or is too risky for Trojan horses.

This is a tough situation to call.

Using AI generated content as a base to draw over to create your own works is similar in concept to using Clip Studio Art's 3D figures to create a base to draw from, and the latter is certainly not frowned upon. One can argue that the final image is still the artist's original work, and not AI generated content. But, this then gets into the grays of how much of the finished product is the artist's own work, and how much is AI generated content. This requires guidelines that are difficult to define concretely.

And, the reality of the situation is that, at the end of the day, we have neither the time nor the person-power to scrutinize every upload for what side of that thin line any particular upload exists upon. So, that makes things even harder. I don't have a good answer to this.

-- BK

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 03:32 PM

Dionysus:

I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters.

I feel like this has two answers for me personally:

1) this, to me, changes the philosophical definition of that work to then be "art," as this person is applying their own expression and creativity to these pieces. they're starting with AI generative content and using human experience to turn it into art.

2) it is very much indeed still "tainted" by the moral issues of current AI generation, given most major engines are operating off of stolen work and are extremely environmentally hazardous. this, to me, leads to the conclusion that what they're doing isn't "okay," even though by philosophical bounds, they are making art. (which is not, contrary to beliefs I've seen expressed in general, an inherently moral or worthy goal just by act of creation.)

people have asked me before if there came along an engine that was fed solely by consenting artists and had little to none of the environmental issues that plague the industry, if that would make AI generative content acceptable (to me, or to other artists), and I've always reluctantly said I wouldn't fight anyone using a tool like that, because in my eyes it'd be entirely their business so long as what they were creating wasn't stealing from or harming other people. but then privately, thought to myself that it doesn't qualify that AI product as "art" for all the reasons I outlined in my first post on this thread. however I kind of love the idea of this hypothetical and the question of AI-Tracer joining forces. if the initial engine was devoid of wider implications of harm, and the artist using it was applying their own creativity and expression to the final piece? I honestly think I could be supportive of that. 

going back a little ways however to platform-based monitoring of an AI-Tracer, I totally see BadKarma's point that it would be impossible to moderate. I think if someone admitted to doing that outright then maybe it would be grounds for moderation, but if someone came here and I got the sense they were doing such things, I'd just privately block them and move on. not someone I'd choose to interact with myself, but I wouldn't consider it a breach of responsibility on this or any platform's behalf if they've banned generative AI content. might just be an unfortunate loophole. 😅

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 03:37 PM
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edit on 17 Jun 2024, 03:39 PM.

BadKarma:

Dionysus:
I was going to raise this question with staff, but it might be worth exploring here: I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters. Compared to what he's tracing over it's literally cartoons, but the fact they're redrawn as OCs gives them a sense of genuine investment lacking in even the most visually detailed prompt-spam. It's like the opposite of the first artist: he claims he doesn't have the skill to work from scratch, but is competent enough to make significant changes to the base design, essentially using the prompt as a template to an own YCH in the first I've ever seen this stuff used as a crutch instead of a WALL-E hoverchair. I was heartbroken to learn it's AI-based, because both his aesthetic and the characters' vibes nail my taste. :p

Anyway, a point for procedural consideration is whether this sort of "AI-assist" with tangible authorship could be tolerable, or is too risky for Trojan horses.

This is a tough situation to call.

Using AI generated content as a base to draw over to create your own works is similar in concept to using Clip Studio Art's 3D figures to create a base to draw from, and the latter is certainly not frowned upon. One can argue that the final image is still the artist's original work, and not AI generated content. But, this then gets into the grays of how much of the finished product is the artist's own work, and how much is AI generated content. This requires guidelines that are difficult to define concretely.

And, the reality of the situation is that, at the end of the day, we have neither the time nor the person-power to scrutinize every upload for what side of that thin line any particular upload exists upon. So, that makes things even harder. I don't have a good answer to this.

-- BK

If ya don't have the manpower or resources (or patience, even) to deal with it then its probably best to just cut it completely ban it from the site, even these gray lines. Plus, from what I've seen from browsing twatter/xitter threads, the way it goes with AI techno-fetishists goes as follow:

1- Give an inch

2- They'll take a mile

3- Cue to long tedious debate where they twist everything you say, play victim and acuse you of being backwards and wanting to stop human advancement.

 

I know the idea is to grow the site but (and I think Thorv would agree) there is no such thing as infinite growth and frankly these just seem like a group of people we'd rather avoid. Quality over quantity, I say

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 04:23 PM

MeatchCleaver:
If ya don't have the manpower or resources (or patience, even) to deal with it then its probably best to just cut it completely ban it from the site, even these gray lines. Plus, from what I've seen from browsing twatter/xitter threads, the way it goes with AI techno-fetishists goes as follow:

1- Give an inch

2- They'll take a mile

3- Cue to long tedious debate where they twist everything you say, play victim and acuse you of being backwards and wanting to stop human advancement.

 

I know the idea is to grow the site but (and I think Thorv would agree) there is no such thing as infinite growth and frankly these just seem like a group of people we'd rather avoid. Quality over quantity, I say

Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that we'll start allowing AI generated content onto the site. Even the gray areas. I know there's no such thing as infinite growth, and I'd rather have artists who practice and work on their craft on the site than people who solely rely on prompts and think they've done equivelant work. I'm just saying that there's a real argument there for using AI as a tool to build a base, and then to draw or paint your own content on top of it.

But, I also have to agree with @Fihyn in that it's still tainted work because of the unethical ways in which current generative AI models are built.

-- BK

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 06:05 PM

BadKarma:
this then gets into the grays of how much of the finished product is the artist's own work, and how much is AI generated content. This requires guidelines that are difficult to define concretely.

Aye, the only real way this spectrum could be policed is by individual judgment calls. It would effectively be a per-user privilege rather than a general right, and one can just picture the sort of fights that'll provoke.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 17 Jun 2024, 06:20 PM

Thorvald:
Aye, the only real way this spectrum could be policed is by individual judgment calls. It would effectively be a per-user privilege rather than a general right, and one can just picture the sort of fights that'll provoke.

Exactly. It would be a nightmare.

-- BK

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 18 Jun 2024, 03:55 AM

BadKarma:
Using AI generated content as a base to draw over to create your own works is similar in concept to using Clip Studio Art's 3D figures to create a base to draw from, and the latter is certainly not frowned upon. One can argue that the final image is still the artist's original work, and not AI generated content. But, this then gets into the grays of how much of the finished product is the artist's own work, and how much is AI generated content. This requires guidelines that are difficult to define concretely.

I suppose even if it clears this hurdle, it then lands into the debate about tracing in general. I don't think Side 7 has a specific policy besides obvious plagiarism, but I know a certain popular furry booru is very aggressive about tracing, even when the characters are distinct and the provenance is upheld. (Ironically I found the site through what was a traced pose.) :P

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 18 Jun 2024, 04:11 AM

OHH I did not realize the new scenario moral quandry was about the tracing debate.

I guess I'd agree that the same principles that theoretically allow for tracing of 3D models in CSP should also allow for "traced" generative AI content (if we assume the AI content also exists in a future where there are ethical engines and databases). I find it a permissible tool in that context. I don't think platforms or even really communities should be able to tell someone they can't use bases to create personal artwork. (I can understand a little more if the argument is that you shouldn't use bases in commission or commercial work, but even then it's not really in my eyes a question of "morality" so much as it is "craftmanship" - and even still, that might be something for the commissioner or company to decide.)

so then at the end of this train of thought, I'd say that as someone who looks benignly on base-created-personal-artwork, if there arose a situation in which generative AI content reached an ethical state of existence, then I would also look benignly on AI-generated-bases for said personal artwork. I wouldn't consider the mere presence of AI to make something morally "bad" as long as the method of creation (no stolen artwork training, no severe environmental impact) was sound.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 18 Jun 2024, 07:28 PM

Is tracing/basing that controversial outside forgery contexts? I know Sheezy bans paperdoll products like Picrew and HeroMachine (RIP), but I thought that's more the exception than the rule.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 18 Jun 2024, 08:29 PM

In response to nothing above in particular, it should go without saying that something with merit is seen as objectively prioritized over something with less of it, whether this could be considered a creative caste system or not. Suppose we were discussing food. As much as quality can be debated, if there's anything that can be boiled down to the words "to each their own", it's not the humanity/humaneness that goes into it. This may be applied everywhere. In everything, there are opinionated aspects while there are components of merit which validate the aboveness of certain creative products and the reconciliation of the two things above. I of course don't "invalidate" anything described here, just saying some things are seen as "more valid" based on a case-by-case innocent-until-proven-otherwise form of assessment.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 19 Jun 2024, 01:55 AM

Fihyn:
I guess I'd agree that the same principles that theoretically allow for tracing of 3D models in CSP should also allow for "traced" generative AI content (if we assume the AI content also exists in a future where there are ethical engines and databases). I find it a permissible tool in that context. I don't think platforms or even really communities should be able to tell someone they can't use bases to create personal artwork. (I can understand a little more if the argument is that you shouldn't use bases in commission or commercial work, but even then it's not really in my eyes a question of "morality" so much as it is "craftmanship" - and even still, that might be something for the commissioner or company to decide.)

so then at the end of this train of thought, I'd say that as someone who looks benignly on base-created-personal-artwork, if there arose a situation in which generative AI content reached an ethical state of existence, then I would also look benignly on AI-generated-bases for said personal artwork. I wouldn't consider the mere presence of AI to make something morally "bad" as long as the method of creation (no stolen artwork training, no severe environmental impact) was sound.

Yeah, an open-source AI library could be the logical evolution of F2U templates and character designer games. It's basically how it's used now, but because diffusion can do it in hyper quality, the grifters pretend it's worth a pricetag and they're not just reselling a used colouring book.

Thorvald:
Is tracing/basing that controversial outside forgery contexts? I know Sheezy bans paperdoll products like Picrew and HeroMachine (RIP), but I thought that's more the exception than the rule.

In the case of this booru they like to paint themselves as a somewhat prestigous "art archive" and enforce a minimum quality standard (which in practice often boils down to mod preference), so "derived" content is considered "clutter". This has sometimes proven counterintuitive: there's a 5-image limit on variants of a single pose, probably put in place to prevent YCH spam, but it means one artist who makes substantial changes to costume and composition can't post them all, mods being lazy and running by timestamp, so "watermarked/unwatermarked" takes precedence over versions with actual content differences.

Tracers may get trolled as a social faux pas, but I think it's more a matter of site culture than a general taboo.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 19 Jun 2024, 02:09 AM

Thorvald:

Is tracing/basing that controversial outside forgery contexts? I know Sheezy bans paperdoll products like Picrew and HeroMachine (RIP), but I thought that's more the exception than the rule.

generally, across the internet as a whole, tracing/basing is not that controversial. and you're right that Sheezy's ban on these things in particular is a little unusual.

however, there is a somewhat recent-ish movement in a subset of the artistic community touting the idea that tracing/basing is inherently "cheating" even if clearly stated, and even if no forgery or theft was committed. this perspective frames artistic merit as some form of online social currency, and getting attention or appreciation for artwork that contains any work or help outside of yourself is "cheating" to get more social currency than you "deserve" to have. this movement sometimes even goes to the extreme of saying that using references counts as "cheating," too. anything that could be considered as coming from somewhere other than your brain or your hands is "wrong" and I've even seen them harass each other out of their circles for perceived missteps to this principle.

this movement tends to be more common among very young artists (around ages 14-18), but I have seen it spreading further into older categories as well. as far as I'm able to tell, I believe this mindset was first pushed on the tiktok platform, and it kind of caught fire with the youngins basically because to them it functions as an acceptable reason to bully someone else (if you can catch someone "cheating," then you rid your community of interlopers and you're doing everyone a favor, that kind of vibe.)

for me I just tend to steer clear of people I see pushing this mindset and most often I see others doing the same, but it can sometimes find its way into the cracks in some places and it can be really alarming sometimes xD I had an interaction just last week where I recommended a site for references images to another artist and they acted scandalized, like how could I possibly think they were someone who cheated with references?? and I was like fam MOST artists use references. in fact most professional artists use references. but they just could not believe that I would dare to sin so egregiously.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 19 Jun 2024, 06:28 PM

Fihyn:
this movement sometimes even goes to the extreme of saying that using references counts as "cheating," too. anything that could be considered as coming from somewhere other than your brain or your hands is "wrong"

Dang, I've often stood in front of the mirror to figure out posing. Can't believe I'm stealing from myself smh ;_;

Fihyn:
this movement tends to be more common among very young artists (around ages 14-18), but I have seen it spreading further into older categories as well. as far as I'm able to tell, I believe this mindset was first pushed on the tiktok platform, and it kind of caught fire with the youngins basically because to them it functions as an acceptable reason to bully someone else (if you can catch someone "cheating," then you rid your community of interlopers and you're doing everyone a favor, that kind of vibe.)

Social media has been a disaster for the human race.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 20 Jun 2024, 05:55 PM

Fihyn:

I think there's a bit of a false equivalency here in your framing. Rejecting generative AI content is not the same thing as assigning art to a "heirarchy" of value. true, some people have phrased it as though it is, but from what I can tell, that is simply poor choice of wording. not everyone online is academically versed in how to structure a debate point.

what I believe most folks are really getting at, is the idea that generative AI content cannot be worth the same as human artistic endeavors - expressly because it is both exploitative and devoid of human expression. when humans make derivative art, it is filtered through their own perceptions, biases, experiences, and agendas - even if done so in a "harmful" way, which is another discussion entirely. but generative AI image creation - at least as it exists now - is explicitly empty of human experience. it is a program, designed to strip material sorted by an algorithm without consent or approval from the artists who created the work stolen to "feed" it. it cannot place its own perceptions onto what it is creating (because it does not have them), and creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

edit: also I would say I personally am in the camp of calling it "generative AI content" rather than "art," and not even setting up the comparison as "AI art is lesser than other forms of art" and rather "'art' and 'generative AI content' are two seperate things."

MeatchCleaver:

Ok, I'm gonna break a personal rule here an actually give me opinion on something since I'm a member of that lower working class and we're all under the very real risk here of losing our jobs to a bunch robots since unlike us, robots don't get sick, need salaries, have families or just overall complain.

 

Now, not gonna lie, getting back home from a long hardous day of work, sitting on my ass on the couch and start the slow, tedious process of sloooooooowly producing my poorly drawn rabbits and abstract backgrounds (because suck at drawing environments), I take a break in every 2 hours to check DA and see what the others are up too. Every time, even with the settings blocking AI art, I still get a lot of suggestions showing AI art or ads with porn, AI or even AI porn.

Feels great man :> I do quite enjoy seeing these things, know why? They're a motivation.

I don't know anatomy, I don't know what values are, I have no idea about prespective or dynamic poses, I can't draw with colors and I'm not exactly great at worldbuilding, but at least the crap I produce is mine :3 Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing. Its some good shit, you might say and at the end of the day I get to look at it at say "I made this!"

At least I'm not using AI. For real, mate, if you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. It doesn't matter if it looks bad, trust me, you gotta try this, its the shit! I would say its better than sex but hey, I have no idea what that is so... XD

Shadane:

MeatchCleaver:
If you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. I would say its better than sex

NSFW artists laughing in the distance.

All jokes aside though, I wouldn't see AI art as any less artistic if they would have just built more ethical software using only royalty free artwork that anyone can use for whatever, or better yet, have volunteers who agree to create art for the algorithm to use.

I also never understood why art made by young children is considered "crappy" in the first place when they're clearly just starting off like everyone else did, including us, much less their art being compared to AI art when 1. they're at least trying, and 2. While AI art looks as though it was made by an expert, it more often than not takes only 10 or so seconds to create. I always thought it was cute, and I hate how we treat art made by kids as "not art" just because they aren't masters capable of recreating The Mona Lisa. At the end of the day, it's the thought that counts.

That's one of the background mindsets behind the existence of a hierarchy. The idea there are those of us who proudly say "I might draw stick figures for people, but at least I don't use AI to generate people". That's the idea, that a loser who did not cheat is better than a winner who did. Or that a badly puppeteered Yoda is better than an impressive CGI Yoda. Or that one king is worth all the pawns, to clarify how it would be like a true hierarchy.

chaseawaythedark:

In response to nothing above in particular, it should go without saying that something with merit is seen as objectively prioritized over something with less of it, whether this could be considered a creative caste system or not. Suppose we were discussing food. As much as quality can be debated, if there's anything that can be boiled down to the words "to each their own", it's not the humanity/humaneness that goes into it. This may be applied everywhere. In everything, there are opinionated aspects while there are components of merit which validate the aboveness of certain creative products and the reconciliation of the two things above. I of course don't "invalidate" anything described here, just saying some things are seen as "more valid" based on a case-by-case innocent-until-proven-otherwise form of assessment.

Well the hierarchy was your idea you mentioned in DM's, complete with the layout in the OP. I think what you said there at the end is a good idea, implying one would not accuse someone of theft until the accuser had a chance encounter with the original work, so it stands to reason someone should not accuse a work of being traced or being AI related unless the actual thing was discovered (similar to the kind of agnosticism people should have with selfies), especially since we're all technically tracing what we have in our mind's eye, or for those without a mind's eye, what we might have across the room from us. Which makes the whole hierarchy thing make even more sense, since traces are implied in the layout, in fact traces require more effort than photography when you think about it, and nobody belittles photography's status.

fragmented_imagination:

An objective hierarchy would make judging the value of art easier, but, like all else, nothing is ever that simple. You seem to be addressing the idea that there should be a universal application to the notion that art done in a specific way should be judged objectively higher or lower quality when compared to others of a different medium or source. Even if you could persuade everyone that such a hierarchy even exists, there would never be any universal agreement on what kind of boundaries should be set. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" is, indeed, an appropriate saying in this matter.

I think something to keep in mind is that A.I. art has some noteworthy factors working against it when it comes to the public's opinion about it. First, A.I. artwork has come under fire because of the behavior of the artists who use A.I. to create their art. There is a general fear of the proliferation of A.I. art supplanting more traditional forms of art both as display pieces and in commerce. We feel threatened that our own artwork will be ignored because loyal patrons find the works produced by an A.I. artist attractive enough to spend money on, an inherently unfair situation given the difference between the time and effort spent in production. A.I. artists are marketing the pieces they generate as if they were works produced by sweat, blood, and cramped muscles. At the same time, there appears to have been an intrusion in the professional industry due to stories of companies electing to use an A.I. to generate art as a cost-cutting measure.

Second, and, perhaps, more noteworthy, is the fact that A.I. art has dubious legal status. Whereas an artist who can sit and doodle on a sheet of paper until the art unfolds into a complete piece is unquestionably an artist with rights over their own work (and a cheater traces over their computer screen with a pen and scribbles the color too far outside the lines to be taken seriously), an A.I. is trained to mimic works found in a database of traditional artwork collected from perhaps something within the realm of hundreds of thousands of pieces and examples and thus has some questionable circumstances behind their output. When it was discovered that this database was constructed without the consent of the artists whose artwork was sampled, the logical reaction was outrage and attempts to protect artwork from being used as data to feed the programs. There still seems to be a question of whether A.I. art can be counted as legally permissible for sale as a copyrightable entity, permissible under the rules governing derivative works given that its construction is based on sampling others' art without any indication of creativity coming out of either program or user, or fraudulent as a work of plagiarism due to the lack of permission given by the artists who consider their work stolen.

Third is, of course, the fact that A.I. art requires little (if any) work from the user. This is perhaps the greatest of complaints in regard to the proliferation of A.I.-generated imagery. An A.I. uses prompts and keywords to generate any number of images is a short amount of time, while other artists have whole, hours-long or even days-long processes to churn out artwork of at least equal value. The user does not have to do much other than sit and judge which samples look worthy enough to post. When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort. It is easy to equate poor artwork with a lack of effort, and I think such has been an easy judgement call to make given that, in traditional art, a lack of effort generally shows in the quality of artwork produced. If there is no effort, why should the art be considered art?

I think a fourth consideration should be the relative youth of A.I. art. Use of A.I. to generate art is still a very recent development, and all new things are always bound to have detractors hate it for simply being new. While I do not expect opinions to drastically change based on the passage of time, it is a persistent item in many modern innovations.

What it comes down to is that, at this point in time, it is hard to have any objective appraisal of A.I. artwork because far too many things are going on in the background with most of them steering the opinion of other artists and Internet users to a highly negative reaction by default. It is easier to carry this opinion because the above issues are a valid form of outrage which would greatly color a person's perception of A.I.-generated artwork. An objective hierarchy in artwork has already failed considering the foothold A.I. art has gained with some users who find such content about as desireable as non-A.I. art. I myself am willing to admit that I have occasionally found an A.I.-generated image visually appealing if only for being able to express a new concept. At the same time, my opinion of A.I. art tends to be low based on recurring visual flaws that ruin most images I have encountered. Even if we could factor out the news and events that have caused anger and derision, there would never be any sort of overriding objective observation that all people would agree on, and this goes with all art, not just A.I.-generated art.

Thorvald:

Basically seconding all other replies, with the observation that "art is subjective" and "art can be objectively ranked" are antithetical propositions.

As mentioned, the essential issue is whether AI-gen ontologically constitutes art in the first place. There was a fellow on DeviantArt (of course) who does digital fractals and misunderstood the argument over flagging AI content, lamenting that they were "taking away" his tools. Setting aside that proper labelling is not censorship (and the "Created with AI" disclaimer isn't meant for fractal modelling), it did get me thinking: Digital fractals are typically created through a mathematical formula inputted into a renderer—it's more like engineering than art, in the sense the actual generation is conducted by the software.

And yet, fractals still involve conscious effort to achieve an intended output; direct authorship is diluted, but the numbers are inputted with expectation they will render a specific result. I don't think anyone seriously argues against using tools to facilitate the creative process; a puritanical definition would argue any form of digital illustration is "cheating". The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary: prompts are literally a search filtre to a glorified collage. The user has almost no actual ability to direct the output, which is confined to whatever's available within the dataset. It's like trying to dart a bullseye blindfolded, while the boards are moving on a belt: you can define the general bounds, but after that getting what you want is all down to luck.

MeatchCleaver:
Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing.

Excuse me, but have you seen my cartoons? At least your characters keep to consistent model! :^D 

One could say a hierarchy exists de facto in a disorganized way but not de jure. It's not uncommon for someone on DA to go to a screenshot/meme/photo/etc. and belittle it as not being what the site is for. It's like what the person I replied to above this reply said, you have subjective, interest-based aspects of a work of art and then you have ethical, objective aspects of its conception, things that in a meritocracy (rule by the wise) would put humans below each other (which applies especially once someone mentions hesitation to call AI art "art"), for example you might be open to all opinions people might have about movies but draw the line when someone says they like something where the animals portrayed were harmed in the filming (hence the common disclaimer "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie"). I am more convinced than ever now that some of the existing art sites should have a multiple choice category system like this.

Dionysus:

A convo on DA late last year put this issue of "proof of work" in startling relief: someone who used to draw their own art went all in on AI prompting, and when a watcher expressed disappointment, they said they "never really enjoyed drawing" and even if AI generation was literally outlawed they'd never pick up a pencil again. Now there are legitimate reasons someone might quit cold turkey, and it's not even the first time I've seen genuine talent "defect to the enemy" as it were, and while I'll never understand it except as a cutthroat business gambit, it's their conscience to confront.

But then this other person swoops in on the ex-fan with one of the most contemptuous posts I've ever read: "Respectfully, you're not entitled to other peoples free labor. It takes years, even decades of constant, repetitive work to get to even an moderate level of skill in traditional art, so why should they endure all that when you can get what you need in a few minutes with AI?" Because nothing smacks of entitlement like tasteless consumers chasing after pure volume. :V The watcher attracted to this user's unique style isn't "entitled" to "free labor"—yet the AI prompters using a glorified search engine to remix data dumps compiled without the original creators' consent or reimbursement are? America learned the hard way that outsourcing its entire manufacturing sector means no-one's left who knows how to actually build anything anymore (see: Boeing); if this AIpologist had their way and we all just took to prompting for a living, how soon would it take for art to hollow out the same way? Tech journals say the LLMs are already starting to cannibalize themselves, and based on how you can browse through 30 separate accounts on DA that all look the damn same, I believe it.

Fihyn:
creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

fragmented_imagination:
When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort.

MeatchCleaver:
at least the crap I produce is mine

Thorvald:
The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary

I was going to raise this question with staff, but it might be worth exploring here: I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters. Compared to what he's tracing over it's literally cartoons, but the fact they're redrawn as OCs gives them a sense of genuine investment lacking in even the most visually detailed prompt-spam. It's like the opposite of the first artist: he claims he doesn't have the skill to work from scratch, but is competent enough to make significant changes to the base design, essentially using the prompt as a template to an own YCH in the first I've ever seen this stuff used as a crutch instead of a WALL-E hoverchair. I was heartbroken to learn it's AI-based, because both his aesthetic and the characters' vibes nail my taste. :p

Anyway, a point for procedural consideration is whether this sort of "AI-assist" with tangible authorship could be tolerable, or is too risky for Trojan horses.

This is where I admit the question becomes difficult. Art has a monetary side. People often sell art to get by if they can't in another way, and/or they might learn art is not a skill of theirs even if they want it to be a hobby. Sometimes I'll go on Twitter and see people share images of people with no limbs drawing things with pencils they hold in their mouths, with the caption "anyone can do it", and it makes me so angry because not everyone can, even though that doesn't justify infringing on other artists anymore than the inability to grow crops makes you justified to steal other peoples' whom need the sustenance as much as you. I would get blocked on those sites mentioning someone being in a car accident and not having the mental power to draw.

One thing I learned is that most of DA's most prolific art thieves are people who are exceptionally disadvantaged in a neurodiverse way who are too tempted to fit in, and the very idea of helping them is undermined even though that's exactly what might help. A hierarchy as I currently envision it (as of a previous exchange here) wouldn't shame people playing by the rules, just people who say the rules don't matter. Those who are disadvantaged though are another story, they just need to find methods and people that bring them harmony. A wise artist once said all skill is seed for style.

The closest thing to my thoughts on the tracing part I speak of above.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 21 Jun 2024, 09:56 AM

BatmanWilliams:

Fihyn:

I think there's a bit of a false equivalency here in your framing. Rejecting generative AI content is not the same thing as assigning art to a "heirarchy" of value. true, some people have phrased it as though it is, but from what I can tell, that is simply poor choice of wording. not everyone online is academically versed in how to structure a debate point.

what I believe most folks are really getting at, is the idea that generative AI content cannot be worth the same as human artistic endeavors - expressly because it is both exploitative and devoid of human expression. when humans make derivative art, it is filtered through their own perceptions, biases, experiences, and agendas - even if done so in a "harmful" way, which is another discussion entirely. but generative AI image creation - at least as it exists now - is explicitly empty of human experience. it is a program, designed to strip material sorted by an algorithm without consent or approval from the artists who created the work stolen to "feed" it. it cannot place its own perceptions onto what it is creating (because it does not have them), and creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

edit: also I would say I personally am in the camp of calling it "generative AI content" rather than "art," and not even setting up the comparison as "AI art is lesser than other forms of art" and rather "'art' and 'generative AI content' are two seperate things."

MeatchCleaver:

Ok, I'm gonna break a personal rule here an actually give me opinion on something since I'm a member of that lower working class and we're all under the very real risk here of losing our jobs to a bunch robots since unlike us, robots don't get sick, need salaries, have families or just overall complain.

 

Now, not gonna lie, getting back home from a long hardous day of work, sitting on my ass on the couch and start the slow, tedious process of sloooooooowly producing my poorly drawn rabbits and abstract backgrounds (because suck at drawing environments), I take a break in every 2 hours to check DA and see what the others are up too. Every time, even with the settings blocking AI art, I still get a lot of suggestions showing AI art or ads with porn, AI or even AI porn.

Feels great man :> I do quite enjoy seeing these things, know why? They're a motivation.

I don't know anatomy, I don't know what values are, I have no idea about prespective or dynamic poses, I can't draw with colors and I'm not exactly great at worldbuilding, but at least the crap I produce is mine :3 Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing. Its some good shit, you might say and at the end of the day I get to look at it at say "I made this!"

At least I'm not using AI. For real, mate, if you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. It doesn't matter if it looks bad, trust me, you gotta try this, its the shit! I would say its better than sex but hey, I have no idea what that is so... XD

Shadane:

MeatchCleaver:
If you're not drawing trust me, you're missing out. I would say its better than sex

NSFW artists laughing in the distance.

All jokes aside though, I wouldn't see AI art as any less artistic if they would have just built more ethical software using only royalty free artwork that anyone can use for whatever, or better yet, have volunteers who agree to create art for the algorithm to use.

I also never understood why art made by young children is considered "crappy" in the first place when they're clearly just starting off like everyone else did, including us, much less their art being compared to AI art when 1. they're at least trying, and 2. While AI art looks as though it was made by an expert, it more often than not takes only 10 or so seconds to create. I always thought it was cute, and I hate how we treat art made by kids as "not art" just because they aren't masters capable of recreating The Mona Lisa. At the end of the day, it's the thought that counts.

That's one of the background mindsets behind the existence of a hierarchy. The idea there are those of us who proudly say "I might draw stick figures for people, but at least I don't use AI to generate people". That's the idea, that a loser who did not cheat is better than a winner who did. Or that a badly puppeteered Yoda is better than an impressive CGI Yoda. Or that one king is worth all the pawns, to clarify how it would be like a true hierarchy.

chaseawaythedark:

In response to nothing above in particular, it should go without saying that something with merit is seen as objectively prioritized over something with less of it, whether this could be considered a creative caste system or not. Suppose we were discussing food. As much as quality can be debated, if there's anything that can be boiled down to the words "to each their own", it's not the humanity/humaneness that goes into it. This may be applied everywhere. In everything, there are opinionated aspects while there are components of merit which validate the aboveness of certain creative products and the reconciliation of the two things above. I of course don't "invalidate" anything described here, just saying some things are seen as "more valid" based on a case-by-case innocent-until-proven-otherwise form of assessment.

Well the hierarchy was your idea you mentioned in DM's, complete with the layout in the OP. I think what you said there at the end is a good idea, implying one would not accuse someone of theft until the accuser had a chance encounter with the original work, so it stands to reason someone should not accuse a work of being traced or being AI related unless the actual thing was discovered (similar to the kind of agnosticism people should have with selfies), especially since we're all technically tracing what we have in our mind's eye, or for those without a mind's eye, what we might have across the room from us. Which makes the whole hierarchy thing make even more sense, since traces are implied in the layout, in fact traces require more effort than photography when you think about it, and nobody belittles photography's status.

fragmented_imagination:

An objective hierarchy would make judging the value of art easier, but, like all else, nothing is ever that simple. You seem to be addressing the idea that there should be a universal application to the notion that art done in a specific way should be judged objectively higher or lower quality when compared to others of a different medium or source. Even if you could persuade everyone that such a hierarchy even exists, there would never be any universal agreement on what kind of boundaries should be set. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" is, indeed, an appropriate saying in this matter.

I think something to keep in mind is that A.I. art has some noteworthy factors working against it when it comes to the public's opinion about it. First, A.I. artwork has come under fire because of the behavior of the artists who use A.I. to create their art. There is a general fear of the proliferation of A.I. art supplanting more traditional forms of art both as display pieces and in commerce. We feel threatened that our own artwork will be ignored because loyal patrons find the works produced by an A.I. artist attractive enough to spend money on, an inherently unfair situation given the difference between the time and effort spent in production. A.I. artists are marketing the pieces they generate as if they were works produced by sweat, blood, and cramped muscles. At the same time, there appears to have been an intrusion in the professional industry due to stories of companies electing to use an A.I. to generate art as a cost-cutting measure.

Second, and, perhaps, more noteworthy, is the fact that A.I. art has dubious legal status. Whereas an artist who can sit and doodle on a sheet of paper until the art unfolds into a complete piece is unquestionably an artist with rights over their own work (and a cheater traces over their computer screen with a pen and scribbles the color too far outside the lines to be taken seriously), an A.I. is trained to mimic works found in a database of traditional artwork collected from perhaps something within the realm of hundreds of thousands of pieces and examples and thus has some questionable circumstances behind their output. When it was discovered that this database was constructed without the consent of the artists whose artwork was sampled, the logical reaction was outrage and attempts to protect artwork from being used as data to feed the programs. There still seems to be a question of whether A.I. art can be counted as legally permissible for sale as a copyrightable entity, permissible under the rules governing derivative works given that its construction is based on sampling others' art without any indication of creativity coming out of either program or user, or fraudulent as a work of plagiarism due to the lack of permission given by the artists who consider their work stolen.

Third is, of course, the fact that A.I. art requires little (if any) work from the user. This is perhaps the greatest of complaints in regard to the proliferation of A.I.-generated imagery. An A.I. uses prompts and keywords to generate any number of images is a short amount of time, while other artists have whole, hours-long or even days-long processes to churn out artwork of at least equal value. The user does not have to do much other than sit and judge which samples look worthy enough to post. When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort. It is easy to equate poor artwork with a lack of effort, and I think such has been an easy judgement call to make given that, in traditional art, a lack of effort generally shows in the quality of artwork produced. If there is no effort, why should the art be considered art?

I think a fourth consideration should be the relative youth of A.I. art. Use of A.I. to generate art is still a very recent development, and all new things are always bound to have detractors hate it for simply being new. While I do not expect opinions to drastically change based on the passage of time, it is a persistent item in many modern innovations.

What it comes down to is that, at this point in time, it is hard to have any objective appraisal of A.I. artwork because far too many things are going on in the background with most of them steering the opinion of other artists and Internet users to a highly negative reaction by default. It is easier to carry this opinion because the above issues are a valid form of outrage which would greatly color a person's perception of A.I.-generated artwork. An objective hierarchy in artwork has already failed considering the foothold A.I. art has gained with some users who find such content about as desireable as non-A.I. art. I myself am willing to admit that I have occasionally found an A.I.-generated image visually appealing if only for being able to express a new concept. At the same time, my opinion of A.I. art tends to be low based on recurring visual flaws that ruin most images I have encountered. Even if we could factor out the news and events that have caused anger and derision, there would never be any sort of overriding objective observation that all people would agree on, and this goes with all art, not just A.I.-generated art.

Thorvald:

Basically seconding all other replies, with the observation that "art is subjective" and "art can be objectively ranked" are antithetical propositions.

As mentioned, the essential issue is whether AI-gen ontologically constitutes art in the first place. There was a fellow on DeviantArt (of course) who does digital fractals and misunderstood the argument over flagging AI content, lamenting that they were "taking away" his tools. Setting aside that proper labelling is not censorship (and the "Created with AI" disclaimer isn't meant for fractal modelling), it did get me thinking: Digital fractals are typically created through a mathematical formula inputted into a renderer—it's more like engineering than art, in the sense the actual generation is conducted by the software.

And yet, fractals still involve conscious effort to achieve an intended output; direct authorship is diluted, but the numbers are inputted with expectation they will render a specific result. I don't think anyone seriously argues against using tools to facilitate the creative process; a puritanical definition would argue any form of digital illustration is "cheating". The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary: prompts are literally a search filtre to a glorified collage. The user has almost no actual ability to direct the output, which is confined to whatever's available within the dataset. It's like trying to dart a bullseye blindfolded, while the boards are moving on a belt: you can define the general bounds, but after that getting what you want is all down to luck.

MeatchCleaver:
Its crap but it's crap I'm pretty damn proud of and enjoy doing.

Excuse me, but have you seen my cartoons? At least your characters keep to consistent model! :^D 

One could say a hierarchy exists de facto in a disorganized way but not de jure. It's not uncommon for someone on DA to go to a screenshot/meme/photo/etc. and belittle it as not being what the site is for. It's like what the person I replied to above this reply said, you have subjective, interest-based aspects of a work of art and then you have ethical, objective aspects of its conception, things that in a meritocracy (rule by the wise) would put humans below each other (which applies especially once someone mentions hesitation to call AI art "art"), for example you might be open to all opinions people might have about movies but draw the line when someone says they like something where the animals portrayed were harmed in the filming (hence the common disclaimer "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie"). I am more convinced than ever now that some of the existing art sites should have a multiple choice category system like this.

Dionysus:

A convo on DA late last year put this issue of "proof of work" in startling relief: someone who used to draw their own art went all in on AI prompting, and when a watcher expressed disappointment, they said they "never really enjoyed drawing" and even if AI generation was literally outlawed they'd never pick up a pencil again. Now there are legitimate reasons someone might quit cold turkey, and it's not even the first time I've seen genuine talent "defect to the enemy" as it were, and while I'll never understand it except as a cutthroat business gambit, it's their conscience to confront.

But then this other person swoops in on the ex-fan with one of the most contemptuous posts I've ever read: "Respectfully, you're not entitled to other peoples free labor. It takes years, even decades of constant, repetitive work to get to even an moderate level of skill in traditional art, so why should they endure all that when you can get what you need in a few minutes with AI?" Because nothing smacks of entitlement like tasteless consumers chasing after pure volume. :V The watcher attracted to this user's unique style isn't "entitled" to "free labor"—yet the AI prompters using a glorified search engine to remix data dumps compiled without the original creators' consent or reimbursement are? America learned the hard way that outsourcing its entire manufacturing sector means no-one's left who knows how to actually build anything anymore (see: Boeing); if this AIpologist had their way and we all just took to prompting for a living, how soon would it take for art to hollow out the same way? Tech journals say the LLMs are already starting to cannibalize themselves, and based on how you can browse through 30 separate accounts on DA that all look the damn same, I believe it.

Fihyn:
creation out of expression/experience is arguably the most basic requirement for any work to qualify as "art."

fragmented_imagination:
When you compare A.I. usage to other forms of art production, even a kid rapidly drawing circles with a crayon expresses more physical effort.

MeatchCleaver:
at least the crap I produce is mine

Thorvald:
The problem with generative AI is that it's supplementary rather than complementary

I was going to raise this question with staff, but it might be worth exploring here: I came across someone whose whole method is tracing over AI prompts, and it kinda leaves me morally confounded. On one hand, it's basically laundering, tainted by all the ethical qualms inherent to AI-sourced content. And yet, the edits show more creative application than 99% of prompters: more than just airbrushing glitches, the whole thing is painted over in flats and even given additional details as needed for custom characters. Compared to what he's tracing over it's literally cartoons, but the fact they're redrawn as OCs gives them a sense of genuine investment lacking in even the most visually detailed prompt-spam. It's like the opposite of the first artist: he claims he doesn't have the skill to work from scratch, but is competent enough to make significant changes to the base design, essentially using the prompt as a template to an own YCH in the first I've ever seen this stuff used as a crutch instead of a WALL-E hoverchair. I was heartbroken to learn it's AI-based, because both his aesthetic and the characters' vibes nail my taste. :p

Anyway, a point for procedural consideration is whether this sort of "AI-assist" with tangible authorship could be tolerable, or is too risky for Trojan horses.

This is where I admit the question becomes difficult. Art has a monetary side. People often sell art to get by if they can't in another way, and/or they might learn art is not a skill of theirs even if they want it to be a hobby. Sometimes I'll go on Twitter and see people share images of people with no limbs drawing things with pencils they hold in their mouths, with the caption "anyone can do it", and it makes me so angry because not everyone can, even though that doesn't justify infringing on other artists anymore than the inability to grow crops makes you justified to steal other peoples' whom need the sustenance as much as you. I would get blocked on those sites mentioning someone being in a car accident and not having the mental power to draw.

One thing I learned is that most of DA's most prolific art thieves are people who are exceptionally disadvantaged in a neurodiverse way who are too tempted to fit in, and the very idea of helping them is undermined even though that's exactly what might help. A hierarchy as I currently envision it (as of a previous exchange here) wouldn't shame people playing by the rules, just people who say the rules don't matter. Those who are disadvantaged though are another story, they just need to find methods and people that bring them harmony. A wise artist once said all skill is seed for style.

The closest thing to my thoughts on the tracing part I speak of above.

You wouldn't be wrong for the second part. And I'm sure someone was going to trace it to me. I also wouldn't say the last part is necessarily conflictive with everything else, if I understand it correctly (I think I saw what you meant with that one part). That's probably why this thing people call bargaining may exist. Art as a form of occupation needs to be separated somehow from art as a form of begging or you have this battle royale of the bands with one's names as leverage. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt if things were a little more organized, with an accommodation/yielding/headstart (whatever the word is) system coming to mind.

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 21 Jun 2024, 08:04 PM

BatmanWilliams:

That's one of the background mindsets behind the existence of a hierarchy. The idea there are those of us who proudly say "I might draw stick figures for people, but at least I don't use AI to generate people". That's the idea, that a loser who did not cheat is better than a winner who did. Or that a badly puppeteered Yoda is better than an impressive CGI Yoda. Or that one king is worth all the pawns, to clarify how it would be like a true hierarchy.

I just think it's unfair to children and can lead them to quitting long before they get a chance to improve. Since we (or at least I do) live in a society where children are considered subhuman just because they're not adults yet, it emboldens the rotten side of the adult population to treat children however they want without consequences, and that especially includes looking down on them and bullying them, art being no exception. I've even seen adults laughing at children for simply saying they want to be a professional artist when they grow up because their art currently looked like Abby's did in the FNAF movie. On the flipside, AI art is unreliable and the algorithm isn't going to create exactly what you want. When AI art was just starting off and I got curious about it, I tested it out by inputting different mythical creatures and briefly describing how they look to make it as clear as possible. For example, I would input "jinmenken" along with "a human faced dog" or "canine sphinx" as the description (because as funny as it may sound, jinmenkens are considered to be sphinxes by many people), but I only ever got regular dogs with dog faces or ordinary cats, not even big cats, just the same little house cats we often keep around as pets! I probably shot myself in the foot by doing this because the machine probably learned how to replicate my art from this, but I even input an old piece of concept art for my character Hiroshi into a "sketch to image" software to see if it could come up with a better design, and it literally just swapped out the humanoid face with a dog face, and added a bunch of unnecessary stripes; he just looked like a canine version of Tiger Rock. That, along with the blatant art theft that companies continue to do nothing about made me lose hope in these programs, and I think AI artists are better off learning to draw on their own, especially since using nothing but AI will only hinder their actual growth as artists. As the saying goes: "if you want something done right, you're going to have to do it yourself."

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 26 Jun 2024, 10:02 PM

BatmanWilliams:
One thing I learned is that most of DA's most prolific art thieves are people who are exceptionally disadvantaged in a neurodiverse way who are too tempted to fit in, and the very idea of helping them is undermined even though that's exactly what might help.

The problem is if they valued permission, they wouldn't be stealing in the first place. I appreciate mitigating the symptom, but it doesn't address the cause, whether that's genuine trouble with social cues or malicious intent.

Shadane:
I also never understood why art made by young children is considered "crappy" in the first place when they're clearly just starting off like everyone else did
...
I just think it's unfair to children and can lead them to quitting long before they get a chance to improve.

Bill Watterson, anyone..? ;^)

Bringing this full circle, courtesy of the Reddit post linked in Batman's other thread, in a similar vein to Axe Copsomeone made an entire comic out of kids' adoptables. :3

 

[P.S.: Please please PLEASE can people trim their quotes to what's actually relevant to their replies? The cascades are starting to get out of hand.]

RE: Should artistic content have objective hierarchal aspects determining an objective value it has over other art?
Posted: 08 Jul 2024, 10:34 PM
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edit on 08 Jul 2024, 10:43 PM.

Shadane:

BatmanWilliams:

That's one of the background mindsets behind the existence of a hierarchy. The idea there are those of us who proudly say "I might draw stick figures for people, but at least I don't use AI to generate people". That's the idea, that a loser who did not cheat is better than a winner who did. Or that a badly puppeteered Yoda is better than an impressive CGI Yoda. Or that one king is worth all the pawns, to clarify how it would be like a true hierarchy.

I just think it's unfair to children and can lead them to quitting long before they get a chance to improve. Since we (or at least I do) live in a society where children are considered subhuman just because they're not adults yet, it emboldens the rotten side of the adult population to treat children however they want without consequences, and that especially includes looking down on them and bullying them, art being no exception. I've even seen adults laughing at children for simply saying they want to be a professional artist when they grow up because their art currently looked like Abby's did in the FNAF movie. On the flipside, AI art is unreliable and the algorithm isn't going to create exactly what you want. When AI art was just starting off and I got curious about it, I tested it out by inputting different mythical creatures and briefly describing how they look to make it as clear as possible. For example, I would input "jinmenken" along with "a human faced dog" or "canine sphinx" as the description (because as funny as it may sound, jinmenkens are considered to be sphinxes by many people), but I only ever got regular dogs with dog faces or ordinary cats, not even big cats, just the same little house cats we often keep around as pets! I probably shot myself in the foot by doing this because the machine probably learned how to replicate my art from this, but I even input an old piece of concept art for my character Hiroshi into a "sketch to image" software to see if it could come up with a better design, and it literally just swapped out the humanoid face with a dog face, and added a bunch of unnecessary stripes; he just looked like a canine version of Tiger Rock. That, along with the blatant art theft that companies continue to do nothing about made me lose hope in these programs, and I think AI artists are better off learning to draw on their own, especially since using nothing but AI will only hinder their actual growth as artists. As the saying goes: "if you want something done right, you're going to have to do it yourself."

Woah, such societies exist? Sorry about that. Though that's not the intention, in fact that would be taken into consideration. The hierarchy wouldn't put someone above another person for subjective aspects of the art, just relativistic aspects.

It's similar to how in some places, certain lifestyle habits like being vegan, not smoking, speaking the local language, and adopting your kids gets you tax cuts. Nobody will, for example, say you should get cuts for enjoying locally sponsored cultural media more, but other things have ethical aspects, things that go beyond subjective quality.

If a child made something and their quality showed in it, that would be a subjective, non-ethical matter, it wouldn't be like, say, using a handicap booster to speed down to the artistic finish line, or coattail riding off other artists. That's what we want to discourage kids from doing, no? We want our next generation to appreciate the exploration of actual creativity. A child's little doodle would be above something like a mishmash non-creative work.

Or so it should go, ideally. To prevent the opposite extreme humorously demonstrated at the end of a certain video (also good to know the benefits of a highly prepped system of copyright, poor poor Picasso).

Page 1 of 2 :: Viewing 1-25 of 40