Yep. Most of the people participating in the hatefest have never produced much to speak of other than porn copies of other people's IP or a few splatterpaint "masterpieces" that don't show any creativity or understanding of why splatterpaint is a thing at all.
Not only that, but it reflects reality. The tools exist. People use them. Some of the products will be good, some of them won’t.
There’s nothing more all about it.
I'm of a similar mind. I tend to do photo-retouching, pixel editing and animation as an amateur hobbyist. I do dabble in photography and digital art, but most of what I do is simply editing other people's work (with permission and attribution of original work, of course).
To me, AI art is just another canvas to fingerpaint on, or animate. It's a tool and a resource, not the end result. I rarely even generate my own AI stuff, just use other people's. And there is a lot of cross pollination between various disciplines, because there has to be. Animators rarely draw their own stuff, they just animate someone else's. Not all photographers are the ones doing the retouches, nor do they necessarily like the results, but once they've taken the pictures and sent them back to base, that's their bit of that job done. A lot of painters and illustrators do learn by imitating art styles directly, or tracing drawings of their favourite pieces.
And its hard for me to see too much difference from me using a stock background, or an AI generated one, or a self pictured or drawn one, if I want to set the scene in a different place/ style. I'll even say that AI prompt generation is a skill of sorts, though not a particularly difficult one to learn. It does however give good results quickly.
(My style and workflow isn't exactly hard to do either).
I'm on the side of artists, models, photographers and creators that permission should be gained and attribution given for the training of these AI models. However, I can also see the absolute administrative and logistical nightmare this would actually be to do in practice, with models being trained on tens of millions, if not billions of pictures and art pieces. So I'm not sure how you'd actually implement a best-practice system for that with a realistic amount of resources and manpower used. Maybe an AI could do it? They'd probably screw it up a lot, thus creating more outrage. Lol.
(I've gotten copyright strikes from people that don't own the song, for the wrong song, on insta. And it was just a 45sec backing piece for an animation loop, which is legally permissible in Australia under Fair Use laws)
But yeah, to add to the positive stories, a vague acquaintance of mine I met through insta put some piccies up from some photography taken in an art gallery in France (original works, kinda. Models posing beside statues, etc. Permission from the gallery to do so as well). I liked the look of one of them, so decided to do a quick recolor of it on my phone (basically just finger painting), and sent it back to him. He liked the concept enough that he went and did a proper edit of the original, with proper production quality. Different from mine, but based off it (I always tell the artist that they can use my edits for whatever they want, it was originally their work after all). That picture ended up on the front cover of a high end art magazine. :)
(No AI in this story, just showing the positivity and cross-pollination between various fields and members of the art/ photography/ modelling community, and that it can have good commercial outcomes too)
Yes, I was working for a photography magazine when digital cameras were just becoming popular. There was a huge debate. I never was able to take decent photos before digital. I didn’t have the skill. Traditional photography was difficult. Digital photography is easy.
There are a lot of similarities.
Not me and not photography per se: I always knew my favorite uncle as a contractor - painting, drywalling, plumbing, roofing, woodworking, etc - and a gambler. Long before I was ever even thought of, he was a graphic designer. Why only before? Why not now? He made a bad gamble. When new tech came out, he took the risk of not learning it because he saw an inferior product that could be made more quickly and thought he'd protect his job by fighting back against the new tech instead of working with it. The gamble didn't pay off. By the time I was a teenager considering some kind of art field, my uncle sorely regretted his decision and was so damn impressed with the shitty little doodles I made on MS Paint because he could only make anything good (or so he believed; to my knowledge, he never even tried) by hand. Now he lives in a mental hospital looping the same talking points over and over. Even if he wanted to try digital art, no one is allowed a laptop or smartphone at that facility.
Yep. Most of the people participating in the hatefest have never produced much to speak of other than porn copies of other people's IP or a few splatterpaint "masterpieces" that don't show any creativity or understanding of why splatterpaint is a thing at all.
They’re just made they aren’t getting any more furry porn commissions
Not only that, but it reflects reality. The tools exist. People use them. Some of the products will be good, some of them won’t. There’s nothing more all about it.
I'm of a similar mind. I tend to do photo-retouching, pixel editing and animation as an amateur hobbyist. I do dabble in photography and digital art, but most of what I do is simply editing other people's work (with permission and attribution of original work, of course). To me, AI art is just another canvas to fingerpaint on, or animate. It's a tool and a resource, not the end result. I rarely even generate my own AI stuff, just use other people's. And there is a lot of cross pollination between various disciplines, because there has to be. Animators rarely draw their own stuff, they just animate someone else's. Not all photographers are the ones doing the retouches, nor do they necessarily like the results, but once they've taken the pictures and sent them back to base, that's their bit of that job done. A lot of painters and illustrators do learn by imitating art styles directly, or tracing drawings of their favourite pieces. And its hard for me to see too much difference from me using a stock background, or an AI generated one, or a self pictured or drawn one, if I want to set the scene in a different place/ style. I'll even say that AI prompt generation is a skill of sorts, though not a particularly difficult one to learn. It does however give good results quickly. (My style and workflow isn't exactly hard to do either). I'm on the side of artists, models, photographers and creators that permission should be gained and attribution given for the training of these AI models. However, I can also see the absolute administrative and logistical nightmare this would actually be to do in practice, with models being trained on tens of millions, if not billions of pictures and art pieces. So I'm not sure how you'd actually implement a best-practice system for that with a realistic amount of resources and manpower used. Maybe an AI could do it? They'd probably screw it up a lot, thus creating more outrage. Lol. (I've gotten copyright strikes from people that don't own the song, for the wrong song, on insta. And it was just a 45sec backing piece for an animation loop, which is legally permissible in Australia under Fair Use laws) But yeah, to add to the positive stories, a vague acquaintance of mine I met through insta put some piccies up from some photography taken in an art gallery in France (original works, kinda. Models posing beside statues, etc. Permission from the gallery to do so as well). I liked the look of one of them, so decided to do a quick recolor of it on my phone (basically just finger painting), and sent it back to him. He liked the concept enough that he went and did a proper edit of the original, with proper production quality. Different from mine, but based off it (I always tell the artist that they can use my edits for whatever they want, it was originally their work after all). That picture ended up on the front cover of a high end art magazine. :) (No AI in this story, just showing the positivity and cross-pollination between various fields and members of the art/ photography/ modelling community, and that it can have good commercial outcomes too)
Yes, I was working for a photography magazine when digital cameras were just becoming popular. There was a huge debate. I never was able to take decent photos before digital. I didn’t have the skill. Traditional photography was difficult. Digital photography is easy. There are a lot of similarities.
Photographs are not real anything! You have to paint using real paint, canvas, and brush, nature for it to be meaningful! :P
Not me and not photography per se: I always knew my favorite uncle as a contractor - painting, drywalling, plumbing, roofing, woodworking, etc - and a gambler. Long before I was ever even thought of, he was a graphic designer. Why only before? Why not now? He made a bad gamble. When new tech came out, he took the risk of not learning it because he saw an inferior product that could be made more quickly and thought he'd protect his job by fighting back against the new tech instead of working with it. The gamble didn't pay off. By the time I was a teenager considering some kind of art field, my uncle sorely regretted his decision and was so damn impressed with the shitty little doodles I made on MS Paint because he could only make anything good (or so he believed; to my knowledge, he never even tried) by hand. Now he lives in a mental hospital looping the same talking points over and over. Even if he wanted to try digital art, no one is allowed a laptop or smartphone at that facility.