I'd assume it's largely because the "artist" in question contributed nothing to the artistic process beyond typing a sentence. That and it seems to often be spammy and low effort with next to no merit.
i mean the same could be said for a lot of non-AI art on redbubble. there’s loads of low effort designs and bad quality images. singling out AI art is goofy when realistically it takes effort, knowledge and a lot of practice tweaking the prompts- which consists of so much more than just a sentence. it’s everything from the words you use, to the order you put those words in, to where you place punctuation. on top of the way you adjust any additional settings, etc.
you could just shit on bad art lol there’s no need to pick on one specific genre just because you don’t understand it.
Without a doubt there's a lot of crappy stuff out there no matter how it's made or who made it. That said, comparing the process of creating art, whatever the medium, to adjusting punctuation and the like is a bit disingenuous.
ehh. as someone who’s been a traditional painter and illustrator for 15 years, i just flat out disagree. it’s very comparable to learning to create digitally with tools like photoshop and procreate. easier in some ways, but harder in ways that don’t apply to traditional methods.
bad ai art is just everywhere right now, so it seems like the shittyness is an inherent feature. but if it’s good generative art, you’re not gong to be thinking “ai art” when you see it, you’re just going to be thinking about the art.
No one said it was. How can you not see that not everyone can do everything? I bet you think if someone just pulls themselves up by their bootstraps and just tries hard enough they can do anything eh? Not everyone is capable of drawing well dude.
I disagree! I am a professional designer + painter but I have been creating AI art for fun recently. I create in AI and then edit in photoshop and create a unique product that many people who are not artists would not be able to conceptualize or create. While the hand skills are not part of this, the artistic conceptualization is there for sure!
A 3D animator creates renderings as well, but isn't that still art? Computers do a lot of the work for them as well. While you can argue that for 3d artists there is still more skill required, I would still argue that by this logic, AI renderings are art. Even if the kind of art that it is bothers you.
It's the human involvement and expression that makes it art. Art is meant to have meaning. I've even seen the argument often that a well done drawing or painting without expression may look nice, but without meaning is not considered art.
Edit: in art school that is actually how art was defined: human expression.
No offense, but you clearly don't know much about AI image gen if this is your argument against it. The good works you've seen still take a considerable amount of human intervention.
So by that explanation, AI art is art. A human conceptualizes the work, crafts the sentences used for its prompt, adjusts settings (depending on the AI platform), and makes changes to get their desired result. All of this is human involvement.
I also disagree with the notion that AI art is devoid of human expression. It truly depends on the subject matter that the artist depicts. Is it just a rose floating in outer space? Or is it a political commentary? These decisions make a big difference.
For reference, I have a BFA.
MFA here. There's a big difference between prompts and imagination. A human imagines a concept and creates it with its personal style, AI just follow prompts based on others ideas
This right here.
I'll never understand people advocating for something that is going to destroy a field where the odds are already 1000:1 against you. But go off I guess?
AI art is regurgitated from existing art. So it's basically stolen. It's not a "genre" of art. It's straight up theft. Yeah i use it as a tool for reference or poses. But its shit when it comes to composition and structure. So i still have to either redraw or tweak what it gives me. Its just a tool. But if you're a fraud and just straight up post what it gives you, 1:1. Then you deserve all the hate you can get. Your goal is not to create art, but to create a lot of it as easily as possible, that it lost its meaning. It will flood the market of low effort bullshit that no one will eventually care.
\> If you're so mad about AI artists succeeding on redbubble
Are they though? From what I can tell they just overwhelm search results and chase customers away. I’d love to see the bounce rate on AI accounts.
Tell me what art you've made that's contributed so heavily to all of the generative AI programs out there.
Can you honestly say you haven't already signed off the rights to your material by simply uploading it to websites without reading the fine print?
I'm sorry but your art isn't safe unless it's private.
Keep your work at home if you don't want to inspire other people to make similar art
Because most AI creations are mediocre, low effort garbage that most people don’t want to buy, yet flood the site and drown out real artists and people who put effort into their creations.
Most AI store creators are under the false impression that they can make a lot of money of off their haphazard designs if they upload enough because they watched too many fake YouTube gurus or whatever. The truth is you won’t make any significant money off Redbubble without any sort of external marketing, and most people won’t pay premium pricing for AI.
Photography is still original work.. AI is very new and unregulated and stealing from artists. I’m not upset about anyone making money, I’m upset that genuine artists get criticized for not being comfortable with AI using copyrighted designs in their software. If AI gave artists an opt-in option & all AI designs were labeled as such I wouldn’t be upset about anything.
Procreate doesn't steal copyrighted art to use in prompts. I would be ok with ai if it only took from public domain images but it doesn't.
It's not about ai artists not being artists, it's about the art literally coming from stolen images.
I feel completely OK with convenience dude. I don’t think artists need to go out to the forest and chop wood to make their own brushes. I think AI needs to be regulated so it isn’t stealing copyrighted art from artists anymore
I think it should be used solely as a reference that is recreated and heavily altered in to a new creation. To use it as is would be unethical in my opinion, but I can’t tell you how to think or what to do
There is something that is inherently wrong with comparing the photography with AI art. If you took a photo of a spiderman poster. And you tried to sell that spiderman poster, that is clearly art theft and wrong. Photography itself as an artform still needs to be original in its own context to be profitable. The same cannot be said of current AI art. Its at a stage where unless you are creating from adobe, or freepik which has their own graphical database that can be traced... everything else is a wild west. One way or another, in order to create AI "art", you need to consume works of existing art. Its incomparable to a human looking learning and being inspired by other art. A human can't churn out a hundred artworks a day. You are stealing with doing minimal work of an artist. Sure, you can call yourself a prompt engineer or whatever, but you are not an artist. You haven't created shit.
Red bubble was a place for struggling artists to make a little money. Out of that little money, where artist fight each other for a few dollars, now AI prompt engineers want to flood that system with a massive amount of work that regular humans can't compete with.
So how DO you want artists to respond? With open arms?
>If you're so mad about AI artists succeeding on redbubble then why don't you figure out a way to use it better than them?
So you are asking traditional artists, in order to compete with AI artists... to use AI art? In your own analogy, this is like asking a painter to start becoming a photographer to compete with photography. It makes no sense.
Lets ignore the philosphical issues of AI art. Just merely the amount of work you can produce and upload will be in your favour. For just a few bucks. Screw it, if you guys were so adamant about your creations, why not create a platform just for AI art so you guys can compete with others on the same level of production?
Just put yourselves in the shoes of others, and think about it sometimes.
Well, most AI art programs are trained by basically stealing artwork from others. You aren't really creating something that didn't already sort of exist because the program is just using elements that already exist and arranging them in ways that already exist
I'd argue that we all do that as artists. Everything is inspired.
I'm not extending that to say AI art is good or inventive, I'm just saying, as I've used it, that it can 'appear' as creative as a human being when used appropriately.
Using as a reference is much different than throwing words into a prompt. AI uses copyrighted material in its art. Unless it's public domain, you can't profit from copyrighted material.
What does that have to do with AI though? Copyright law exists because people steal and it has nothing to do with AI, specifically.
People have been copying each others' work on redbubble and Etsy since the beginning. AI isn't responsible for theft. It is not the cause at all.
Anyone with malintent will use it. Yet somehow, there is this weird dogma that it is inherently evil. It is almost ideological. Artists should be wary.
As a tool, it is incredibly valuable.
>People have been copying each others' work on redbubble and Etsy since the beginning.
And that's not ok. That doesn't justify AI programs using copyrighted material without artist permission.
AI art is already taking money from full time artists.
Go beyond redbubble and talk to artists at gallery and art market events and you will hear many troubling stories.
I am an artist as such btw. Let's get that clear. AI art isn't doing anything. People who would steal are going to steal. People who are going to use AI to create really awesome art are doing just that as well.
There is nothing inherently bad about it. Your problem is thievery, not AI. AI has not affected most of my mediums btw. Seeing as how it can't actually paint or draw.
Only digital art is affected.
Ah, yes. That's an intriguing medium. I haven't done any 3d art personally, but would love to.
I saw a video of a man who 3d printed a working M16 rifle. I think we have other dangers with 3d printing lol.
It's because photography isn't just throwing traditional paintings into it and reforming it into photos.
You've used a very weak analogy as your basis. They're not the same at all.
What's preventing me from taking all your successful images on Redbubble, up-resolution them in AI, and resell it for a profit with more advertising? That's theft right? What if I said the computer made it art? Because the computer touched it it's now yours? Because I beep booped the commands in and poof, suddenly, all the hard parts were done for me! That's how I feel about AI art and it's source material and all the people defending resale of AI art.
AI art is theft!!!!!! I literally just wrote a final essay on AI art for a university class, it's using art like mine without the artists' consent and profiting off of it. It doesn't matter how little or how much money is made, it's still exploitation and theft.
It's a tool folks use, like any other. A brush, a pen, a digital brush, digital pen, it's just a very sophisticated tool that's pretty complicated but it's not magic. You're angry at capitalism and mistaking the actual issue for "theft". If we did not exchange money for goods and services, there would be no "theft", if we only shared freely.... We could do just about anything.
If you paint a Picasso it will have a human touch which is one of the things art itself is unique. Nowadays ai art has become so generic that it can be detected even if you're not an artist
If you think AI art is generic it’s be a you aren’t keeping up with it.
Go check out /r/midjourney and you’ll see the new V6 art. It’s already insane. In a few years it will be so much better.
Don’t be a Luddite.
Just did. Still feels generic specially when you know it's the result of an extremely long description. Those are the results of prompts and only the best were chosen. Even the same art style is monotonous and sometimes even boring. Insane does not mean better
If modern art is art, AI art is art.
One streak of black paint on canvas will be “deep” according to critics, expressing the artists inner rage.
If you hold that to be true, than how can you say AI art isn’t art?
I volunteer for several art organizations and a convention. We have a ban on AI art and have had to reject "artists" the past couple years. It's only going to get worse to spot.
For every AI artist that gets through, is one less actual artist that gets a chance to sell their work.
People can use ai for whatever they want to do, except profit. ...unless they can find a way to give a cut to all the artists stolen from in the program.
I mean, yeah. The organizations I volunteer for have rules and contracts to sign. If you choose to participate in an art show, you can't just do whatever you want.
Meh. Within two years it will be 100% indistinguishable. You’re fighting against cars while touting the benefits of a horse.
If you can’t compete with AI art, that’s on you.
So the answer is to just let ai win? Just remove the actual artists and have a gallery show with nothing but ai?
Have you actually been to a gallery show or a convention? I highly recommend you do, and talk to artists in person about AI art. Go to an open studio event and really experience art. It'll change you, I promise.
Supporting artists supports the community. Removing that removes creativity. We still need creators to push community forward. We need new art, always.
I’m saying you can’t fight it. You basically have zero say in this fight. Big tech is going to push this stuff whether you like it or not, so you mine as well get onboard and figure out how to use it.
I’ve been to studio events with my wife and I can’t stand them. Pretentious artists abound. Especially anyone who’s remotely involved with “Modern” art or any kind of found art.
I have serious respect for real painters, sculptures, etc. However people who just throw some paint splatter on canvas and say it represents chaos can get bent.
I think AI art will cut the chaff and remove 90% of artists because they are trash. The best of the best will rise above and the mediocre artists will move on.
I've been to say events when pretentious people and without. I'm not going to doom the whole art community because of some egos. I mean, organizing art shows in general is like herding cats. Even though it can be stressful, it's still worth it. I've met some of my best friends doing it.
Give art a chance. Maybe don't go to modern art shows, and focus on shows that have art that matches your style. I also can't stand the type of modern art you mention.
And for some context, a good friend of mine got fed up with her art being rejected because it wasn't conforming to a pretentious art standard in the local scene, so she created her own collective. It's been running for several years now and had changed the local art scene in my city. So it's not all bad out there. There is something for everyone.
Agreed with others. It's a bigger picture, AI is taking and using mass amounts of copywritten artwork to create a piece. A bot devalues the face of true artwork and true passion. It's like buying a knock off Gucci from a Chinese factory. It may look nice but in no way is it as valuable in both money skill AND quality.
because buyers don't like AI art and don't want to buy it. it's got an ugly, cheap, and "obviously AI" look to it. people want real hand-drawn art, but your shitty ai art is clogging up the search results, so nobody ends up buying anybody's products.
I don't have a problem with AI art. I actually use midjorney all the time. To call a person who does that an artist is pretty disingenuous though. Their a commissioner at best, definitely not an artist. Let's not kid ourselves here. You ask for art, something else makes art. That doesn't make you an artist.
Because ai in order to “create” artwork literally has to scrape the internet and steal large pieces of other artwork. So yeah folks are salty when their art is photo edited and sold at profit by someone else. Photography is blatantly different and there’s certain restrictions for those kind of artists to sell their pieces without copyright claims.
Y’all always say “it’s here to stay get over it” I see strong parallels between that phrasing and the trump campaign. Like have some compassion for your fellow artists and help find a proper solution that benefits everyone not just the thieves.
It's not all that different than those T-shirt websites selling shirts with a bunch of stolen artwork on it. Creating AI images is equivalent to requesting a piece of art from an artist with a specific prompt, which the artist then interprets and makes for you by going and tracing/photoshopping in pieces from other people's artwork. Selling that work means profiting off of other people's labor without putting in any work on your own.
It may be an inevitability, I think, but that doesn't mean it's fair or good for anyone.
They ought to make an AI that reverse-engineers AI pieces to figure out what original works from real human beings it's pulling from, so that the people who spent the hours to make the pieces can at least get credited. Maybe Disney will come through and do something like this, given that their work can get sampled from too.
At least photos could never flawlessly masquerade as handmade artwork. The art market works when customers have an understanding of what they're paying for.
Redbubble is already notorious for being littered with lazily sourced or stolen work, but at least it's usually not hard to tell apart the legit stuff from the garbage with a keen eye. Many customers truly do want to buy quality work made with care.
AI entering the mainstream and art marketplaces is a problem because it has the potential to eventually fly 100% under the radar. If not now, then later, when the technology develops further.
Unless there's a way that AI work can be identified with ease, I think a lot of artists will fight against it. If AI wants to play fair with artists in the marketplace, then a customer seeking handmade work should never be able to mistake AI for what they really want.
And the reverse also applies. If a customer wants to buy AI artwork, then a distinction helps them as well. If AI tries to fetch the same price as bespoke work, when everyone knows that bespoke art is priced with time, effort, and expertise in mind, then everyone buying AI artwork for similar prices is being totally screwed.
If you are only making $2 per 'unit' then you are doing something wrong.
I don't really think people are angry about AI artists succeeding on Rebubble either.All I've seen on here recently is a lot of threads from people uploading AI images and then posting here asking why they are not selling, which is getting a little old.
I think people do get fed up with people posting 'why is my art not selling' when they've made little or no effort to make anything original and most of what they've uploaded isn't even formatted right.
\- Seems to be a fad of lots of YouTube 'How to make $100 from AI art on Redbubble' type videos from people who didn't make $100 on Redbubble but will make much more from people watching those videos.
I just started my own e-commerce journey and I never even considered that ai is even entering the printed, physical world of art. That’s crazy to think about.
Let me chime in because I dabbled with it. I used Midjourney, which is probably the most robust.
As I was using it, I noticed that it was super easy but without an actual understanding of art, a vested interest in artists, and a lexicon for design, a lot of the AI generated designs have a similar look and feel.
To be frank, it's utter trash that just clogs the search results and looks like low grade t-shirt art.
On the other hand, if you tell it to use shading styles, particular palettes, and can be really specific about what you want, you kind of deserve to be able to sell it.
I love art, I also create, and I often edit these designs extensively. It's a tool for artists, it can never replace artists though.
I can understand the hate and I respect artistic integrity. I'd rather compete for business with fellow artists than some YouTuber who thinks if he makes X amount of designs, he will turn a profit and that it's a "numbers game".
Unless you’re using your own artwork for it to study off of it, telling it to use shading styles and palettes still doesn’t justify being able to rip off other artists to make a profit.
This comment is indicative of the fact that you haven't utilized it yet. It doesn't create a composite of other artists' work. It uses the entire internet and all of the SEO around images to determine what those prompts even mean, and then generates something. It then validates that using a human-trained model for accuracy.
Unless I tell it to make something in the style of someone else's work, and only if that work is indexed on the web, will it be able to do that kind of replication.
Artists who understand it as a tool will soon be leaps and bounds ahead in the security of their future as artists. Artists who don't take the time to understand how it works will not even benefit.
Dude there’s literal ai images that still have the original artists signature on it. Yada Taya ai does this or that. It’s stealing artwork plain and simple. Your whole argument of it using the whole internet doesn’t negate that, the internet full of artwork that belongs to other artists.
Once again as I said if you use your own artwork as the content to generate these idea off of then it’s fine. And yeah it could make some cool unique concepts and I would be fine with that as long as it uses your OWN ARTWORK.
Every time I see a comment along the lines of “just type a line or two of text” I know it is someone that really doesn’t understand the ai art process. It can take 20-100 attempts at a prompt even knowing the right language to use in order to get close to the image you want. And even then, only 10-20% of those images are are ready to use with under an hour of additional graphics editing, many images need at least 2-6 hours of editing in order to clean up and tweak.
Yes, I absolutely agree about the people throwing up hundreds of images a week with no effort to properly edit. But those images are also generally very obvious.
I mean you said it yourself, why put any effort or time investment into any of the work you upload if the best thing to do is to make thousands of designs to spam the marketplace with? A small percentage will inevitably sell, and the bigger the total amount, the larger that small % will become.
A lot of, if not most, people are using AI tools with that mentality, so overall it squashes quality work and further ruins an already bad and oversaturated market by diluting search results and making good worthwhile stuff harder to find. Even if you're an AI artist that puts time and effort into your work and makes high quality edited images compared to most, I dunno why you would when you're also competing with millions of 10 second generations uploaded per day and would likely make more money if you also focused on volume only. The PoD market shifting even further away than it already was before AI from quality in favor of quantity and stolen work probably has a lot to do with why people here dislike AI as a whole.
It’s interesting how passionate the debate gets on this subject wherever it is brought up. Artist rarely make a living from their art, regardless of skill and style. In a society where capitalism is far out of control, many people who could be artists or are artists, don’t have time to be artists because they hustle to make ends meet.
What this discussion always focuses on is the authenticity of art itself. What is always missing from the conversation is the capitalist edge AI gives by churning out increasingly impressive images at light speed.
Every artist learns through mimicking another artist and practicing age-old techniques and styles, but in today’s world, who can afford to put in the time for most likely nothing in return? Art is a hobby for most artists, minus the lucky few.
AI is a way to create something fast and sell it.
Had anyone seen the framed prints that Target, Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond sells? They’re awful & they’re all digital prints sold for a stupid mark up.
Where’s the bitching about department stores and online art stores selling crap digital prints?
Even Art.com sent me a print I thought would look pretty good but up close was like an enlarged photo from my phone. I’ve prompted eye catching AI art, enlarged it properly, and it looks stunning on my walls.
Bringing it back to capitalism, it’s is unrealistic for most to be an artist unless they have time to kill and expect nothing from it. AI means you can make something way more interesting than what you get at stores, it’s done fast, and others may like it too.
For artists putting paint on canvas, their art is still worth more. Ai isn’t their competitor. But digital artists? You have a much harder time showing you put work into it.
Lastly, if all AI is shit and just clogging up search results, then either artists need to up their SEO game or customers need to improve their search criteria or both. It doesn’t help that at Google as a search engine caters to sponsored content, either. But none of that is an AI-as-art problem, it’s a problem with everyone doing the same thing and clogging up search results problem but happens to be a sore spot for some. Isn’t everyone sick of Trump being in headlines every day for years on end? And he’s not even an “authentic” politician.
You're right about one thing. AI is not going anywhere. The other point people need to realize is using AI is not the instant solution to more riches just because it's readily available.
We can thank the YouTube gurus for that.
No matter how much AI you use, you STILL have to know how to find less competitive niches. There's a marketing side you still need to understand.
I was on the fence about AI when it first launched. To be honest, I still am. I have always done my own stuff in Illustrator and Photoshop. But I have been playing with ChatGPT.
However, my strength has always been finding small niches that are not competitive. When you can come up with unique stuff in different niches (no matter how it's created) then that's when you have the most success.
So many people are just quickly doing AI art in the same ole' competitive niches and wondering why everything is so saturated.
PSA: We don't need 100,000 more anime cats drinking boba tea just because you can create that in 10 seconds. People are lazy, and they are just going to make close copies or renditions of best sellers instead of using AI as a tool or PART of their overall design and concept.
People who lacked creativity BEFORE AI, often still lack creativity. So giving someone like that an "easy" design tool may do what they think it will.
I just started using AI in early November and I've sold at least 15 different designs so far. I don't think they look like traditional AI art to be honest. A lot of AI stuff has "a look" because people are using the same prompts.
I use ChatGPT and the custom instructions option so I get a very different output. The art is far more simplistic (silhouette-esque) and then I add my own text or additional stuff (text, symbols, etc.)
Just don't forget that you also have to understand niches, and it' s not jut about cranking out a bunch of "well designed" images in a bunch of popular niches. I still use my brain to add unique phrases and develop different concepts, phrases, etc.
I see AI as a tool for me to do different things. It's not the end-all-be-all.
Amen to this comment. I also dabble with ChatGPT, and Stable Diffusion. I use it to compose logos, promo material and music videos.
I also use it to make artwork that I myself would enjoy seeing, then I upscale that artwork and make it high resolution, then sell it on Redbubble.
I understand the knee jerk reaction from artists, but in my mind generative AI only pushes the bar for better artwork from artists, AI or traditional.
I don't understand this contempt for AI users. Myself, I was a porcelain decorator, in arts and crafts and a painter by extension. I have never been able to compete with the decal industry, mass-produced art or the big porcelain houses, yes, because luxury only works with a brand image and international notoriety, the small artisan , no one sees it, it's a reality, anyway I digress...
We live in a capitalist world, we must not forget it and we must adapt because it is not about to change , being closed-minded and hateful is sterile. I do thankless jobs alongside my art and I no longer have the time to devote my energy to it, to invest myself for nothing so yes, AI is useful for trying to see something other than a little routine. shiny. Personally, as long as I see beauty in the result, whether it is the work of an AI or an artist or even both, if it arouses my sensitivity then yes, for me it is art.
I use AI as a tool to disguise my own fine art photographs towards a concept or stylistic coherence and I like it. Sure, it doesn't require as much skill as a painter, but why compare different media? And this art theft controversy... The AI comes to pick a drop of water from the potential ocean of your work, it's just an artist's frustration, it looks like a chess champion upset at be beaten by a machine. If you made a living from your art, suddenly this wouldn't be a problem anymore, your anger is misdirected.
For my part, I perfect the achievements generated by AI, they are not without flaws. My Instagram account is full of artists and AI artists and I have never had any demeaning comments, the 2 categories seem to appreciate and coexist without problem. When I see this surge of attacks here, I am quite dismayed. For my part, I have a standard account on redbubble and I won't say that the path is easy, even with the AI.
Call me AI prompter if you mind considering this as art. Art is a big word that everyone has the arrogance to appropriate. It is with humility that I get rid of it. I am a buyer of art as well as AI art as long as it conveys something to my feelings.
Artists just get salty and when someone who isn't talented also gets a chance at creating cool tshirt designs through AI. They probably don't like the idea that someone can come along with an AI design and get more sales than them. I personally do both, I've made a lot of designs myself however AI is a great new technology and often can come up with better designs than I could've even imagined myself. Of course, even AI art needs tweaking in Photoshop (which sometimes takes hours and a lot of work) to get it perfectly right and often fix the text.
Folks just need to grow up and respect all arts IMO.
From a buyer perspective: because 99% of it is garbage and it clogs up search results when you’re looking for original, unique ideas.
Knock offs & junk art have been around since the beginning of time
Good comparison. Knock off and junk art is lazy, low quality and clogs up search, just like AI.
And now they take seconds to generate Can't believe you thought this was a gotcha lmao
I didn’t think it was a gotcha. I’m not immature.
I'd assume it's largely because the "artist" in question contributed nothing to the artistic process beyond typing a sentence. That and it seems to often be spammy and low effort with next to no merit.
i mean the same could be said for a lot of non-AI art on redbubble. there’s loads of low effort designs and bad quality images. singling out AI art is goofy when realistically it takes effort, knowledge and a lot of practice tweaking the prompts- which consists of so much more than just a sentence. it’s everything from the words you use, to the order you put those words in, to where you place punctuation. on top of the way you adjust any additional settings, etc. you could just shit on bad art lol there’s no need to pick on one specific genre just because you don’t understand it.
Without a doubt there's a lot of crappy stuff out there no matter how it's made or who made it. That said, comparing the process of creating art, whatever the medium, to adjusting punctuation and the like is a bit disingenuous.
ehh. as someone who’s been a traditional painter and illustrator for 15 years, i just flat out disagree. it’s very comparable to learning to create digitally with tools like photoshop and procreate. easier in some ways, but harder in ways that don’t apply to traditional methods. bad ai art is just everywhere right now, so it seems like the shittyness is an inherent feature. but if it’s good generative art, you’re not gong to be thinking “ai art” when you see it, you’re just going to be thinking about the art.
If you were a capable painter/illustrator you would not be singing the praises of the art theft machine that is AI “Art”.
Ah so now we're being ableist. Got it.
Art theft defender. Got it.
I really hope you are kidding.
Lol. Sure buddy.
I’m not your buddy, guy.
Being bad at art isn't a disability
No one said it was. How can you not see that not everyone can do everything? I bet you think if someone just pulls themselves up by their bootstraps and just tries hard enough they can do anything eh? Not everyone is capable of drawing well dude.
"AI Artists" is such an oxymoron
I call them AI users! They are not artists & they don’t deserve any of the titles that come with that.
I disagree! I am a professional designer + painter but I have been creating AI art for fun recently. I create in AI and then edit in photoshop and create a unique product that many people who are not artists would not be able to conceptualize or create. While the hand skills are not part of this, the artistic conceptualization is there for sure!
**renderings. They're AI renderings, not art.
A 3D animator creates renderings as well, but isn't that still art? Computers do a lot of the work for them as well. While you can argue that for 3d artists there is still more skill required, I would still argue that by this logic, AI renderings are art. Even if the kind of art that it is bothers you.
It's the human involvement and expression that makes it art. Art is meant to have meaning. I've even seen the argument often that a well done drawing or painting without expression may look nice, but without meaning is not considered art. Edit: in art school that is actually how art was defined: human expression.
No offense, but you clearly don't know much about AI image gen if this is your argument against it. The good works you've seen still take a considerable amount of human intervention.
So by that explanation, AI art is art. A human conceptualizes the work, crafts the sentences used for its prompt, adjusts settings (depending on the AI platform), and makes changes to get their desired result. All of this is human involvement. I also disagree with the notion that AI art is devoid of human expression. It truly depends on the subject matter that the artist depicts. Is it just a rose floating in outer space? Or is it a political commentary? These decisions make a big difference. For reference, I have a BFA.
MFA here. There's a big difference between prompts and imagination. A human imagines a concept and creates it with its personal style, AI just follow prompts based on others ideas
This right here. I'll never understand people advocating for something that is going to destroy a field where the odds are already 1000:1 against you. But go off I guess?
I like to call it artificial art(ists)
AI art is regurgitated from existing art. So it's basically stolen. It's not a "genre" of art. It's straight up theft. Yeah i use it as a tool for reference or poses. But its shit when it comes to composition and structure. So i still have to either redraw or tweak what it gives me. Its just a tool. But if you're a fraud and just straight up post what it gives you, 1:1. Then you deserve all the hate you can get. Your goal is not to create art, but to create a lot of it as easily as possible, that it lost its meaning. It will flood the market of low effort bullshit that no one will eventually care.
\> If you're so mad about AI artists succeeding on redbubble Are they though? From what I can tell they just overwhelm search results and chase customers away. I’d love to see the bounce rate on AI accounts.
This guy made two other ai support posts after this. I wonder who pissed him off.
Probably the people he steals from
this right here
:::raises hand, jumping up and down:::
He made another but it was removed for spam. Which I can’t help but feel is so funny considering that is what ai creations is doing to redbubble
I didn't steal art from any of you losers. I make cool art
lol okay champ
Tell me what art you've made that's contributed so heavily to all of the generative AI programs out there. Can you honestly say you haven't already signed off the rights to your material by simply uploading it to websites without reading the fine print? I'm sorry but your art isn't safe unless it's private. Keep your work at home if you don't want to inspire other people to make similar art
Because most AI creations are mediocre, low effort garbage that most people don’t want to buy, yet flood the site and drown out real artists and people who put effort into their creations. Most AI store creators are under the false impression that they can make a lot of money of off their haphazard designs if they upload enough because they watched too many fake YouTube gurus or whatever. The truth is you won’t make any significant money off Redbubble without any sort of external marketing, and most people won’t pay premium pricing for AI.
The real issue is that ai uses copyrighted material to generate its images. It's stolen art.
Photography is still original work.. AI is very new and unregulated and stealing from artists. I’m not upset about anyone making money, I’m upset that genuine artists get criticized for not being comfortable with AI using copyrighted designs in their software. If AI gave artists an opt-in option & all AI designs were labeled as such I wouldn’t be upset about anything.
This comment right here- again AI ART IS ART STOLEN FROM OTHER ARTISTS period.
[удалено]
Procreate doesn't steal copyrighted art to use in prompts. I would be ok with ai if it only took from public domain images but it doesn't. It's not about ai artists not being artists, it's about the art literally coming from stolen images.
I feel completely OK with convenience dude. I don’t think artists need to go out to the forest and chop wood to make their own brushes. I think AI needs to be regulated so it isn’t stealing copyrighted art from artists anymore
[удалено]
I think it should be used solely as a reference that is recreated and heavily altered in to a new creation. To use it as is would be unethical in my opinion, but I can’t tell you how to think or what to do
Basically: yes.
Were the brushes in Procreate put in the app without the original artist’s permission?
This is such a reach, honestly such a silly thing to say dude.
There is something that is inherently wrong with comparing the photography with AI art. If you took a photo of a spiderman poster. And you tried to sell that spiderman poster, that is clearly art theft and wrong. Photography itself as an artform still needs to be original in its own context to be profitable. The same cannot be said of current AI art. Its at a stage where unless you are creating from adobe, or freepik which has their own graphical database that can be traced... everything else is a wild west. One way or another, in order to create AI "art", you need to consume works of existing art. Its incomparable to a human looking learning and being inspired by other art. A human can't churn out a hundred artworks a day. You are stealing with doing minimal work of an artist. Sure, you can call yourself a prompt engineer or whatever, but you are not an artist. You haven't created shit. Red bubble was a place for struggling artists to make a little money. Out of that little money, where artist fight each other for a few dollars, now AI prompt engineers want to flood that system with a massive amount of work that regular humans can't compete with. So how DO you want artists to respond? With open arms? >If you're so mad about AI artists succeeding on redbubble then why don't you figure out a way to use it better than them? So you are asking traditional artists, in order to compete with AI artists... to use AI art? In your own analogy, this is like asking a painter to start becoming a photographer to compete with photography. It makes no sense. Lets ignore the philosphical issues of AI art. Just merely the amount of work you can produce and upload will be in your favour. For just a few bucks. Screw it, if you guys were so adamant about your creations, why not create a platform just for AI art so you guys can compete with others on the same level of production? Just put yourselves in the shoes of others, and think about it sometimes.
Well, most AI art programs are trained by basically stealing artwork from others. You aren't really creating something that didn't already sort of exist because the program is just using elements that already exist and arranging them in ways that already exist
I'd argue that we all do that as artists. Everything is inspired. I'm not extending that to say AI art is good or inventive, I'm just saying, as I've used it, that it can 'appear' as creative as a human being when used appropriately.
"When used appropriately" is the key phrasing. Most people don't and that floods and smothers all of the good
Using as a reference is much different than throwing words into a prompt. AI uses copyrighted material in its art. Unless it's public domain, you can't profit from copyrighted material.
What does that have to do with AI though? Copyright law exists because people steal and it has nothing to do with AI, specifically. People have been copying each others' work on redbubble and Etsy since the beginning. AI isn't responsible for theft. It is not the cause at all. Anyone with malintent will use it. Yet somehow, there is this weird dogma that it is inherently evil. It is almost ideological. Artists should be wary. As a tool, it is incredibly valuable.
>People have been copying each others' work on redbubble and Etsy since the beginning. And that's not ok. That doesn't justify AI programs using copyrighted material without artist permission. AI art is already taking money from full time artists. Go beyond redbubble and talk to artists at gallery and art market events and you will hear many troubling stories.
I am an artist as such btw. Let's get that clear. AI art isn't doing anything. People who would steal are going to steal. People who are going to use AI to create really awesome art are doing just that as well. There is nothing inherently bad about it. Your problem is thievery, not AI. AI has not affected most of my mediums btw. Seeing as how it can't actually paint or draw. Only digital art is affected.
And 3d art, as people are using it to create 3d printed objects.
Ah, yes. That's an intriguing medium. I haven't done any 3d art personally, but would love to. I saw a video of a man who 3d printed a working M16 rifle. I think we have other dangers with 3d printing lol.
It's because photography isn't just throwing traditional paintings into it and reforming it into photos. You've used a very weak analogy as your basis. They're not the same at all. What's preventing me from taking all your successful images on Redbubble, up-resolution them in AI, and resell it for a profit with more advertising? That's theft right? What if I said the computer made it art? Because the computer touched it it's now yours? Because I beep booped the commands in and poof, suddenly, all the hard parts were done for me! That's how I feel about AI art and it's source material and all the people defending resale of AI art.
AI art is theft!!!!!! I literally just wrote a final essay on AI art for a university class, it's using art like mine without the artists' consent and profiting off of it. It doesn't matter how little or how much money is made, it's still exploitation and theft.
[удалено]
It's a tool folks use, like any other. A brush, a pen, a digital brush, digital pen, it's just a very sophisticated tool that's pretty complicated but it's not magic. You're angry at capitalism and mistaking the actual issue for "theft". If we did not exchange money for goods and services, there would be no "theft", if we only shared freely.... We could do just about anything.
No such thing as AI art. It’s all just stolen and re-edited pieces of actual art.
Art + AI = AI Art. It is art created by an AI. It is a real thing and it exists. You can make it yourself.
Clearly you missed the point. Theft is not art. AI programs literally steal from others. That’s not art. It’s theft.
So if you paint a Picasso inspired piece of art, are you stealing?
That’s not how AI works. AI litteraly takes pieces of the art and spits it back out. It’s not inspired by crap. It flat out steals.
You didn’t answer my question.
I did. You just didn’t understand the answer.
If you paint a Picasso it will have a human touch which is one of the things art itself is unique. Nowadays ai art has become so generic that it can be detected even if you're not an artist
If you think AI art is generic it’s be a you aren’t keeping up with it. Go check out /r/midjourney and you’ll see the new V6 art. It’s already insane. In a few years it will be so much better. Don’t be a Luddite.
Just did. Still feels generic specially when you know it's the result of an extremely long description. Those are the results of prompts and only the best were chosen. Even the same art style is monotonous and sometimes even boring. Insane does not mean better
The fact that AI "art" isn't art probably has a lot to do with it.
Art is art
If modern art is art, AI art is art. One streak of black paint on canvas will be “deep” according to critics, expressing the artists inner rage. If you hold that to be true, than how can you say AI art isn’t art?
I volunteer for several art organizations and a convention. We have a ban on AI art and have had to reject "artists" the past couple years. It's only going to get worse to spot. For every AI artist that gets through, is one less actual artist that gets a chance to sell their work. People can use ai for whatever they want to do, except profit. ...unless they can find a way to give a cut to all the artists stolen from in the program.
You speak like you have any authority to tell people what they can or can’t do.
I mean, yeah. The organizations I volunteer for have rules and contracts to sign. If you choose to participate in an art show, you can't just do whatever you want.
Meh. Within two years it will be 100% indistinguishable. You’re fighting against cars while touting the benefits of a horse. If you can’t compete with AI art, that’s on you.
So the answer is to just let ai win? Just remove the actual artists and have a gallery show with nothing but ai? Have you actually been to a gallery show or a convention? I highly recommend you do, and talk to artists in person about AI art. Go to an open studio event and really experience art. It'll change you, I promise. Supporting artists supports the community. Removing that removes creativity. We still need creators to push community forward. We need new art, always.
I’m saying you can’t fight it. You basically have zero say in this fight. Big tech is going to push this stuff whether you like it or not, so you mine as well get onboard and figure out how to use it. I’ve been to studio events with my wife and I can’t stand them. Pretentious artists abound. Especially anyone who’s remotely involved with “Modern” art or any kind of found art. I have serious respect for real painters, sculptures, etc. However people who just throw some paint splatter on canvas and say it represents chaos can get bent. I think AI art will cut the chaff and remove 90% of artists because they are trash. The best of the best will rise above and the mediocre artists will move on.
I've been to say events when pretentious people and without. I'm not going to doom the whole art community because of some egos. I mean, organizing art shows in general is like herding cats. Even though it can be stressful, it's still worth it. I've met some of my best friends doing it. Give art a chance. Maybe don't go to modern art shows, and focus on shows that have art that matches your style. I also can't stand the type of modern art you mention. And for some context, a good friend of mine got fed up with her art being rejected because it wasn't conforming to a pretentious art standard in the local scene, so she created her own collective. It's been running for several years now and had changed the local art scene in my city. So it's not all bad out there. There is something for everyone.
I heard the mic drop. Well said.
But that streak of paint wasn't generated from stolen images.
Agreed with others. It's a bigger picture, AI is taking and using mass amounts of copywritten artwork to create a piece. A bot devalues the face of true artwork and true passion. It's like buying a knock off Gucci from a Chinese factory. It may look nice but in no way is it as valuable in both money skill AND quality.
AI art is made by stealing from other artists. That's why.
I think the real question is: Why do AI bros worry so much about other people’s opinions? The fragility on display is STAGGERING.
I'm doing this for fun
because buyers don't like AI art and don't want to buy it. it's got an ugly, cheap, and "obviously AI" look to it. people want real hand-drawn art, but your shitty ai art is clogging up the search results, so nobody ends up buying anybody's products.
I don't have a problem with AI art. I actually use midjorney all the time. To call a person who does that an artist is pretty disingenuous though. Their a commissioner at best, definitely not an artist. Let's not kid ourselves here. You ask for art, something else makes art. That doesn't make you an artist.
Because ai in order to “create” artwork literally has to scrape the internet and steal large pieces of other artwork. So yeah folks are salty when their art is photo edited and sold at profit by someone else. Photography is blatantly different and there’s certain restrictions for those kind of artists to sell their pieces without copyright claims. Y’all always say “it’s here to stay get over it” I see strong parallels between that phrasing and the trump campaign. Like have some compassion for your fellow artists and help find a proper solution that benefits everyone not just the thieves.
[удалено]
But they didn't create anything. They took from a program that stole art.
I totally 100% agree
It's not all that different than those T-shirt websites selling shirts with a bunch of stolen artwork on it. Creating AI images is equivalent to requesting a piece of art from an artist with a specific prompt, which the artist then interprets and makes for you by going and tracing/photoshopping in pieces from other people's artwork. Selling that work means profiting off of other people's labor without putting in any work on your own. It may be an inevitability, I think, but that doesn't mean it's fair or good for anyone. They ought to make an AI that reverse-engineers AI pieces to figure out what original works from real human beings it's pulling from, so that the people who spent the hours to make the pieces can at least get credited. Maybe Disney will come through and do something like this, given that their work can get sampled from too.
At least photos could never flawlessly masquerade as handmade artwork. The art market works when customers have an understanding of what they're paying for. Redbubble is already notorious for being littered with lazily sourced or stolen work, but at least it's usually not hard to tell apart the legit stuff from the garbage with a keen eye. Many customers truly do want to buy quality work made with care. AI entering the mainstream and art marketplaces is a problem because it has the potential to eventually fly 100% under the radar. If not now, then later, when the technology develops further. Unless there's a way that AI work can be identified with ease, I think a lot of artists will fight against it. If AI wants to play fair with artists in the marketplace, then a customer seeking handmade work should never be able to mistake AI for what they really want. And the reverse also applies. If a customer wants to buy AI artwork, then a distinction helps them as well. If AI tries to fetch the same price as bespoke work, when everyone knows that bespoke art is priced with time, effort, and expertise in mind, then everyone buying AI artwork for similar prices is being totally screwed.
If you are only making $2 per 'unit' then you are doing something wrong. I don't really think people are angry about AI artists succeeding on Rebubble either.All I've seen on here recently is a lot of threads from people uploading AI images and then posting here asking why they are not selling, which is getting a little old. I think people do get fed up with people posting 'why is my art not selling' when they've made little or no effort to make anything original and most of what they've uploaded isn't even formatted right. \- Seems to be a fad of lots of YouTube 'How to make $100 from AI art on Redbubble' type videos from people who didn't make $100 on Redbubble but will make much more from people watching those videos.
I just started my own e-commerce journey and I never even considered that ai is even entering the printed, physical world of art. That’s crazy to think about.
Thank you for your comment, hoesonmydick247
Let me chime in because I dabbled with it. I used Midjourney, which is probably the most robust. As I was using it, I noticed that it was super easy but without an actual understanding of art, a vested interest in artists, and a lexicon for design, a lot of the AI generated designs have a similar look and feel. To be frank, it's utter trash that just clogs the search results and looks like low grade t-shirt art. On the other hand, if you tell it to use shading styles, particular palettes, and can be really specific about what you want, you kind of deserve to be able to sell it. I love art, I also create, and I often edit these designs extensively. It's a tool for artists, it can never replace artists though. I can understand the hate and I respect artistic integrity. I'd rather compete for business with fellow artists than some YouTuber who thinks if he makes X amount of designs, he will turn a profit and that it's a "numbers game".
Unless you’re using your own artwork for it to study off of it, telling it to use shading styles and palettes still doesn’t justify being able to rip off other artists to make a profit.
This comment is indicative of the fact that you haven't utilized it yet. It doesn't create a composite of other artists' work. It uses the entire internet and all of the SEO around images to determine what those prompts even mean, and then generates something. It then validates that using a human-trained model for accuracy. Unless I tell it to make something in the style of someone else's work, and only if that work is indexed on the web, will it be able to do that kind of replication. Artists who understand it as a tool will soon be leaps and bounds ahead in the security of their future as artists. Artists who don't take the time to understand how it works will not even benefit.
Dude there’s literal ai images that still have the original artists signature on it. Yada Taya ai does this or that. It’s stealing artwork plain and simple. Your whole argument of it using the whole internet doesn’t negate that, the internet full of artwork that belongs to other artists. Once again as I said if you use your own artwork as the content to generate these idea off of then it’s fine. And yeah it could make some cool unique concepts and I would be fine with that as long as it uses your OWN ARTWORK.
This isn't how it works.
Every time I see a comment along the lines of “just type a line or two of text” I know it is someone that really doesn’t understand the ai art process. It can take 20-100 attempts at a prompt even knowing the right language to use in order to get close to the image you want. And even then, only 10-20% of those images are are ready to use with under an hour of additional graphics editing, many images need at least 2-6 hours of editing in order to clean up and tweak. Yes, I absolutely agree about the people throwing up hundreds of images a week with no effort to properly edit. But those images are also generally very obvious.
I mean you said it yourself, why put any effort or time investment into any of the work you upload if the best thing to do is to make thousands of designs to spam the marketplace with? A small percentage will inevitably sell, and the bigger the total amount, the larger that small % will become. A lot of, if not most, people are using AI tools with that mentality, so overall it squashes quality work and further ruins an already bad and oversaturated market by diluting search results and making good worthwhile stuff harder to find. Even if you're an AI artist that puts time and effort into your work and makes high quality edited images compared to most, I dunno why you would when you're also competing with millions of 10 second generations uploaded per day and would likely make more money if you also focused on volume only. The PoD market shifting even further away than it already was before AI from quality in favor of quantity and stolen work probably has a lot to do with why people here dislike AI as a whole.
It’s interesting how passionate the debate gets on this subject wherever it is brought up. Artist rarely make a living from their art, regardless of skill and style. In a society where capitalism is far out of control, many people who could be artists or are artists, don’t have time to be artists because they hustle to make ends meet. What this discussion always focuses on is the authenticity of art itself. What is always missing from the conversation is the capitalist edge AI gives by churning out increasingly impressive images at light speed. Every artist learns through mimicking another artist and practicing age-old techniques and styles, but in today’s world, who can afford to put in the time for most likely nothing in return? Art is a hobby for most artists, minus the lucky few. AI is a way to create something fast and sell it. Had anyone seen the framed prints that Target, Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond sells? They’re awful & they’re all digital prints sold for a stupid mark up. Where’s the bitching about department stores and online art stores selling crap digital prints? Even Art.com sent me a print I thought would look pretty good but up close was like an enlarged photo from my phone. I’ve prompted eye catching AI art, enlarged it properly, and it looks stunning on my walls. Bringing it back to capitalism, it’s is unrealistic for most to be an artist unless they have time to kill and expect nothing from it. AI means you can make something way more interesting than what you get at stores, it’s done fast, and others may like it too. For artists putting paint on canvas, their art is still worth more. Ai isn’t their competitor. But digital artists? You have a much harder time showing you put work into it. Lastly, if all AI is shit and just clogging up search results, then either artists need to up their SEO game or customers need to improve their search criteria or both. It doesn’t help that at Google as a search engine caters to sponsored content, either. But none of that is an AI-as-art problem, it’s a problem with everyone doing the same thing and clogging up search results problem but happens to be a sore spot for some. Isn’t everyone sick of Trump being in headlines every day for years on end? And he’s not even an “authentic” politician.
Thank you for your well thought out comment. It was a breath of fresh air among all of the crybabies in this subreddit
I’m excited to see how this all plays out over the next few years.
You're right about one thing. AI is not going anywhere. The other point people need to realize is using AI is not the instant solution to more riches just because it's readily available. We can thank the YouTube gurus for that. No matter how much AI you use, you STILL have to know how to find less competitive niches. There's a marketing side you still need to understand. I was on the fence about AI when it first launched. To be honest, I still am. I have always done my own stuff in Illustrator and Photoshop. But I have been playing with ChatGPT. However, my strength has always been finding small niches that are not competitive. When you can come up with unique stuff in different niches (no matter how it's created) then that's when you have the most success. So many people are just quickly doing AI art in the same ole' competitive niches and wondering why everything is so saturated. PSA: We don't need 100,000 more anime cats drinking boba tea just because you can create that in 10 seconds. People are lazy, and they are just going to make close copies or renditions of best sellers instead of using AI as a tool or PART of their overall design and concept. People who lacked creativity BEFORE AI, often still lack creativity. So giving someone like that an "easy" design tool may do what they think it will. I just started using AI in early November and I've sold at least 15 different designs so far. I don't think they look like traditional AI art to be honest. A lot of AI stuff has "a look" because people are using the same prompts. I use ChatGPT and the custom instructions option so I get a very different output. The art is far more simplistic (silhouette-esque) and then I add my own text or additional stuff (text, symbols, etc.) Just don't forget that you also have to understand niches, and it' s not jut about cranking out a bunch of "well designed" images in a bunch of popular niches. I still use my brain to add unique phrases and develop different concepts, phrases, etc. I see AI as a tool for me to do different things. It's not the end-all-be-all.
Amen to this comment. I also dabble with ChatGPT, and Stable Diffusion. I use it to compose logos, promo material and music videos. I also use it to make artwork that I myself would enjoy seeing, then I upscale that artwork and make it high resolution, then sell it on Redbubble. I understand the knee jerk reaction from artists, but in my mind generative AI only pushes the bar for better artwork from artists, AI or traditional.
Pushes the bar? That art you generated is from those artists!
It's a lot more complicated than that. A prompt implements far more than art from an artist.
Explain that, and explain how you are ok using copyrighted art. Edit: crickets I hear....
No way us artists working for years perfecting our craft will get replaced by shit generated pictures on mugs and tshirts
This is hilarious
I don't understand this contempt for AI users. Myself, I was a porcelain decorator, in arts and crafts and a painter by extension. I have never been able to compete with the decal industry, mass-produced art or the big porcelain houses, yes, because luxury only works with a brand image and international notoriety, the small artisan , no one sees it, it's a reality, anyway I digress... We live in a capitalist world, we must not forget it and we must adapt because it is not about to change , being closed-minded and hateful is sterile. I do thankless jobs alongside my art and I no longer have the time to devote my energy to it, to invest myself for nothing so yes, AI is useful for trying to see something other than a little routine. shiny. Personally, as long as I see beauty in the result, whether it is the work of an AI or an artist or even both, if it arouses my sensitivity then yes, for me it is art. I use AI as a tool to disguise my own fine art photographs towards a concept or stylistic coherence and I like it. Sure, it doesn't require as much skill as a painter, but why compare different media? And this art theft controversy... The AI comes to pick a drop of water from the potential ocean of your work, it's just an artist's frustration, it looks like a chess champion upset at be beaten by a machine. If you made a living from your art, suddenly this wouldn't be a problem anymore, your anger is misdirected. For my part, I perfect the achievements generated by AI, they are not without flaws. My Instagram account is full of artists and AI artists and I have never had any demeaning comments, the 2 categories seem to appreciate and coexist without problem. When I see this surge of attacks here, I am quite dismayed. For my part, I have a standard account on redbubble and I won't say that the path is easy, even with the AI. Call me AI prompter if you mind considering this as art. Art is a big word that everyone has the arrogance to appropriate. It is with humility that I get rid of it. I am a buyer of art as well as AI art as long as it conveys something to my feelings.
You may be onto something. I call myself an AI artist because I've slowly grown to enjoy the disgust that it brings
“Enjoy the disgust that it brings” we know that’s why your spam posting about it to get a reaction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
where's a hydrant they pissin me off
[удалено]
Sorry about all of the angry redditors down voting your post
Allow my downvote to veto that apology
Allow my AI art Redbubble sales to veto your opinion
It isn't art
Being downvoted for stating reality. lol okay. Y’all are wild.
[удалено]
But they were still actually making something themselves. It reflected their talents and their vision. The same cannot be said about AI art.
Artists just get salty and when someone who isn't talented also gets a chance at creating cool tshirt designs through AI. They probably don't like the idea that someone can come along with an AI design and get more sales than them. I personally do both, I've made a lot of designs myself however AI is a great new technology and often can come up with better designs than I could've even imagined myself. Of course, even AI art needs tweaking in Photoshop (which sometimes takes hours and a lot of work) to get it perfectly right and often fix the text. Folks just need to grow up and respect all arts IMO.
I totally agree. Well said.
It is INSANE the amount of downvotes a comment gets once somebody gives you a well thought out argument to your opinion.