AI-Generated Artwork Won First Place. Artists aren't happy

[JEDI]

Man Boasts About Winning Art Competition Using AI-Created Image

Jason Allen's winning entry for the Colorado State Fair fine arts competition relied on an AI-powered program called Midjourney, which can generate images from a line of text.

www.pcmag.com

Last week, Jason Allen posted on a Discord chat server that he won the top award for digital art at the Colorado State Fair fine arts competition, which included a $300 cash prize. However, he didn’t use conventional software drawing programs to create his art.
Instead, he relied on an AI-based program called Midjourney, which can generate stunning, professional-looking art from a mere line of text.

Other artists think it's cheating.
(But nothing prohibited it under the rules of that contest)

Wonder what line of text he used?

 

[JM Aggie08]

Regardless of how it was created, I find it very captivating. Like...I can't stop staring at it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Regardless of how it was created, I find it very captivating. Like...I can't stop staring at it.

Hey, art's in the eye of the beholder. I welcome our future state of artisanal AI-generated art.

We have several prints of AI generated art in our house already. I'd fill an infinite gallery a la Echo if I could.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This topic was the latest John Oliver epi

 

[pmv]

It's an intriguing development, that's all I can say. So now even arty types are facing being supplanted by automation. I really can't work out the rights-and-wrongs of it, but the fact is much of the workforce have been dealing with that issue for a long time.

I can't wait till AI starts replacing newspaper opinion columnists and political pundits on TV. Then there really will be a backlash.

Oh, and most of all, when they develop an AI-economist. I suspect views about automation and employment will suddenly shift at that point.

 

[pmv]

Regarding the competition - surely if the other artists couldn't produce anything more artistically-impressive than something produced by an automatic algorithm, then they didn't deserve to win? So I don't see they have any grounds for complaint.

The only question would be whether the 'winner' merited having his name attached to the winning entry or if it should just be credited to the computer program that produced it.

But would it be any different if he'd sat down and worked through the same algorithm the computer followed, but by hand, mechanically producing the same outcome as the machine did, by doing the maths with a calculator? It would take a heck of a lot longer, and be unbearably tedious to do, but would that therefore make it more 'valid' as his artwork?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Regarding the competition - surely if the other artists couldn't produce anything more artistically-impressive than something produced by an automatic algorithm, then they didn't deserve to win? So I don't see they have any grounds for complaint.

The only question would be whether the 'winner' merited having his name attached to the winning entry or if it should just be credited to the computer program that produced it.

But would it be any different if he'd sat down and worked through the same algorithm the computer followed, but by hand, mechanically producing the same outcome as the machine did, by doing the maths with a calculator? It would take a heck of a lot longer, and be unbearably tedious to do, but would that therefore make it more 'valid' as his artwork?

Depends on whether you consider an AI program to be a tool, akin to a brush.

Does an artist with a small palette of 6 colors deserve more recognition than an artist with a computer-controlled ink mixing system with ten thousand colors? How about an artist that uses a single brush vs a hundred for a hundred different strokes? Is the AI the tool or the artist? Not like the artist didn't have to know how to navigate the intricacies of a given AI to get it to produce the art in the way it intended. I've seen that first-hand, and it means the difference between weird blobs and something genuinely intriguing.

Couple examples (sorry for any compression artifacts, modern internet apps are shit-tier):

 

[pmv]

Depends on whether you consider an AI program to be a tool, akin to a brush.

Does an artist with a small palette of 6 colors deserve more recognition than an artist with a computer-controlled ink mixing system with ten thousand colors? How about an artist that uses a single brush vs a hundred for a hundred different strokes? Is the AI the tool or the artist? Not like the artist didn't have to know how to navigate the intricacies of a given AI to get it to produce the art in the way it intended. I've seen that first-hand, and it means the difference between weird blobs and something genuinely intriguing.

Couple examples (sorry for any compression artifacts, modern internet apps are shit-tier):
View attachment 66945
View attachment 66946
View attachment 66947

I can't see how you can regard the program as anything other than a tool, given that all it's doing is mechanical, deterministic calculations. As I say, in principle he could have done the same thing by doing the maths himself, working out each step with a calculator, to determine what colour each pixel should end up as.

In practice that would have been impossibly tedious, but in principle it's the same process as the computer was engaged in. You wouldn't then credit the calculator with the artwork.

Maybe one would have to credit the author of the algorithm, i.e. the programmer of the AI program? But then I guess it depends on what basis the program itself was sold (those pesky EULA terms).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I can't see how you can regard the program as anything other than a tool, given that all it's doing is mechanical, deterministic calculations. As I say, in principle he could have done the same thing by doing the maths himself, working out each step with a calculator, to determine what colour each pixel should end up as.

In practice that would have been impossibly tedious, but in principle it's the same process as the computer was engaged in. You wouldn't then credit the calculator with the artwork.

Maybe one would have to credit the author of the algorithm, i.e. the programmer of the AI program? But then I guess it depends on what basis the program itself was sold (those pesky EULA terms).

Indeed, thus one would have to argue that the tedium is what makes it art I guess, if they really want to stand by the position that AI-generated art isn't. And with that rabbit hole, any number of class A hipsterisms regarding how real a thing is can be leveraged on what should be purely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can't see how you can regard the program as anything other than a tool, given that all it's doing is mechanical, deterministic calculations.

As if that's all AI IS.

I would consider AI to be a "daemonic force", interfaced with via computer.

I don't think it's "purely algorithyms and math".

 

[lxskllr]

Competition isn't art. Competition is competition, and it has arbitrary rules. I don't see ai replacing analog art. A lot of art's desirability are intangible traits like who did it, when they did it, and what people said about it. Not objective quality. People will still pay for analog art, just like they did after shitty mass produced prints became commonplace. An algorithm adds a bit of fun mystery. Plug in the data, and see what pops out. You don't know til it's done.

 

[BudAshes]

Depends on whether you consider an AI program to be a tool, akin to a brush.

Does an artist with a small palette of 6 colors deserve more recognition than an artist with a computer-controlled ink mixing system with ten thousand colors? How about an artist that uses a single brush vs a hundred for a hundred different strokes? Is the AI the tool or the artist? Not like the artist didn't have to know how to navigate the intricacies of a given AI to get it to produce the art in the way it intended. I've seen that first-hand, and it means the difference between weird blobs and something genuinely intriguing.

Couple examples (sorry for any compression artifacts, modern internet apps are shit-tier):
View attachment 66945
View attachment 66946
View attachment 66947

This tacky stuff is what I except from AI art. The OP image though is quite stunning.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This tacky stuff is what I except from AI art. The OP image though is quite stunning.

And that entirely depends on the software used. That 'tacky stuff' is from a free app, which is essentially just a showcase of technical possibilities. Actual implementation of these things is just getting off the ground, and the OP is a good example of the starting point of this technology as an official offering.

 

[ISAslot]

What if you use AI to generate a scene that inspires you and paint the inspired scene yourself, would you need to disclose that? If I look at tons of legit paintings and am inspired to create a work by them, you don't typically disclose that.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The Art "Compos" that I am familiar with, these AI pieces would be disqualified, because the rules of those compos stated that you had to show at least 2-3 "in progress" copies of the work, to show that it was original, and establish authorship.

 

[ISAslot]

Couldn't you just have the AI generate the concept and show you exactly what to draw and then only show the steps in your process from that point forward?

 

[nakedfrog]

Depends on whether you consider an AI program to be a tool, akin to a brush.

Does an artist with a small palette of 6 colors deserve more recognition than an artist with a computer-controlled ink mixing system with ten thousand colors? How about an artist that uses a single brush vs a hundred for a hundred different strokes? Is the AI the tool or the artist? Not like the artist didn't have to know how to navigate the intricacies of a given AI to get it to produce the art in the way it intended. I've seen that first-hand, and it means the difference between weird blobs and something genuinely intriguing.

Couple examples (sorry for any compression artifacts, modern internet apps are shit-tier):

In this instance, at least, I would not consider the AI program to be a tool, unless we're also considering a human artist's brain a tool. The AI program functionally replicates the way a human brain would conceive a painting, by using prior examples of art to inform their stylistic choices, and basing it on other related data that it's aware of regarding the subject. The artist may or may not have had to know how to "navigate the intricacies" of the given AI, I experimented with a couple free ones a few months ago, depending on the quality you could maybe just drop a few keywords in and get some decent output.
The difference for me is that the human had no actual interaction in the intermediary steps from idea to execution, they plugged in some words and art popped out. That's not analogous (to me) to your comparison of a human artist with a 6 color palette, or a single brush, with each stroke, they're still directly involved in each step of the execution of the idea. If the person with the AI art directed it each step along the way (not sure which AI generator you used, but the ones I played with showed each step as it moved from amorphous blobiness towards each phase of completion) then it gets a little muddier, but still not the same IMO, since they'd still be largely hands-off in the execution of the idea.

 

[nakedfrog]

What if you use AI to generate a scene that inspires you and paint the inspired scene yourself, would you need to disclose that? If I look at tons of legit paintings and am inspired to create a work by them, you don't typically disclose that.

I suppose there's a question, if I watch an episode of Bob Ross and paint along, would I have to disclose that?

 

[pmv]

In this instance, at least, I would not consider the AI program to be a tool, unless we're also considering a human artist's brain a tool. The AI program functionally replicates the way a human brain would conceive a painting, by using prior examples of art to inform their stylistic choices, and basing it on other related data that it's aware of regarding the subject. The artist may or may not have had to know how to "navigate the intricacies" of the given AI, I experimented with a couple free ones a few months ago, depending on the quality you could maybe just drop a few keywords in and get some decent output.
The difference for me is that the human had no actual interaction in the intermediary steps from idea to execution, they plugged in some words and art popped out. That's not analogous (to me) to your comparison of a human artist with a 6 color palette, or a single brush, with each stroke, they're still directly involved in each step of the execution of the idea. If the person with the AI art directed it each step along the way (not sure which AI generator you used, but the ones I played with showed each step as it moved from amorphous blobiness towards each phase of completion) then it gets a little muddier, but still not the same IMO, since they'd still be largely hands-off in the execution of the idea.

I don't think that's true, though. To say the AI program "uses prior examples of art to inform their stylistic choices" is only true insofar as the programmer programmed it to do that.

The programmer could just as well have given the guy who submitted the picture a written list of instructions to follow to achieve the same ends. Who's work would it be in that case? A collaborative effort between the programmer and the competition guy, maybe? But if the program came with a EULA that allowed the user to put his own name to the resultant work, then the programmer is no longer included.

I mean, a lot of artists, particularly conceptual artists (who are the current fashion in art in this country at least) don't necessarily make their own art? They employ people to make it for them to their specifications or use things already existant. I don't think Damien Hirst 'manufactured' the shark in his "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" - I think that was the Shark's parents that did that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The programmer could just as well have given the guy who submitted the picture a written list of instructions to follow to achieve the same ends. Who's work would it be in that case? A collaborative effort between the programmer and the competition guy, maybe? But if the program came with a EULA that allowed the user to put his own name to the resultant work, then the programmer is no longer included.

Except that the same 'generation phrase' can be used to generate an unlimited amount of unique art. There's a zero.zero chance of anyone ever generating that art again, until the heat death of the universe (unless they simply copy it with a paint brush, ironically).

 

[nakedfrog]

I don't think that's true, though. To say the AI program "uses prior examples of art to inform their stylistic choices" is only true insofar as the programmer programmed it to do that.

The programmer could just as well have given the guy who submitted the picture a written list of instructions to follow to achieve the same ends. Who's work would it be in that case? A collaborative effort between the programmer and the competition guy, maybe? But if the program came with a EULA that allowed the user to put his own name to the resultant work, then the programmer is no longer included.

An AI art generator will generate different results for the exact same prompt, so... not really?

I mean, a lot of artists, particularly conceptual artists (who are the current fashion in art in this country at least) don't necessarily make their own art? They employ people to make it for them to their specifications or use things already existant. I don't think Damien Hirst 'manufactured' the shark in his "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" - I think that was the Shark's parents that did that.

Sure, let's go ahead and bring performance art into too then, I suppose?
I was just giving my opinion on whether using an AI art generator counts as a "tool" and I don't think it does. Sounds like you disagree.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The difference for me is that the human had no actual interaction in the intermediary steps from idea to execution, they plugged in some words and art popped out. That's not analogous (to me) to your comparison of a human artist with a 6 color palette, or a single brush, with each stroke, they're still directly involved in each step of the execution of the idea. If the person with the AI art directed it each step along the way (not sure which AI generator you used, but the ones I played with showed each step as it moved from amorphous blobiness towards each phase of completion) then it gets a little muddier, but still not the same IMO, since they'd still be largely hands-off in the execution of the idea.

Maybe, or maybe the progression of steps that an artist takes to completion are as 'loose' as hitting 'generate new' on a prompt repeatedly. I'd be willing to put a fiver on betting that if you asked an average artist if their completed works ended up how they imagined they would, that they would disagree with you. If that's the case, how much real control do they have over the brush strokes, vs 'where the art takes them' so to speak? How many great works have been discovered to have other works buried underneath them?

Also, in the end, does it matter if it captivates? Would it matter more to you if the AI was otherwise sentient, a la Zima Blue (Love Death Robots)?

 

[nakedfrog]

Maybe, or maybe the progression of steps that an artist takes to completion are as 'loose' as hitting 'generate new' on a prompt repeatedly. I'd be willing to put a fiver on betting that if you asked an average artist if their completed works ended up how they imagined they would, that they would disagree with you. If that's the case, how much real control do they have over the brush strokes, vs 'where the art takes them' so to speak? How many great works have been discovered to have other works buried underneath them?

Another fascinating thing from a recent Vox video, the specific relevant part is about 6:40 in, where they've got a AI set up to analyze the surface of a painting that can essentially identify a painter from the brush strokes (prompted by your question about how much control they have over the brush strokes)

Also, in the end, does it matter if it captivates? Would it matter more to you if the AI was otherwise sentient, a la Zima Blue (Love Death Robots)?

Again, I was mostly speaking to the question "is it a tool"? If a sentient AI created art, I still wouldn't consider the AI itself a tool, except again in my original example, in the same way a human's brain is a tool they use to generate art. I'm not saying it makes a difference as to whether the art is "valid", that's never been part of my consideration. That's... yeah, a wildly different discussion IMO

 

[sdifox]

I am guessing here, but I think the text was "two girls, one cup"