Ist eine transparente Offenlegung der KI in der Nähe des Bildes ausreichend?
Oder sollte KI-Kunst vollständig von der globalen Kunstbühne verboten werden?
I use a variety of free AI apps to generate a reference image. I then sketch it onto watercolor paper and paint it. Do you do something similar?
If so, do you classify the final painting as “human” created or AI art. I consider my work human created.
If I send my reference image to an AI checker it says AI. If I send a copy of my painting to the same site it says it is NOT AI.
Thought?
Nick
Using an AI image as a reference and then interpreting it and sketching and painting it is 100% human made art in my book. 🙂
What you describe is no different than using a photo as a reference. It is in no way AI if painted by the human hand.
I use the term 'AI-squared 'for this kind of work: Artistic Intelligence x Artificial Intelligence. It's a hybrid that's neither wholly one or the other; it is, I'd argue, sui generis. Could also call the work ai-genic: owing its genesis in part to AI.
Ende der 1990er Jahre glaubten die meisten professionellen Fotografen, dass die Verwendung digitaler Bilder KEINE Fotografie sei. Heute verwenden die überwiegende Mehrheit der professionellen Fotografen Digitalkameras.
Wenn ich eine Beschreibung einer Landschaft, die ich gesehen habe, oder ein Gefühl, das ich hatte, geben und einen Maler bitten würde, es darzustellen, könnte ich nicht behaupten, dass ich das resultierende Bild geschaffen habe. Das gleiche gilt, wenn jemand eine KI auffordert, ein Kunstwerk zu produzieren. Aber das bedeutet nicht, dass die KI keine Kunst geschaffen hat.
Die Google-KI teilt mir mit, dass: "Ein Kunstwerk wird typischerweise geschaffen, um eine emotionale oder ästhetische Reaktion hervorzurufen,..." und "..."Kunst" wird in der Regel durch ihren ästhetischen oder ausdrücksstarken Zweck definiert...". Wenn wir diese Kriterien für die Definition von Kunst akzeptieren (und ich tue das), dann ist klar, dass das Ergebnis von jeder KI, die mit der Erstellung von Kunstwerken beauftragt ist, als Kunst gilt, und die KI der Künstler ist. Wenn der Autor der Beschreibung (oder des Prompts) behauptet, er hätte das Kunstwerk geschaffen, begeht er Plagiat.
Nur meine zwei Penny.
Disclosure helps, but it does not solve the core problem. Galleries exist to champion the human hand. Let them do that unapologetically.
Can AI generated art be shown as "art" at galleries or exhibitions? I think AI generated art is and should be in its own category. The person who develops a AI generated piece has to have a vision, clearly articulate the concept to AI, and ultimately determine if the creation fulfills his or her's vision for the finished product.
I think trying to pass AI-generated art off as people-made is fraudulent.
Galleries and exhibitions can have a variety of artwork. TBH some people do not care what created an interesting piece of work. I do not think that diminishes the art piece. If there are willing buyers, there will be willing sellers. I believe that the integrity of a show would best be preserved through categorization, transparency, and honesty.
Ponder this:
A photograph may be accepted as art, even though the subject is the capture of a scene on film or sensor. The “art” is the result of the photographer’s skill in timing, point of view, composition, choice of light, and crop, but the scene existed prior to the capture.
Tools from the AI palette may be used to modify a photo or even create an image that lives solely in the mind of the “artist.” Cursors replace brushes, pixels replace pigments. It is undeniably a new and different method of expression in imagery. But, is it no longer art?
No. Art holds emotion from the heart & soul of the artist… a machine has neither.
Kunstformen ändern sich — und ich liebe einige der Bilder, die von KI produziert werden. Die digitale Fotoschungsmansipulation ist eine Form von KI, verschiedene Kameraobjektive bei Digitalkameras sind jetzt auch KI-Elemente. Die Bezeichnung der verwendeten „Medien“ ist Teil des kreativen Prozesses.. neue Werkzeuge beim Erstellen eines Bildes zu nutzen, ist Teil des Spaßes am Erkunden…. Die Fähigkeit, den Prozess zu diskutieren, ist Teil des Gesprächs zwischen Sammlern und Künstlern…
Eine Ausstellung, die angibt, welche Bilder gezeigt werden sollen.. macht jede Show einzigartig … wenn man ein geschultes Auge und sensorisches Bewusstsein hat… wird das Gefühl von Mensch oder Maschine durch die Sinne wahrgenommen.
Viel Spaß beim Erkunden und Erweitern deines künstlerischen Werkzeugkastens!! 🌊🥰
I’m not sure how much human thought goes into generating AI art. A lot of human thought went into creating AI. But it seems like you can ask AI to generate a certain picture, describe what you want, and it will do it. It’s very different from digitally created art, which totally involves an artist.
I could be wrong. But with AI Art, I think AI is doing a heavy lifting not the human. Therefore it should not be displayed in a venue with human art. It needs its own “gallery” somewhere.
But it isn’t a human doing the composition, palette, or producing that fine result. It is an incredibly sophisticated computer. It is not the same thing as digitally-created art where a human is using digital brushes to “paint”.
I am both a professional Graphic Artist/Designer with complicated art apps, a drawing tablet & drawing pen that has taken top honors internationally for my digital creations & a nationally recognized watercolorist. Two very different mediums but both took talent, years of art study, a critical knowledgeable eye, a brain that was born to be an Artist & a hand, (or toes) that is an extension of the Artists’ brain & eyes to create the end result, ART. Where as AI doesn’t really require even half that is needed to create an original creation that possesses emotion & originality. Simply apples & bacon, both food but not at all the same.
Du bist genau die Art von Künstler, auf die ich mich bezog, als ich von digitalen Künstlern sprach, die ganz anders sind als KI. Ich habe unglaubliche digital erstellte Kunst gesehen und bin oft völlig fasziniert davon. Digitale Schöpfer als Künstler sind meiner Meinung nach genauso gültig wie Künstler mit Pinsel, Bleistift usw. Sie schaffen die Kunst mit sehr ausgefeilten Werkzeugen. Das ist etwas anderes, als AI zu sagen, dass sie ein Gemälde für dich erstellt, und es dann als deine Kunst zu verkaufen.
As long as it is not judged next to against the human made art.
Lesen Sie die Schwingungen und Resonanzen, und es ist einfach, den Unterschied zu spüren… Fotografen verwenden Maschinen, seit dieses Genre begonnen hat— was ist eine Kamera anderes als eine Maschine?
Wir sind Künstler.. Kohärenz wird im Herzen gefühlt, nachdem die Augen die Bilder durch das Nervensystem gesendet haben. Erst dann fühlen wir das Bild… Kohärenz!!
Aber KI ist nur jemand, der eine Anfrage an eine Reihe von Computern stellt und sie bittet, etwas zu erschaffen.
I asked Grok to produce a painting of Mt Shasta with a peachy sunrise. The result was beautiful. I just had the idea, and a total non-human created it. My conclusion—AI cheapens what we do, and art produced by AI shouldn’t be any where near human art displays.
I’m sorry, but with over 68 yrs of working as a professional Artist, I must disagree. There simply is no comparison between a real Artist & a machine.
Deine Frage greift eine so wichtige Diskussion darüber auf, wie sich die Kunstwelt entwickelt und neue Geschichten umarmt. Es ist inspirierend zu sehen, wie du den Dialog anregst, der die Reise hinter jeder Kreation würdigt, egal wie sie zum Leben erweckt wird.
Some food for thought about whether someone who types verbal instructions into an app on the computer… are they a visual artist?
Typing words into an app is not automatically art. If it were, then… Googling would be literature, ordering food would be culinary art and saying “take a picture” would make you a photographer.
Let’s say two people use the same AI tool… One types: “cool glowing wolf” and posts it immediately. The other spends hours shaping, refining, discarding, recomposing, color-tuning, upscaling, finishing.
Only one of them is really making something.
The tool didn’t decide that difference… The human did.
So, typing instructions alone doesn’t make someone a visual artist. But using tools intentionally… shaping results with vision, taste, and decision-making… absolutely can make someone a visual artist.
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob eine Gruppe das entscheiden darf… vor allem, wenn jeder große Wandel in der Kunst zunächst abgelehnt wurde.
Aber ich denke, KI-generierte Bilder sollten definitiv in Galerien erlaubt sein… wenn sie Urheberschaft, Absicht und künstlerische Präsenz tragen.
Ohne das?… Sie gehören nicht dazu… aber schwache traditionelle Kunst auch nicht.
Es gibt berechtigte Bedenken bezüglich der Trainingsdaten. Aber fertiggestellte Werke allein wegen des verwendeten Werkzeugs abzulehnen, ist so, als würde man Fotografie ablehnen, weil Kameras „die Realität einfangen“.
Ein Pinsel kann lebloses Werk produzieren.
Eine Kamera kann lebloses Werk produzieren.
Das gleiche gilt für KI.
Please let's define 'AI-generated'.
Obviously if the image consists of one image that has been 100% AI-generated, we don't want any truck with it.
But what if the image consists of two or more AI-generated images combined in some way – composited, or layered? Every element is AI-generated, but the combination is not. Is that AI-generated?
Is the act of layering two AI-generated images (with transparency or layer blend mode) or compositing – e.g. masking one image over the other – sufficient to make the result human-made?
If not, how much human intervention on AI-generated images is need to turn the final product into something human-made?
Perhaps a definition of AI-generated is a work that is not 100% made by wit of artist?
(Sorry; four questions there.)
Many of the Dutch Masters used the Camera Obscura, which was a tool that helped them create the almost photorealistic paintings they were famous for. I am sure there were rival painters that complained that they were "cheating," however, we now consider them masterpieces. In the same way, we should view AI generated art as a tool to refine compositions for artists to express their ideas, for discovering different approaches and angles that are outside their comfort zone, and to speed up the overall workflow. If used responsibly, I believe this should be allowed. A common misconception is that AI does all the work. I have used AI and you would not believe how many iterations of an idea it takes to make things come out right. I use it to generate ideas, or to modify photo's that I have taken for better artistic effect. In my case, it is only a tool, but I understand the concerns that AI will kill the market for original artists.
Virtually all of the commercial editing tools that photographers use today make use of some form AI technology. Does this render their art form AI? In this case, I think not rather it is a modern tool used by certain artists like a brush or paint or chemicals used to develop film. We need to be clear how we are defining AI Art so as not to dismiss the artist creator and their talents.
I suggest anyone that’s curious about AI art do an experiment. Whether it’s ChatGPT or Grok or who knows what else, try instructing it to create a painting of a certain subject, a certain way. I asked Grok to produce a painting of Mt Shasta eith a peachy sunrise. The result was beautiful. That took zero human involvement, except for the people who developed Grok and my idea.
Very different from digitally-created art, and should be no where close to human-art galleries!
Herr Mortimer,
Bezüglich Ihrer Ansprache mir gegenüber, ob von KI erstellte Kunst erlaubt sein sollte oder sogar als Kunst gilt. Ich habe nie gesagt, dass
sie in die gleiche Klasse wie Originalkunst eingereiht werden sollte. Ich weiß nicht, wie man es nennt.
Ich schaffe Originalwerke. Dann verwende ich in einigen Fällen Apps, um ein fertiges und originales Werk zu verbessern. Ich präsentiere sie zusammen und mache potenzielle Käufer auf den Unterschied aufmerksam. Dies wird bei jedem Werk beschrieben. Ich habe sogar bei Taylor nachgefragt, und er sagte, das sei in Ordnung.
Fotografen verwenden seit Jahren Apps, um ihre Arbeiten zu verbessern.
Ich hoffe, Sie haben meine Werke nicht als KI-Stücke eingestuft.
No, art comes from human emotion and experience, speaks of the human condition. AI is a program developed by someone who then is getting paid from the sale. AI has all the information of every art style and can come up with some sort of image that encapsulates different styles which visually may be interesting but misses the whole point of what art is.
It should be banned from the global art stage as it's not only not created by hand but the pace of output is no comparison.
Transparency is the bare minimum — a label that says “AI-generated” should be non-negotiable if the work is displayed publicly. But whether it belongs in galleries alongside human-made art is a much harder question. The craft, the intention, and the years of skill development behind a human work carry a meaning that prompt engineering simply does not replicate yet. That said, curators should be free to show whatever they find compelling — audiences are smart enough to make their own judgments when given honest context.
AI should never be in art galleries! It is an amoral entity and has no soul or emotion which spawns art. It has never lived and experienced what real true artists have. Leave AI into designing scientific skematics and to utilize solutions for other applications, never art!
I saw this site pop into my IG feed a while ago, and it's been on my mind. They claim to be hand drawn pet portraits, it sure looks like AI to me. And I don't know about you all, but I couldn't afford to do a commission at those prices.
[Kommentar gelöscht]
[Kommentar gelöscht]
But it isn't you who painted or photographed the art--- you typed it into being. While I think that is an accomplishment, it would be more impressive if your hand on the paintbrush created strokes to draw such emotional connection out of the art piece. Maybe it's apple to oranges comparison.
It’s more like asking if les thought bacon comparison. Both an image to enjoy but only one is true art.
[Kommentar gelöscht]
This thought reminds me of today's generation who like "retro" things... vinyl records, phonographs, vintage clothing. In 50 years maybe after people tire of a flooded market with easy-to-produce-but-meaningless AI-generated art pieces; the old will become new again.
Crazy not so crazy.
I agree. A human artist sometimes works their whole life to develop and hone their artistic talent. As artists we already deal with a lot of competition, we don't need to compete with a computer in the art world!
Also remember, A.I. machinations can not be copyrighted.
Ich stimme dir vollkommen zu! KI-generierte Kunst ist "keine" authentische Kunst.