Une divulgation transparente de l'IA près de l'image suffit-elle ?
Ou l'art généré par l'IA devrait-il être complètement banni de la scène artistique mondiale ?
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.
Si je donnais une description d’un paysage que j’ai vu, ou un sentiment que j’ai ressenti, et que je demandais à un peintre de le représenter, je ne pourrais pas prétendre que j’ai créé l’image qui en résulte. C’est la même chose lorsque quelqu’un sollicite une IA pour produire une œuvre d’art. Mais cela ne signifie pas que l’IA n’a pas créé d’art.
L’IA de Google m’informe que : « Une œuvre d’art est généralement créée pour évoquer une réponse émotionnelle ou esthétique... » et « ...l’"art" est habituellement défini par son but esthétique ou expressif... ». Si nous acceptons ces critères pour définir l’art (et je le fais), alors clairement, la production de toute IA chargée de générer une œuvre d’art qualifie en tant qu’art, et l’IA est l’artiste. Si l’auteur de la description (ou du prompt) affirme qu’il a créé l’œuvre, il plagie.
Ce n’est que mon humble opinion.
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.
Well said..
art forms change — and I love some of the images produced by AI. The digital photo manipulation is a form of AI, different camera lenses on digital cameras are part aI now. labeling the “mediums” used is part of the creative process.. using new tools in making an image is part of the fun of exploring…. Being able to discuss the process is part of the conversation between collectors and artists…
A show specifying what images are being asked for display.. makes every show unique … if one has a trained eye and sensory awareness… the feeling of human or machine is read by the senses.
Have fun exploring and broadening your artistic tool box!! 🌊🥰
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.
Tu es exactement le genre d'artiste dont je parlais lorsque je faisais référence aux artistes numériques en tant qu'entité totalement différente de l'IA. J'ai vu des œuvres incroyables créées numériquement et je suis souvent émerveillé par elles. Les créateurs numériques en tant qu'artistes sont, à mon avis, aussi valides que ceux utilisant le pinceau, le crayon, etc. Ils créent l'art en utilisant des outils très sophistiqués. C'est différent de demander à l'IA de créer une peinture pour toi, puis de la vendre comme ton œuvre.
As long as it is not judged next to against the human made art.
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.
Ta question aborde une conversation si importante sur la façon dont le monde de l'art évolue et adopte de nouvelles histoires. C'est inspirant de te voir susciter un dialogue qui honore le parcours derrière chaque création, peu importe comment elle prend vie.
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!
J’ai lu une étude du secteur qui dit que la dernière tendance pour les musées publics, les « galeries ultimes » (je rajouterai un lien vers l’étude quand je la retrouverai), consiste à satisfaire le désir croissant du public pour « l’art immersif ». Regardez simplement la Color Factory (est. 2017). Vous vous souvenez des gars qui ont crashé le site d’Eventbrite à cause de la demande ? Oui, eux : https://www.colorfactory.co/locations/new-york-city
Même les deux expositions Van Gogh / Immersion ont capitalisé sur cette tendance à l’« expérience artistique », avec des shows similaires qui émergent partout, par exemple https://horizonkheopsexperience.com.
Il y a aussi des collectionneurs qui ont de gigantesques écrans numériques chez eux, et changent leurs œuvres à volonté, de façon aléatoire ou selon un programme adapté à leur humeur.
Tout cela pour dire que C’est à nous de contribuer à l’éducation du public sur la valeur et les bénéfices qu’il retire de posséder de l’art créé par l’humain. C’est à nous de donner des arguments aux galeries pour leur permettre de convaincre leurs collectionneurs et prospects de l’intérêt de l’HMA.
L’art généré par l’IA ne disparaîtra pas. Ni l’art numérique. Trouver un moyen de cohabiter, respectueusement, et avec une vision à long terme, est crucial. Ne faisons pas d’ennemis. Je pense que le mouvement HMA que ASF mène est un merveilleux début. Cependant, nous devons faire plus pour différencier et éduquer les propriétaires de galeries, les collectionneurs, la presse et le public affamé d’art.
Dans une perspective plus large, il y a beaucoup de brouhaha dans l’industrie avec lequel l’HMA doit composer : art généré par l’IA, art immersif, art numérique. L’HMA est en position de force. Mais nous avons trop tenu cela pour acquis. Maintenant, nous sommes mis au défi. Il est temps de nous mobiliser davantage.
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.
[commentaire supprimé]
[commentaire supprimé]
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.
[commentaire supprimé]
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.