FA+
Shop
What the hell is an artist anyway?
a month ago
General
I've been putting together my thoughts on art in general, and I've narrowed down what an artist "needs" to have and should look to improve on.
The three key things are: hand, mind, and eye.
Hand means you need to have some kind of command and control over your hands to do what your mind commands. Like getting the right stroke for illustration.
Mind means learning a few techniques and then controlling your hand to execute the technique, like having knowledge of anatomy, or how to draw a sphere, or shading a tiddy. These first two are what art professors mean when they say "learn the rules".
The last one, and most contentious, is eye. It basically means aesthetic, or taste. Understanding what your taste is. Knowing when something looks right, or more importantly when something looks wrong. This last one is contentious because it's entirely based on personal preference. This vast disparity as far as taste is concerned is really what takes an artist from "draftsman" to "master". You CAN train your eye, but you'll betray yourself if you always just create mass appeal. For example, there are "rules" for creating the humanoid form. Proportion and anatomy stuff. But these rules are more like guidelines. True mastery of a skill is working within, around, and outside of those rules to create something new. Eye is what art professors mean when they say "break the rules".
So what is art? Maybe it's simply a form of expression, appealing somehow. That doesn't mean art has to be visually pleasing...it means it speaks to someone somehow. Even if it's just one person. It's kind of like magic in that way.
Are AI generated images art? (First of all, AI is definitionally not intelligent but that's besides the point). I would submit my opinion that images generated by AI on their own is NOT art. Again, art is some kind of expression we as humans use to convey a meaning or thought. What AI does when you input a prompt is simply use the text or image input and algorithmically find relations withing a "graph of knowledge" (that's an actual mathematical term you can look up). The training of an AI is essentially generating the reference algorithm so the system can find pieces and put them together. The actual work being done has nothing to do with human input other than some kind of description. There are no decisions to be made by a person other than the initial input. I do not beleive this makes that person an artist, nor does the result provide a work of art. And no, your prompt and workflow are not art either.
The work of art in that context, would be the system (AI algorithm, not the trained model) itself. I do think there is art hidden in science, mathematics and technology, but what the end user "creates" is not art.
If it's not art, what is it? It's more like a solution to a math problem, where all you did was type the question into a prompt and write it down. That's not you doing math, that's you using a system someone else invented and coded to claim you solved the math problem. It's hollow, and meaningless is what it is. Because of that, it is not art.
Is AI art ok? I honestly don't know. I'd say, gun to my head, no it isn't ok. Simply because it's using other's work without permission or credit. Is there a place for AI in art? Maybe? You shouldn't use Ai images for references that's for sure...but if there was a way the AI could output what artists were used to generate an image, it would be an interesting tool to help visualize a new style you may want to strive for? Maybe? Is that an ethical use? Idk if i would even trust AI to credit use correctly...
...
What was i talking about?
Anyway,
I don't know where you are in your art journey, but holy shit is it a roller coaster. Covered in shit at times. But as long as at least one person (you) enjoys the process or end result, it's art.
In a few more years I'll post another journal and we'll see if I still agree with the definitions here, or the AI images stuff.
The three key things are: hand, mind, and eye.
Hand means you need to have some kind of command and control over your hands to do what your mind commands. Like getting the right stroke for illustration.
Mind means learning a few techniques and then controlling your hand to execute the technique, like having knowledge of anatomy, or how to draw a sphere, or shading a tiddy. These first two are what art professors mean when they say "learn the rules".
The last one, and most contentious, is eye. It basically means aesthetic, or taste. Understanding what your taste is. Knowing when something looks right, or more importantly when something looks wrong. This last one is contentious because it's entirely based on personal preference. This vast disparity as far as taste is concerned is really what takes an artist from "draftsman" to "master". You CAN train your eye, but you'll betray yourself if you always just create mass appeal. For example, there are "rules" for creating the humanoid form. Proportion and anatomy stuff. But these rules are more like guidelines. True mastery of a skill is working within, around, and outside of those rules to create something new. Eye is what art professors mean when they say "break the rules".
So what is art? Maybe it's simply a form of expression, appealing somehow. That doesn't mean art has to be visually pleasing...it means it speaks to someone somehow. Even if it's just one person. It's kind of like magic in that way.
Are AI generated images art? (First of all, AI is definitionally not intelligent but that's besides the point). I would submit my opinion that images generated by AI on their own is NOT art. Again, art is some kind of expression we as humans use to convey a meaning or thought. What AI does when you input a prompt is simply use the text or image input and algorithmically find relations withing a "graph of knowledge" (that's an actual mathematical term you can look up). The training of an AI is essentially generating the reference algorithm so the system can find pieces and put them together. The actual work being done has nothing to do with human input other than some kind of description. There are no decisions to be made by a person other than the initial input. I do not beleive this makes that person an artist, nor does the result provide a work of art. And no, your prompt and workflow are not art either.
The work of art in that context, would be the system (AI algorithm, not the trained model) itself. I do think there is art hidden in science, mathematics and technology, but what the end user "creates" is not art.
If it's not art, what is it? It's more like a solution to a math problem, where all you did was type the question into a prompt and write it down. That's not you doing math, that's you using a system someone else invented and coded to claim you solved the math problem. It's hollow, and meaningless is what it is. Because of that, it is not art.
Is AI art ok? I honestly don't know. I'd say, gun to my head, no it isn't ok. Simply because it's using other's work without permission or credit. Is there a place for AI in art? Maybe? You shouldn't use Ai images for references that's for sure...but if there was a way the AI could output what artists were used to generate an image, it would be an interesting tool to help visualize a new style you may want to strive for? Maybe? Is that an ethical use? Idk if i would even trust AI to credit use correctly...
...
What was i talking about?
Anyway,
I don't know where you are in your art journey, but holy shit is it a roller coaster. Covered in shit at times. But as long as at least one person (you) enjoys the process or end result, it's art.
In a few more years I'll post another journal and we'll see if I still agree with the definitions here, or the AI images stuff.
Perhaps AI is best used if individual models are trained for specific tasks. Image generation is probably too broad for it, hence why it all looks the same.
But an LLM trained on like, music theory might be kind of useful as a "rubber duck" to bounce ideas off of as far as creating music goes. But again, you HAVE yo already know what you're talking about to use AI effectively. You need to be able to call it out on its bullshit.
Is it art? No. Have I called it art? Offhandedly as a slip? Yes. But really it's just a random image shit out by a computer. But what do I use the Ai for? It makes a great tool honestly. I've prototyped potential commissions since I have zero drawing ability of my own. I can get a general idea what it is I'd be looking at, what it is I might want, and then I have a handy piece to bring to the artist of my choice and say "hey, i want something like this, but not shit."
As with a great many things in the world, I simply see it as a tool that is being abused and used incorrectly. You can use a hammer to build a house, or smash shit up. I don't post my generations anywhere, i don't claim any kind of talent or anything to create em.
Like I said, I see it as a tool to be used as such, and it simply gets used incorrectly more often than not. But personally, I don't see it replacing artists. That's just my two cents.
After I had something moderately working, there was no sense of accomplishment or anything you'd get from making a code work in any other context. You don't have control over the output, you really don't.
To your point though, it might be good for brainstorming. I've used it to help me write lyrics, but after I was eventually inspired I threw out all the stuff gpt vomited out and made my own.
It is just a tool after all. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
In regards to text Ai's, it makes a real handy advanced search engine lol. I was looking at pickups for my bass and asked Grok "what is the best pickup for this style of playing within this price range" and it shit out a bunch of recommendations with links to sources etc. Made my decision from there after doing my own research from those sources.
I definitely agree it's a better search engine than basically any other website. (Google's AI is surprisingly not great considering they published the original paper current AI is based on...)
I think Google is relying too much in sponsored content and it has infected their ai's learned model unfortunately.
Maybe it’s a reflection of our ability to imagine things? A way for us to ‘flex’ the part of our minds that see and conceptualize things that could be, or things that never could be. The capability of an imagining things might have been the edge needed for our species to thrive in a hostile world.
Now that we have technology and a mastery of the world around us, artistic expression fills that inherent need for us to connect with the universe at large.
Personally, I am both bothered by and excited by AI. It will fundamentally change humanity in ways we can’t predict. I hate that it will make life harder for many people as it becomes better and better at doing the things we rely on to contribute to society (and thus alllow us to literally live). I hate that it’s cornerstone of creation was built on the hard work of others being dismantled and mimicked to create a shallow facsimile.
On the other hand, is it so different from an artist taking heavy inspiration from someone else and incorporating it into their own work? Maybe. I suppose you could view a lot of art as the sum of human expression compiled over centuries. Everyone adds a little bit of themselves to their art, but when you share your art with the world, you are in a sense inviting it to become a part of the cultural zeitgeist, right?
However, I feel like the need for artistic expression will always be there deep within us; something that AI can’t fulfill for us. At least not now. Perhaps eventually it can literally interface with our minds to bring our imaginations to life in almost unbelievable ways.
In any case it’s fun to think about! Thanks for providing some fun thoughts this morning IM!
I view mathematics as the language of the universe. Or at least as close as we can get to describing the physics of what's happening around us. There's beauty in that, and realizing that velocity is the derivative of acceleration is some kind of existential moment. Can you describe all of reality like this? Maybe as a continuous function. And there's magic in that. There are 5 equations that describe fluid flow called the navier stokes equations. They're elegant and simple, and we *think* they work. But there is no proof from smoothness of the equations that are supposed to be continuous. Which blows my mind every time I think about that. The way we solve them is numerically, by discretizing the equations and solving them at points divided into a physical matrix. So it's not continuous in that context. BUT physics is not continuous on an atomic level, let alone a subatomic level. So what's the right answer??? What language is the universe using to speak??? Can we ever really understand it??? Should we understand it? It turns into the god of the gaps argument really fucking quickly. The further I get into engineering and physics the more I'm like...yeah I can see how a scientist can be religious.
Wow that was a tangent. Ai does something similar in the mimicry or approximation of intelligence. AI in its current state is not going to go much further than it is, and is a bit of a circular money pit. Only 5% of companies who adopt it are turning a profit after adaptation. Those 5% of companies are using it for the intended purpose. Basically a search engine, or making a quick UI or brainstorming. You can't replace your coders with Ai in its current state.
There will have to be a major extention of the 2017 Google paper on neural networks for there to be an improvement. Btw, all current "AI" is based on that 2017 paper by Google.
That's just like, my opinion man. I'm probably wrong, but I've done professional research into it (and are encouraged to use it in analytical research) but it's garbage. You have to already understand how everything works for you to use it effectively.
Back to AI "art", for example if you generate an image but you dint know what "good" art is supposed to look like with proportion, volume, composition, color theory etc, you will NEVER be able to make something great cuz you don't even know what the question is, let alone what the answer is.
And in the context of science and math, I've used AI to try and solve fluid flow problems (navier stokes derived equations) for compressible fluids (high subsonic and supersonic flow) and it is seriously trash. It DOES speed up my process, but that's only because I guide it along the way with every mistake it makes. And if i miss something, it's confidently wrong. It is faster at writing down long equations or factoring than I am (I'm ok at math, but not very fast), so there's that use maybe.
Ok rant over
I do find myself rolling my eyes when people go crazy about AI usage without any care for the context about how it was used. For example the controversy at WorldCon this year where AI tools were used to parse data not "create" any material but they got slammed for "using AI".
It's really good at finding something that might be significant in the data, but it's up to the human in the loop to find the actual relationship or put a number to it (like an R squared value in statistics)