Great commentary on AI. I am having a similar discussion with our Photo Club this coming Thursday. Anyway I have used AI to create an image of a golden Frying Pan reminiscent of the ones that circulated in the 50's around here to promote the Fry-Ark Water Diversion Project. The onlyone I could get my hands on was so dinged up, it was not photographable. I used Dali E and got a golden Frying Pan but Labeled it as AI Generated Not a Photograph.
I do not have any problem with AI generated stuff, especially "content" and filler stuff like you are describing. None of that bothers me. Even a NIKE ad wouldn't bother me if it did not purport to be a photograph.
Why don't AI artists just own their stuff... Be really proud of it. Call it new AI art or whatever they want? Instead, they have to piggyback and hold hostage a noble and historically proven art form.
I believe it is because they themselves cannot come to terms with what they are doing, so they need to legitimize it by calling it something that has a great tradition. But no one had come along to tell me anything else.
I know an artist who is a printer. He does amazing, technical work. When people find out how he does it, they're impressed, and it makes them more likely to buy the work. But this isn't true of all people. Some say, "I don't care what went into it, it only matters whether I like the image." Speaking for myself, if I like an image, the only thing that would change for me, knowing it was AI, would be the price I'd be willing to pay.
Also, from what I've seen, it's not easy to get a really good, original image from an AI generator. Not the same kind of skill as spending years learning how to use a brush, but I'll still give them credit.
And yes, nice lines on the Edsel. I used to have one (a '59, like that one), and I think they were underrated.
Great commentary on AI. I am having a similar discussion with our Photo Club this coming Thursday. Anyway I have used AI to create an image of a golden Frying Pan reminiscent of the ones that circulated in the 50's around here to promote the Fry-Ark Water Diversion Project. The onlyone I could get my hands on was so dinged up, it was not photographable. I used Dali E and got a golden Frying Pan but Labeled it as AI Generated Not a Photograph.
Absolutely.
I do not have any problem with AI generated stuff, especially "content" and filler stuff like you are describing. None of that bothers me. Even a NIKE ad wouldn't bother me if it did not purport to be a photograph.
Why don't AI artists just own their stuff... Be really proud of it. Call it new AI art or whatever they want? Instead, they have to piggyback and hold hostage a noble and historically proven art form.
I believe it is because they themselves cannot come to terms with what they are doing, so they need to legitimize it by calling it something that has a great tradition. But no one had come along to tell me anything else.
I know an artist who is a printer. He does amazing, technical work. When people find out how he does it, they're impressed, and it makes them more likely to buy the work. But this isn't true of all people. Some say, "I don't care what went into it, it only matters whether I like the image." Speaking for myself, if I like an image, the only thing that would change for me, knowing it was AI, would be the price I'd be willing to pay.
Also, from what I've seen, it's not easy to get a really good, original image from an AI generator. Not the same kind of skill as spending years learning how to use a brush, but I'll still give them credit.
And yes, nice lines on the Edsel. I used to have one (a '59, like that one), and I think they were underrated.
Thank you for your perspective.
Very much appreciated.