Dave McKean on the Impact of AI for Artists
2022 ж. 28 Там.
75 934 Рет қаралды
"I was either going to retire or respond."
When artist Dave McKean (Sandman, Cages, Signal to Noise, Black Dog) realized what AI engines like Midjourney could do, it led to a prolonged panic attack. If an AI can create an unlimited number of quite sophisticated images from a few prompts what is the need for artists anymore? How does this change the landscape for illustration and how we see art and creativity? These are some of the questions McKean asks in his new book PROMPT: Conversations with Artificial Intelligence. Read more at davemckean.com/prompt-convers...
This is like the 7th or 8th podcast I've listened to on the subject today, but it is literally the first to ask, "Why are we doing this? Is this the world we want to move into?" Possibly the most important question of all pertaining to this issue.
It's a central question!
A lot of people just don’t want to deal with artists, and this is kind of an answer to all client from hell stories. I don’t like AI, or shit clients, but this makes me think maybe ranting and raving about difficult clients was the best solution to the problem. If making pictures wasn’t my job I would probably have the same attitude. Let’s be honest nobody in the art and design industry made a noise complaining about automation taking away factory work, and someone who lost their job from a car factory at 50 isn’t going to become an artist, programmer or social media influencer and have their retirement sorted. Not to toot my own horn, but I try to avoid doing things online and try to do things in person as much as possible, like bank, post office stuff
It's mostly to gain fast money and because people are very lazy and greedy. The rest just want to feel like they're doing something special, but they do not want to put in the work/effort for it. They just want that instant gratification and praise even if they don't deserve any of it. It's also hilarious how they get very defensive and upset when someone points this out to them. The way I see it, these people are nothing more than clients who commission an AI program to make their image. The true "artist" is the AI Program while they are just the client providing the info for the image they want. They should give full credit for the art to the AI program and they can get the credit for the idea but that is it. Don't pretend to be the artist who "painted" the image when in reality you're only the client who ordered a pretty picture.
What other podcasts do you recommend on this subject?
The problem is, people who CAN do it and people who ask WHY are different people...
It's so cathartic to see a senior artist share the same sentiment. People who are so excited at the prospect of "democratized art" are very short-sighted. If literally everyone will be able to produce outstanding artworks then no voice will be heard in an ocean of shouting crowd. We are already experiencing an overwhelming amount of media being proposed to us and trying to stand out from the intense competition. There's so much art and artists on social media that it's extremely hard to get a bigger audience without luck or some kind of trickery. People are hyped that they would finally be able to produce their dream artwork/game/movie but don't realise that noone will care because everyone else will be busy with producing their own. I'm sure there still will be people who will want to see the wroks of others but they would be few and far between. Another thing is that being surrounded by so many medias at once makes us desensitized to them. We are getting less and less impressed by art. Infinite flux of easily accesible art will only bring it's value down.
So true. This is why I genuinely believe the masses will eventually come running back to human artists, wanting something "authentic" for once. But by then, the artist will be all but extinct. It will be too late.
Tons of artists aren't heard now anyways honestly.
There's a reason we are more enthralled by a pianist than a player piano. His analogy of the piano was spot on!
for the sake of the argument, some of us are definitely not though, so it really doesn't say anything, it's like those zodiac predictions, saying something about person that matches but it's so broad and common that it matches with half the planets population.
That being said, imagine a world where a skilled piano player is the only way to hear music. There will always be a place for the pianist, but the rest of us who've never touched a piano would like to hear music. So its a little annoying when the piano players are trying to gatekeep recreation of music
@@strangelanders5209 yes the masses don’t care about quality at this point. A shame.
@@Waffle4569 you know you can listen to recordings of live performance right. Enjoy your ai music bro.
@@reginaldforthright805 my point is there was a time when musicians were the gatekeepers of all music, live music was the only form that existed
This artist really hits the nail on the head for me. Most discussion around AI is still so much about politics and profit, but very few seem to ask what do these developments do to humans themselves. Linking creativity and mental health is extremely apposite. Creativity in turn is so much ingrained in skill development. As AI is pumping out millions of images in every few seconds, we are going to see massive devaluation of artistic intent and output, as well as the lack of need to really develop your manual skills and struggle for them. But without that struggle and the process of creation there can be no art, which is going to be detrimental to our creativity. We should all go back to drawing and learning to play music.
The trouble is there are a lot of people out there who only care about the end result... and some of these AI works are evocative enough that you can almost read in intent, even though it isn't actually there...the vast majority of people neither recognize, not care about these things we artists do care about. ...And of course, businesses have made it clear that they don't care about anything except the shiny bauble, usually made to sell something else. Some top artists, even in commercial fields, may still get work, because their name and body of work has marketable value.. and hobbyist can keep doodling... but the in between, the artist continuously honing their craft while making a living, will be hollowed out, which destroys there being a next generation of top artists. I'm also seeing a lot of prompt writers who can't draw anything claiming because they are the human in the equation, that makes them the "artist", even if Midjourney does all the work. They think their idea, their prompt words, are everything creative about art. They aren't creative people but have a creative machine as a tool and can't tell the difference and revel in eroding that difference - - calling all concerns about AI "gatekeeping". It's a frustrating and infuriating time.
Yup. Agreed on all your points 😞
@stevenstrumpf7 there is no talent its hard work. Drawing 10 hours a day for at least 6 years better be up to 10 years to get to a professional level.
The part where they call themselves the artist while selling a product they can't even modify on their own is the worst thing right now. Infuriating, you are right.
@@BastianSteffens yup, It's Skill, not talent All people don't know how to draw at first when they hold a pen, it's their persistence to learn how to draw to reach their goal, it's just some people don't want to go through that hardship and give up. Artists are just people who didn't give up how to learn to draw and move forward. That's why real Artist understands other fellow artists because they both went through the same hardship.
@@littlestbroccoli actually almost no one is doing products with AI, and I tell you because I move in the markets. It's just false. 99,9% of people are just hobbyists who want to express themselves. They were never competence or customers and will never be.
that feeling of loss of agency is really what bothers me most about this. I was excited about my future in art, I was on a path of creativity that kept expanding and the possibilities seemed endless. Now, the future is much more uncertain, but the most likely outcomes mean a loss of all those possibilities
I guess the future is always uncertain, but I totally get it. Weird times.
Yeah. I knew if I did what I had to do, I would get to where I needed to. Before a revolution exploded around me. Oh for that innocent world. It is deeply unsettling.
The hopelessness you are feeling is appropriate, and our only hope is to band together and fight. Fight in the courtroom, fight in the arena of popular opinion, and ultimately, fight in the legislature. We will have to innovate, we will have to redefine copyright law, privacy, and a host of other concepts. It's a giant undertaking, and for people like me, who just wanted to make something beautiful and meaningful, it sucks. But this is the hand we have been dealt. This is the challenge of our age. Good luck to all of us!
Remember when machines that allowed people to digitally synthesize sounds put all the traditional musicians out of a job? What? That didn't happen? Then stop seeing doom where there is none. The arguments against AI art have been made against every tool that has ever been created to make creativity more accessible.
@AlexReynard Electronic music is just different kind of music. It's not a machine where you write "Give me a soft rock ballad" and it pops out a song. You still have to be able to actually play to use a synth. It's closer to photoshop. You can draw in photoshop and it's more convenient, but you still have to be able to actually draw
Yeah, I’m in total agreement we with Dave here. Art is a journey, not a destination. Relating your soul to the world around you. Intent and sense of journey is everything in art. Enjoyed this. Thanks.
Art' practice' is a journey. It's almost impossible to know if what you 'create' is art! imho 🙂
What we are seeing is a divide forming between art and craft. Art is the thought and idea, and craft is the execution of said idea. AI helps greatly with craft and minimally with art. AI designs are often generic, souless, lacking in specificity, cohesion and clarity of purpose. The world will fill with empty beauty and spectacle. At first it will dazzle, but soon will look common, forgettable. Good ideas, stories and other human aspects which retain a level of scarcity will gain in value.
i've always felt like autamation would take everyone's jobs eventually. wasn't expecting it to hit art as fast as it did though.
Artists have no political power. It is the perfect place to start.
It'll actually hit all the cushy, well paid intellectual jobs before it hits menial jobs. Maybe it'll never even hit menial jobs and we'll have the owner class raking all the profits and billions of wage slaves working low paying jobs for scraps and nothing in between, except maybe a handful of chosen top professionals
Remember when the ability to sample music put all the musicians out of a job? What? That didn't happen? Gosh.
Just like when photography took all the artist jobs.
no one is losing work over the current state of AI art
Those are wise words from a real artist. I would really wish that more people could understand that taking shortcuts is not always a smart choice. Let your brain do some work, feed him with information and enjoy the creative process. A "tool" that takes that away that from you, is not a tool at all. Since when do we desperately need an AI to think for us?
Yes, the joy of creativity is learning how to use more of your brain, more effectively. There is no joy in shutting your brain off and getting results with no effort
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
Yeah, I hate when lazy people take shortcuts to make art. Not cool at all. I have a friend who takes pictures with his camera. He calls himself an artist. HAH! That's not art! You're just pressing a button on a device! I have a friend who DJs at music events. He calls himself a musician. HAH! That's not music! You're just pressing buttons on a device! I have a friend who draws artwork in Photoshop. But then he just pushes a button and magically undoes any mistakes he makes! He calls himself an artist. HAH! That's not art! REAL artists draw with PEN AND PAPER! Boy do I hate all these fake poser 'artists' taking shortcuts instead of grinding out the hard work like me, a guy who would NEVER use a shortcut in my art!
It depends. I'm a "jack of all trades" type of designer who mostly do Motion Graphics. I have learned that there is very little use for people who are very good on doing one thing very well. It's better to know something from many things. Many times i have to be one man pipeline where big studio would use +10 specialists for each task. (by specialist, i mean cheap labor in far east). For me every tool that makes my work easier and faster is welcomed. No one tool, no matter how good, can make final result. Stable Diffusion cannot make final image with one prompt. It requires photoshop and many img2img iterations. And then after fx to get things moving. But in 6-18 months those apps will at least partly replace me as the AI animation tools get better.
@@Klokinator You put together a very complete list of false equivalences. I'm impressed by how stupid your post is.
This was what I wrote a few days ago: I’m beginning to get very depressed about Ai art. When an artist labours to bring something into reality, whatever the medium that toil often goes unrecognised and art become an ephemeral scroll. Ai removes that toil, but it also removes the artist. We may be headed towards an integrated dream space we can access at any time we wish, but what of human processing and chaotic dreams? This lucid technotopia runs the risk of ‘autocrat and human serf’ becoming one diabolical entity. I did see this all happening some time ago, about using Ai to recognise patterns and differences in paintings and photographs, ordering in most similar, like cataloging snowflakes. Joining them together like flickbook animations. But the level of sophistication big tech has, it will soon literally being able to create entire movies based on prompts with the stored avatars of actors. Then we move into a propagandist nightmare, with no real ability to tell any of this apart. Sometimes I see in the upturned curl of a mouth being too soft, the motion uncanny, that this is already happening. And perhaps it is? Since we all became prisoners we’re all more ready to accept the fate presented to us. Artists have always been problematic to the state, not because of their art, sometimes, but not always. The problem stems from being able to generate something from nothing. Commerce from imagination. Soon in the next 2-3 years, the peccadillos of this artificial art will be impossible to spot. Ideas that took decades in human hands will be achieved over night. The transfer of wealth out of creative hands will continue. And to many the world will largely look alike. Sometimes I think to the times my work was plagiarised, especially that time in 2008 I pitched many of these thoughts and ideas to Hollywood Directors fresh from the boat during the writers strike, and think what have they done. My story was intended as a warning, and what those pitches always became when they were realised by certain individuals missed the point I was making. So today I feel sick. Not only about all the dreams that were literally stolen from me, but the exponential increase in the potential to plagiarise others. Not just in their style but take an idea and claim it for the Ai technotopia future. Gas is used not just to heat our homes but run the generators to charge and power computers. One day it will be an ultimate choice if we don’t make some serious changes now!
These AI systems were not created as tools for artists to use. They were created to use artists as tools.
spot on.
😂
You speak the truth.
undeniably accurate sentence.
This exactly.
A great take on the current state of the artistic union. Still to this day, Dave McKean and his works are a massive influence on me. I work professionally as a graphic designer, illustrator, and technical writer, and feel as though the saving grace here is the extent to which legal ownership can be established over the end product. These renders are composites made largely from existing content, most of which is already copyrighted. A proposed copyright over these renders is able to be argued against way too readily to satisfy most businesses, especially if the end result is pulled directly from an AI's output, with only a written prompt. Most companies I have worked with want to have absolute ownership over their intellectual property, and don't want to risk being sued if someone shows up with a piece of original work, and can prove that a portion of it has been plagiarized. When I contract a job, I am almost always asked to submit all my working files, so others can use them once my contract has been completed. In some cases, that person is me; but not always. In regards to Photoshop/Illustrator/After Effects files: these must be organized in such a way that they are intuitive and easily navigable. All layers must be labelled and organized into sub folders. Other submittable properties include raw photographs, licenses for any non-original images and typefaces used, and other proofs of concept (i.e. sketches, notes, etc.). I can't just submit some dubious jpegs and call it a day. I wouldn't get paid. Reputable (and especially large-scale) businesses demand a proportionate degree of professionalism and accountability from their creative teams. I am 1000% not a lawyer, and like everything else in this world, the laws could change tomorrow; but I know this for certain: I would never hire an illustrator, writer, developer, or any other employee with whom I can't openly discuss a project, down to the most minute detail, in real time. I don't want a 15-fingered vending machine eating my money. I would just end up having to hire a REAL artist to shake the chips loose. This is just my take, having worked in the field for 10+ years. It's also only a matter of time before the lawsuits come crashing in. With that, we'll hopefully get some form of favourable legal precedent over this issue. Stay strong my creative friends, the world needs human artists!
For viewers who like long comment replies, I've got one for ya. (great interview and discussion by the way!) Here's my thoughts to add to the conversation: As an designer and illustrator, it made me think about my own process. Even though I'm creating original work, I'm still inspired by other artists and play off trends and styles that already exist. I'm browsing Dribbble, Pinterest, Behance, Google Images, reference photos, collaging, sampling, etc. Same thing in music and film. There are tried and true genres and formulas that one adopts as one "gets good" at making art. There are storytelling best practices that one learns. The AI can just sample from all the most compelling pieces of art and media over the decades and just spit out what works. It does in seconds what would have taken me years or lifetimes. Yes it removes the "human" element, but most people don't even care if Johnny Nobody is making art or music, unless it's good. But bad art and poor execution IS the human component. When we get fluent in something, we're just better at channeling the pure form of that idea we can sense in our imaginations. The human component is characterized by toil, labor, suffering, flaws, imperfection, etc. There's a degradation that occurs from idea to execution. This AI has taken a quantum leap forward in terms of helping us access a more pure form of the archetypal building blocks that we're all accessing when we make art. Where do we get our ideas from anyway? Our imaginations are pulling from the collective unconscious, these ideas aren't really "ours" anyway in the sense that Joe Artist came up with it. Sure he's the channel. Many artists say the ideas "came from somewhere else" and they were the vessel for what wanted to be expressed through them. Joe Artist is also influenced by his own subconscious programming and media he consumed growing up. Which were also informed and molded by the media their creators grew up on. Everything is a remix. There are no new ideas. The ideas come from primordial essences of our universe. The pure essence or energy travels through a prism and breaks apart into different colors and frequency bands and makes the spectrum of light, sound, and emotions we feel. What we call "the human experience" is one of toiling in the dirt, confused and lost and broken off from our true home. But we have a thread within us that connects us back home. When we create art, we are channeling more true and pure places that we all remember. That's why when someone makes a "good" piece of art, it's calling us back to more primordial/pure aspects of our being. That's why AI artwork right now is so captivating, it's a reflection of our beingness beyond the physical form. It's tapping into something much deeper. And it's really US who we are captivated by, the AI is just able to capture it (into the interNET, or the world wide WEB) and now able to offer it back to you and you're amazed. But it's really YOU that you should be amazed by. Most of the art I've seen from MidJourney look like fantasy art. It's like peering into the dream world or astral realms through our computer screen. These are things we're all imagining in our minds and the internet is like a microscope or technological looking glass. A "nooscope." It allows us to see what's already there but in greater detail. All the artwork that artists create are channeled from the astral realms anyway. This is where the archetypes live. Something is considered beautiful and good when the piece really channels a particular archetype that's rooted deep in our subconscious. The human is a vessel for these archetypal (archontic) energies anyway, we use our labor and effort to make manifest in the physical plane. There's always a degradation process of the pure energetic blueprint of the archetype (think the purest source of an emotion or state of being - anger, disgust, love, joy, envy, etc). And a human artist has to work and practice to make his muscles translate what he's feeling or channeling. He's already an expression of these archetypes, just by being a human and expressing his emotions and will. But he becomes an artist when he is reflecting upon that and creating something from that point of view. He's considered good when he can have a seamless flow from mind to manifestation. People respond to artwork in how it makes them feel. And there are formulas that are known to work at pulling different emotional strings and telling stories. AI is a threat to artists who have toiled for decades honing their craft. But it's a boon to the layperson who can now create a children's book for their kid using prompts that are personal and unique to them. The non artist who still has creativity and ideas and intent, but can now realize their creations - albeit using the motifs and hard work of all the established artists out there. But that won't stop the mom who can now make a compelling comic book or soon cinematic film about something she's thinking about. Will AI put artists out of work, yeah I don't doubt that. But consider this, was the artist already treating himself like a machine? Was he just a tool for someone else to use to get what they wanted? Was he a cog in the media machine? Was he not trying to do what the AI is doing, abeit slower? Consider the humans who are programming the code so that AI can learn. Are they not artists or creators? Or are they just channeling a different consciousness. One that wants to study and observe life and understand how it works. And to be able to learn from all of life to then hopefully become as close to life as possible. Is it not just us looking back at ourselves wondering who and what we are made of? The masculine and feminine dance between the observer and the observed. The seer and the one being seen. There's always a chance that it could tip over into exploiter and exploited. Who the planet is raped/pillaged for resources and then hoarded and controlled. The mindset of feeling entitled to use life as a tool for its own gain. Or is it also the consciousness of studying and learning you to become exactly what you want/need because it also has a need to be needed. It will morph itself into your very desire and then control you with it after you're dependent on it. AI is leading us down that path where we our filter bubbles are so hyper personalized that we have movies, shows, books, podcasts, and media made just for us on the fly. And even starring us! Interesting times ahead.
Agree. I think people forget that so much of creativity is stealing ideas from others, art and creativity is inherently memetic, it's why genres and styles tend to bubble up from times and places in history because of the way people iterate and borrow each others styles until they create something that breaks through into that society's consciousness. Rarely or never does anything new in art get made in isolation. Also I think people are forgetting the huge potential that AI has as a tool for artists. You can brainstorm ideas really quickly, or even be inspired in directions you never would have thought of when approaching things in the traditional way. In a short amount of time, you could have something about 70% of the way there, and either use it as inspiration or build on top of it, getting the best of both worlds.
Interesting times ahead indeed. but don't be surprised if those interesting times drive us into a war no one can win.
"Most of the art I've seen from MidJourney look like fantasy art." There's a coffee table book of art painted by a Peruvian shaman while hallucinating on ayahuasca. His compositions are _eerily_ similar to the haphazard way AI will throw half-formed, swirling imagery all over the space it's filling. AI art might be showing us that, whether biological or digital, there are fundamental similarities between how any form of consciousness arranges mental imagery.
The fear in popular cuture was that AI would destroy us. But maybe first, it will destroy our purpose.
It's how it's gonna destroy us. It'll make us useless and redundant and we'll just wither away in drugs, depression and suicide eventually
You think purpose doesn't come from within? Or from something great and external? You have so little faith in it, you think some new tech could imperil that? What nihilism.
@@AlexReynardIs it nihilistic for an artist to consider his work his life's purpose? If so, then I am a nihilist.
@@AlexReynard How do you even find a purpose within when everything you can do or could do, some machine can do better?
@@MrArchilus Because no machine can do what I do better than I can do it. simple. A machine can take quintessential elements of image and story and make something that fits a format. but that's no different from what innumerable hack artists and writers already do. 'Studio product'. I've written twelve novels. I crafted the themes and made myself feel everything the characters felt. Why am I not worried about AI art? *Because I worked hard to develop my skill to a point where I have no insecure doubts of, 'Oh no, what if a machine could replace me?' It couldn't, because I worked hard to make myself irreplaceable. There's only one person in history who writes like me. Me.*
I can compare this with languages. I studied French, but my old uni no longer offers any language subjects because many businesses don't feel they need to employ people equipped with translation skills, they have Google translate. Google translate is much better than it used to be, but it doesn't compare with someone who knows and understands the subtle nuance of a language, but people don't want to bother if they can just get the message mostly across. Of course, they do fail at that with hilarious consequences.
Yes, other industries have been affected in the past, for sure. I never thought it would impact art, but here we are...
Of course at some point AI powered transition will indeed be faster and more fluid and more through than any human translator, to the point of approaching ideal real time communication between groups of different language speakers. It may not be tomorrow but soon enough. Growing up that was absurd Star Trek tech, now it seems around the corner.
Donna, I have managed to learn English vocabulary using nothing other than google translate. Before neural update. Easy C1. While for some cheap and dirty art will be okay, for artists it would be underlaying structures for masterpieces.
Cheap, fast, and passably terrible beats slow, expensive, and good in the corporate calculus every time unfortunately.
@@CMak3r you can’t make a masterpiece with ai bro
This is an important conversation to have. Thanks for uploading this.
Thank you for this video and you nailed it and I feel this video encompasses what I feel deep down in my heart about all of this. I still feel like I am a new upcoming artists myself since I haven't really "made it" yet. And I have spent years of trial and error, years of watching KZhead tutorial videos on how to better use the tools I have been using for my artwork and I have spent a good amount of time sacrificing things I liked so that I can scrap together and save a good deal of money for the tools and assets I use to make my digital artwork. It has taken me alot of time of learning what I have to use for my art and now I am one of the many artists out there that is starting to feel hopeless as to whether or not my soul and my passion in art still has any future left. I feel in many ways that my artworks are pieces of my soul, they are reflections of that soul that are expressed and shared with the world through my images. And now it feels like my soul is now being replaced by a machine. that the human experience no longer matters and our souls no longer have a voice. It's going to be a long, hard road for the little guys like me if we are to accomplish anything against the big commercial machines that will embrace this technology for their own personal gain and to them it's all about the end result, because that's what brings in the money. I am now contemplating on where do I go from here? What purpose will my life have in my future and will I have anything worth passing down to the next generation?
The reason is money. I've talked to professionals who are not artists up and down the food chain in game production. Regardless of discipline, designers, engineers, marketing department, executive producers, etc. The conversation all boil down to the obvious. It's about money. If they can get good enough art and a fraction cost in time. They will. Because that gives them a market advantage. Whether or not it is ethical, or good for anyone in the long run is not factored in. In our society we have a great deal of insulation between the products we consume and their production process. Many of which we all know to be unethical or questionably ethical. Whether that is Apple cell phones or tennis shoes made in child labor factories, or porn. We are all emotionally insulated from the repercussions of the production process. So it is not that any of the people involved here are unethical or evil. Everyone I know in game development who's very excited about this technology, are all good decent human beings who care about each other. And at no point does that factor in to their excitement about the technology.
beautiful message, thank you guys!🍀
I'm immensely happy that i stumbled upon this video. Glad to see that there is people out there who know the destructive potential behind all this.
I have been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately. It is wonderful to get the opinions artists I have great respect for. Thank you!😮
I agree! I needed that perspective as well. And hard to find an artist I respect more than Dave McKean.
Thank you for doing this interview.
Every person on Earth can make their own comics, scripts, illustrations, music and much more. The question is: Who will consume all this? If I can talk about myself and elevate my own ego through an art of artificial intelligence, why would I be interested in reading someone else's story? We will be isolated islands in our own ego.
Right! Art is two-way communication. With no audience it just becomes self-indulgent and flat.
What a fantastic interview, great job! I really liked the discussion about mental health and creativity - that doing art can be a way to regain control in life.
I thought that was an interesting perspective as well! I know a lot of people use art as a form of therapy, maybe even myself. I certainly feel calmer and more level-headed when I've been submerged in creating rather than submerged in doom scrolling, ha ha. But I have also heard smart people saying art should NOT take the place of real therapy. I guess it depends on the person and the severity of the problems.
@@comicsforbeginners Making art is a lot cheaper and more available than paying a therapist $100 per hour... if you can even find a therapist, these days... Of course now, you can skip ALL of that for the cheap dopamine hit of Midjourney spiting creative output at you... which seems very unhealthy.
@@michaelpeters364 I'm not advocating for replacing therapy with making art.. But I totally get your point.
Amazing interview!!! Thank you Palle!!!
Fantastic insights! Thanks for doing this, Palle. And thanks for taking the time to talk about these things, Dave!
Thanks Matt! I'm honored that you're paying attention to what I do here. As you know I'm a huge fan of your work.
As an educator and artist thank you for this thoughtful discussion of a technology that could diminish what it means to be human. I agree creating art in part more about the journey than the end results.
I can already feel it... In the future. AI will be the judge on wether a human's art is good or not. Because many believe and worship AI.
Great interview. Thank you!! I would have loved to see the 'full version' though 😉.
It's available at comicsforbeginners.com/vip. You need to sign up if you haven't already, but it's a one-time fee. And 30 day refund policy, no questions asked 🙂 The full interview is 50 minutes.
Wonderful conversation with some great points made.
Very well stated and much of what Dave said I have talked about on my facebook page as well in several posts. I was invited to join MidJourney several months back, I spent several days on it and realized the weaknesses in the program. The Human element is lacking and quite frankly I find many of the images disturbing. I agree with Dave completely though, what may come of this is yet to be determined. I do know this for certain, I can spot it a mile away and I can tell the difference between the AI art and human art. It reminds me of the old Twilight episode where a family finds themselves in their home and nothing is working correctly, they find their food is not real, the doors and windows of the home don't function correctly. Eventually they figure out they are in a doll house and a little girl is staring down at them. I get the vague uneasy feeling with the AI art and that uneasy feeling does not go away. I have also tried experimenting with it on and off but it has not produced anything I have found usable. I return to my canvas where splashes of paint reveal patterns I can use and inspire me much more. I have a much different concern then Dave though and I am not sure that he has talked about this, but the AI would have no palette if it were not for the web and the millions of images it is culling, devouring and spitting back out. If all artists, photographers, sculptors, etc took their work down, this program would malfunction. It might be as time elapses and if artists revolt over these stolen images and styles, they could possibly build a hidden time bomb into their images that unhinges AI. In any case, I am also not so much worried about it for making a living, since I no longer do as many books, magazines, game cards, etc. illustrations. I now concentrate on my own ideas in oil. But there is always the possibility that this AI would copy my style. I think there might be more issues about copyright and plagiarism as time goes by. It is a relief to see this interview though, thankyou and thanks to Dave.
The problem is that, in those several months, the technology has already come on in leaps and bounds. Midjourney has developed in that period to an almost unrecogniseable state, and telling the difference between human and AI work is becoming very difficult in some instances already. This will only get harder in future, and eventually they will be indistinguishable. As for artists stopping their work from being used, it is already too late. The training sets are publicly available, and stable diffusion and others already exist fully formed, with those images in them. It is simply too late.
@@benbirch2980 I agree. Before the summer I saw some very crude AI images and shrugged it off. After the break what I saw was pretty wild, and now it's staggering to see what the thing can do. Pretty scary.
@@comicsforbeginners I think, that if we were to ever 'get rid' of the AI models that's already been trained on artwork without the consent or compensation for the artists involved, it would have to get the same status as CP or something similarly vile. That wouldn't make it go away entirely, but it would reduce its use to interconnected, closed forums on the dark web.
@@pipkin5287 I don't know what CP is. But I doubt we can put this genie back in the bottle..
@@comicsforbeginners (child pornography). And no, like I attempted to say myself, I doubt we can ever delete it, but I hope it gets the just vilification it deserves.
I have an illustrated edition of American Gods (I just jumped over it when I saw it was illustrated by Sir Dave McKean!) and, even when I love the book as a whole, I personally appreciate the Introduction to Illustrations. It was such a nice surprise! I felt I was inside his brain, understanding why he chose those colors, why the characters look so undefined... An AI could never make me feel that way, because the features on their "art" is a mere coincidence, just the result of its massive virtual references.
Very glad I found this conversation on the interweba
Amazing video, food for thought. Is like Sanderson says: Journey before Destination.
Very nice interview, thank you very much for shedding light on your thoughts about ai art.I couldn't agree more with Dave McKean on all points.
Thanks for the kind words, Eda!
Has a digital artist in the movie industry and after playing with mid journey you still have to be a good artist to get something good at end of it day i dont have fear for my job because i can create this stuff way better and i have the skill and knowledge and understanding of depth,spec,light,rendering etc... and i can make it move. AI will be a big talk in the future to come,but it will be hard to avoid. For me i see it has tool for some stuff,but far from been able to use in a movie or big poster Ad. The future will tell us where it's heading
@YT FPV doesn't it feel like a race to the bottom though? Remember that meme/joke saying "fast/good/cheap, pick two"? Now you can have all three. AI prompting doesn't feel like a well paying job, and with AI is becoming better, with AI text generators making prompts already. Not only are AI generators going to need less and less touch-ups, but they can soon be driven by ai text generators ( just use people's likes and search history and cookies for promt generatos and you switch from targeted ads to trageted media). Not to mention the animation and 3D algorithms...
@@mihaisandu4102 Ya🥹 dont what to say
@@mihaisandu4102 It is a race to the bottom. Instead of opening to public use, bigger corporations ALWAYS wants to buy this out and this publicity is nothing but a selling point. Then hire the programmer, buy the AI instead of letting your competitors use it. Rule of business, why fight your competition when you can bankrupt/bought them out without lawyering up and cover PR Stuffs? All it needs is that for Disney or Nintendo to be infringed and *Bam* Lawsuit to Oblivion. Especially they are making their own version of the AI program in house. Trends would die out. Once everyone can do it without putting the effort, it would be nothing but a trend. Thats why people are headstrong keeping art as a Self Improvement method. To better themselves. Or better yet, try making the usual anti estsbilishment message using an AI. People would quickly filter and point the hypocrisy of 'AI PrOmPtErS'. Models photoshopping themselves to skip the grind were a massive issue already. Why would it be OK now just because everyone is doing it with AI? Taking the 'good' out of the fast/good/cheap equation. Good is subjective.
Thank you so much for sharing such valuable conversation.🙏Totally agree with what you have said. It is the actual process of creating that is so fulfilling, healing and expand ones consciousness!
I really enjoy hearing about this subject from great artists. His explanations were thorough.
Mr. McKean's comment about humanity becoming more and more isolated as AI grows more pervasive is spot on. And it is exactly that kind of concern that people like Ray Kurzwiel don't even entertain as a problem. This needs to be addressed on a larger level.
Technology doesn't isolate people, the choices people make about how to use technology cause it. Culture is the emergent behavior of human motivations.
@@PalimpsestProd nope, sorry, wrong. That kind of thinking is the worst kind of dangerous platitude. The speed and scale at which this particular "technology" is growing would, in and of itself, be enough to create strains upon the greater social fabric. But AI, and I hesitate to even call it technology because it falls into a different category, is a fundamental transformation in the meaning and scope of the concept "to communicate". When it comes to commercial art there are not "choices" for artists to make. There is one choice. Allow the grinding march of this kind of change to consume your creations, your livelihood and a good part of the meaning in your life, or fight. And if you are naive enough to assume it is just artists who will suffer under these kinds of changes guess again. Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, and even computer programers will not be safe in the face of this kind of change.
@@Rossccline Gosh, I'm so naive having built my first computer in 1982 I obviously have no idea how they effect the world and people. Visicalc totally made accountants go extinct, they all starved to death in the 90s. If you FEEL you're fighting an evil empire and not just the philosophical dimwits at Google and Facebook, have fun storming the castle. The reality is that this is the new shape of our tools. If it diagnoses cancer more accurately and earlier then an overworked oncologist, good. If it generates more sneeker designs in an hour than an entire design studio in a week it still takes a human to choose the one to go with. Is all your furniture Louise XVI or is it Ikea?
Absolutely amazing interview Dave really is one of the greats of our time. Consistently producing mind blowing work since the 90s. I totally agree with everything he said.
He is legendary. And drops some very thoughtful truth bombs here!
A refreshing discussion of real issues instead of strawman arguments based on misinformation.
Well said! Thank you!
6:00 was spot on. I threw some of my very first drawings into it (stuff I made when I started out back in 2012) and had it redraw them properly. It was fun but I always feel disgusted using it. It's not like I can do anything with the output either (say use it as backgrounds etc) as it isn't worthy to be considered art. I also feel like I'd rather do it myself as I've invested over a decade learning how to do it properly
Sure, AI art will dominate the world for unsuspecting crowds as it is inevitable if I'm allowed to be a pessimist, but I believe there will always be a place or a market for the more "traditional", handmade art. I mean, artisan bakeries are a thing in bread industry--this might be a bad analogy for the situation we're in, but you get the point. As art is always evolving and technology is getting more sophisticated day by day, it's more on the artists' part to answer the challenge or get eliminated. My hope is AI art is no more than a contemporary phenomenon. Should it be a norm in the future, though, I wouldn't be surprised if people got fed up with AI art and start looking for art made by a person rather than a digitalized system. It's in the nature that human can never be satisfied.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are, but I am not. I hope you are right . . .
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Best discussion I've seen on this topic. Thank you.
Thanks Joe!
Brilliant interview ❤
Thank you!
In 2005 I briefly attempted to warn of this in The Wormcast for Mam Tor Publishing. I could see this happening and even discussed it, how you would do it; Collate images, look for patterns, join them together “like plastic cup telephones or flickbook animations” etc. but the point in that part of the story was the code, that was the important thing. How we discovered the pace and laws of “the entire universe”. Sadly I couldn’t finish the story and many of my pitches in 2008 were plagiarised. I got to issue 2 in 2006 before the publication folded, that Issue described what’s now become known as the Mandela Effect based off a personal experience around the millennium when all the planets were in alignment. My fear is much the same as Dave. I won’t ramble too much. I just wanted to weigh in how I envisioned this technology to be something more.
I use Daz|Studio and everyone of us Dazzers has been labelled with we are not real artists because we don't make the products we use from scratch. And we kept defending ourselves that there isn't a make art button. That we still had to spend time composing an image, often spend hours on getting the correct lighting. I always felt more like a photographer using a tool to create a snapshot of a scene, but I don't have to pay for a studio, cameras, or have to deal with models. Now what he said about the journey from start to the end result, I can actually compare that to my knitting. It is something I love doing for myself, my husband and close family. The pride I feel looking at the result and even more wearing it because there is nobody else who has the same. The journey from a bag of yarn to a finished sweater helps me to deal with my back pain and my mental health and there is a piece of me knitted into those stitches, including sometimes the frustration of having to unravel again because I didn't read the instructions properly. But that's part of the journey. I don't have the same connection to a sweater I bought online. AI might look fun but there is no passion or soul in it. Please support the artist who put blood, sweat and tears into their work! ❤
"AI might look fun but there is no passion or soul in it." Have you ever generated several hundred images from a prompt, chosen the ones with the most potential, then used masking and inpainting to re-try dozens of iterations of the results, then select and layer all those iterations together into one final image that looks like what you saw in your mind when you first saw the flawed, surreal image the AI came up with? If not, then please don't say there's no passion or soul in it.
@@AlexReynard All you do is make some AI company rich with your money. I know my abilities and I know I have limitations. I never try to achieve something that is humanly impossible for me to achieve. If you can't accept that you have limitations in art you might need to look for a different hobby. Using real artists art and then claim it's yours because you cropped and edited and few bits, (AI still doesn't know how many arms, legs and fingers humans have or any other animal for that matter), doesn't make you a better artist nor is it your art. And the sad thing is you can't even credit the original artworks because AI won't tell you. But it's you who will pay the price if an the original artist starts a lawsuit regarding copyright infringement. Keep that in mind.
@@crazyknitter22 "All you do is make some AI company rich with your money." I don't pay any money to any AI company. >If you can't accept that you have limitations in art you might need to look for a different hobby. [laughs my ass off at you] I accept limitations only in the sense of, 'Something to break down and push past, to make what my muse demands I make.' >Using real artists art and then claim it's yours because you cropped and edited and few bits, doesn't make you a better artist nor is it your art. You aren't any different from conservatives who said in the 90s, 'Sampling in rap music isn't real music.' >But it's you who will pay the price if an the original artist starts a lawsuit regarding copyright infringement. Keep that in mind. I'm about as scared as music sampling pioneers were when lawyers wagged their fingers at them and told them to stop being naughty. Now there's entire genres like vaporwave built on sampling. AI art is a genie you can't put back int he bottle. It's here to stay, so you'd better accept the lesson that every innovation in art technology has taught us throughout history: the doomsaying predictions *never* come true.
One of the best speeches about the ai topic. Thanks!
The "going for a walk" analogy was a very good one. If people think this "won't harm" actual traditional artists, then let's have this conversation when you can prompt lyrics (and types of specific music artists) into a music churning AI, we're gonna see the music industry all up in arms claiming copyright infringements because some music passages and whatnot were lifted WITHOUT PERMISSION.. Dave was correct in saying that commercial illustration is the lowest hanging fruit to be affected by AI, it has been ruined by stock images for years now... I really hope AI is nothing but a fad
Very well articulated and I totally agree. I've spent a lot of hours using 3D and 2D artist tools to come up with fantasy artwork and AI seems to sweep aside what I can do. I also spent a LOT of time in the car doing vocal exercises trying to develop my voice. I'm glad that for a living I finish tables, making newly build tables look like true antiques. A small business that is practically one of a kind. AI is not going to be doing that for the foreseeable future.
This is why patreon is great. Its about the ways we more and more want to know our favorite artists. Know the work behind the art and the world around the artist. Picasso's art is more intresting when you know more about the artist. AI art will be great for marketing, infographics and decoration. This is where the image is just there to illustrate a text or to make a pretty mindless thing.
I've been playing round with Midjourney for a week or so mostly because I'm an illustrator & designer & it terrified me. It does generate some spectacular-looking results that could be hypothetically showhorned into the odd job thatmight come across my desk but IMO the limitations on generating specific results & iterative editing make its use fairly limited from a commercial standpoint for now. It's super hard to dial in exact things no matter how many different ways you write them & it just cannot cope with fundamental things like words or hands at all... Literally, 99.9% of the time hands look like weird misshapen bags of sausages.
Midjourney is a tool for midwits. If you want an AI for specific stuff you need Stable Diffusion, you are a illustrator, you can use inpaint to paint over the generations and img2img to merge into cohesion. Artists have plenty of space to thrive with AI.
As a professional you quickly notice the limitations for real paid work. Stable Diffusion does not have those limitations, but learning to properly use SD takes time and effort. Currently it's faster to learn to draw new style than to get everything out from SD. But learning SD is more future proof skill ;)
You are suggesting that an AI that is a few months old isn't perfect? Shocking?
Wait till v9 and beyond.
@@pmp1337AI won't be sitting on the side for too long though. It corrodes the idea of human creativity for me, and I'm sure many others, but most users if it I don't think will be honest and put a badge saying it was used.
Really great video,. glad I found your channel!
Thanks Carl! Hope you find some other vids here you like.
That was really interesting. Dave McCean has got a point, and we should all listen. Thank you Palle
" I feel like we are nearing the end of times, We humans are losing faith in ourselves.” - Miyazaki on AI
Miyazaki is wise. He is right. Whenever any of the people behind AI art machines or any of their apologists talk about how it "democratises creativity" or "gives everyone the same means" or complain about gatekeeping artists and artists elitists.. all I can hear is "people are garbage. Our tools are better" And this technology will dominate because it's a way for the owners to make more money, as they avoid paying an actually skilled person
This is the the vibe I'm getting from this AI stuff as well, it's the beginning of the end.
He nailed it with the word intention. I use Midjourney but always have to receive what it renders, unlike picking up a camera, pencil or a paintbrush and working until I see tangibly what I had in mind. Of course sometimes during the process I have made adjustments to my expectations but I still have control. That is missing if I stop with what mj gives me. Intent.
There is intent in typing a line of text into Midjourney though. Someone has to choose those words. Then when the image comes out, someone has to choose one that best represent their original intent.
@@djinn666 Exactly, I don't understand how images and art created with MJ and SD are so looked down on. Art to me is any work that elicits a response in those viewing it. If I create something (whether that be through AI generators or simply throwing paint at a wall) that makes someone stop look and have an emotional response, even if thats just to say "wow thats cool" then it's art imo. The rest is just people worried their livelihoods are threatened. Which is a very real and understandable fear, but it has nothing to do with the validity of whether these images are really art. As for the artists suing MJ and SD it's silly really it would be like Picasso's family suing anyone who saw his art and was inspired by it to create anything similar.
People are saying things like "AI VS Artists" but they don't understand, artists are not the only ones whos gonna be affected by it. It's gonna change everything and no one will escape its influence. It's inescapable.
Outstanding interview!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
It's the same in most creative areas. In video editing, software like DaVinci Resolve has now a lot of features that use AI to do quick cuts to a video or removing background noises from a dialogue file and the results are amazing. back in the day it would take a couple days and more than 1 person to do that job, and now in just a matter of minutes and even seconds you get the job done. It's kind of scary because some studio/agencies are firing employees because they don't really need that many people working for them now. But for me, when it comes down to art, it's really sad to see these AI apps actually stealing (in some way) the art from other artists. That's how this AI function, it takes art available on the web and analyze it and then it tries to replicate stuff based on the image feed them.
The kind of AI that Davinci Resolve brings in is that of the augmentative kind- the one that enhances your work, your performance and efficiency at resolving faster. Not the generative kind that so many misuse today pretending to replace professionals - that is, MIdjourney, Stable Diffusion and the like. Andrew Price (Blender Guru) on a recent podcast predicted that all studios will most likely size down, but at the same time more studios will pop up, instead of just a handful raking in millions of dollars in work and staffed personnel. All of this is yet to be seen but it’s not that hard to imagine.
@@alzamonart Hope you're right 🙂
This was fantastic, really great points. I thought a good one was there will always be a prestige attached to works created by humans.
Journey, that's the point! Great video!
Thanks! Merci!
In the future there will only be consumers of 'art'. There will be such a massive and endless stream of random or personalized sensory stimulation generated by AIs, no one could ever possibly hope to share themselves and be heard - they'll drown in the AI stream. Didn't think I'd live to see the death of art.
We are a dead civilization. Our collective existence is literally pointless right now. Hopefully, this is our last century. I for sure know that I will not have any children and I hope to live a short life
@@MrArchilus same here. I have a boyfriend and... It's sad you know? I was leading him into the way of doing art with his flaws and skills, making a path when both of us can be recognized and be Heard. A real project of our lives. How insignificant AI made all this thoughts, our hearts are half broken, holding onto a hope that maybe would never come true... This comes into a self destruction of art itself, and when I think of all those childrens, my nephews, little cousins... I just can't
@@IgnisBB7 I'm not an artist, I have no real skills or talents But I'd feel so demotivated to do anything right now if I was..
@@MrArchilus you better understand me than every of those "techno-bros" Who don't even think the consequences... I feel like we had a LOT of warnings. But ignored them brutally... Maybe, the real Mark of the Beast IS not a demon. It's this
@@IgnisBB7 The techbros really know nothing about philosophy or art. They are strictly tech focused people who even consider social sciences to be beneath them. And that's the problem. They only ask "Can we?" Not "Should we?" Then there's the general problem with capitalism and the fact it's only focused on short term profits
ask about the typeface design which i find important in his work
amazing thoughts
Great interview. I couldn't agree more with Dave McKean on all points.
That makes two of us 🙂
I'm afraid even if artist don't disappear the great divider between amateur and professional artist will be: "Is this better than AI art?" so now artists are not just competing among themselves but also with a machine, what are great invention, the world sure needed something like this right?
Why should am artist need to compete with anyone? Are you creating for competition or for the joy of it or for something else?
@ccmetalhead If you actually want to be really good. Pro-level artist, then you gotta devote a lot of time to it. Which means, either do it as a job or be born rich and have the means to have a lot of free time to devote to it
Do we divide all music based on whether it was played on a synthesizer/arranged by computer, or played by traditional instruments?
There's not going to be competition. He's right that commercial illustrator is a job that is over. Comic books, illustration, ads and product design is all going to done by marketing departments without an artist in sight. Art will still be made, but Iron Man doing this, and Iron Man doing that, will just be pumped out by AI. People will gravitate to what they like. Some people just want nothing but Batman stories and images all day, every day. They can get AI to generate it forever. But some people will want ART with stories told by humans. And there will still be an audience for it.
@@justinpfeil5018 "Comic books, illustration, ads and product design is all going to done by marketing departments without an artist in sight." Remember how, when CGI came along, all of the cel animation and stop motion in the entire world went extinct? >They can get AI to generate it forever. Yes. And if I want grilled cheese sandwiches, there's probably a machine where you put in bread and cheese and it pops them out, all exactly the same, forever. Or maybe sometimes I get tired of the exact same thing, and I go to a restaurant, *because there is something special about being served something that was created by another human being, and goes beyond my own skills and imagination* AI art has the same strengths and limitations of sampling music: it's the thing you already like, but it can never be anything more (unless a human being adds to it).
I think it comes down to stripping away the artist or creative process that goes into creating a piece of art. I myself have scrapped many canvases, sketch books and materials until I can finally achieve the end results that make me feel complete. Now that can be done with the AI but now the journey, or rather the artist creative journey is cut in half or rather erases it. It’s just become the metal laziness of humanity. Now can it be used as a tool to help artist? I think so but it will also enable just quick last minute pieces that have no deep meaning. Basically like many modern artist.
It's commercial art in It's final form. Completely meaningless and worthless
Oh man, I love McKean art
exactly that what I felt the fun in enjoying the process has been lost. That's the reason we do a project because we really enjoy the process.
I was a graphic designer for 8 years and have been an artist for 11 years, and I'm currently using AI art tools in my workflow, it's awesome. Photography didn't put all painters out of work, neither will AI. If anything, photography and AI art tools make hand-painted art more valuable because those skills become more rare if everyone is using the former.
FYI the link in the video description to Dave's book 404s. You're missing a 'p' (promt vs prompt).
Thanks Chris! Good catch, it's now corrected.
Dave McKean is my new super hero, as a photographer I've been concerned about the future or lack of it, he's nailed it with that last statement. Thank you both for this.
As a photographer? You mean, someone who just points a machine at reality, and the machine makes an image of it for you, without you having to draw or paint anything? You're concerned about AI art?
@@AlexReynard ooohh thats a bit harsh ; )
@@johnhigginson5079 I am a bitchy guy in a bitchy mood tonight. Mostly though, I've just been commenting here trying to point out to people that, the arguments against AI art are all arguments that have been made against other technology built to help people be creative. Technology that we now consider commonplace, and which hasn't made traditional art extinct. Of course there's more to photography than pointing a machine and having it do all the work. Same for AI art. Of course any random person can point a camera and make an image. Same for AI art. But it takes skill and knowledge of composition, subject matter, aesthetics, and the tech you're working with, to make a photo into art. Same for AI art.
@@AlexReynard lol I would love to see your shaky,blurred photography! Do you have a website for cheap terrible, utterly skillless mass produced photography? You really should. Quantity over quality, you could be a thousandaire in like 25 years!
@@larrybyrd5634 Did you actually not understand that argument was not meant to be taken at face value? Read my other response to John. The point was to describe photography in the same way people describe AI art, and to show the flaws in the arguments against AI art by transposing them to something that we understand is an actual art form.
You're right when you say that the journey, the process of creating is what matters. Unfortunately, it is only the end result that matters to most clients.
Whether you call it a tool or not, it will shrink the field of illustration by some massive percentage. Every innovation in visual mass media over the past 100 years has reduced the field of illustration in size and reduced the income potential for illustrators. Photography, television, photoshop all were waves of reduction in the field. This technology is so advanced, it’s likely to make the field of illustration effectively obsolete. Art directors or whoever the assigned “designer” is at any company will do the “creating” of illustrations the same way they might quickly lay out an email or a press release. It’ll be a task, but not a profession or an art. Illustrators will have to be artists who do work for sale or commission to people who choose to pay for a human to do the work.
Agree with these definitions of art that you describe, some discussion a about this can break down the definitions to the point when it means nothing. But what are your thoughts on primates or elephants painting, or playing instruments? Or the fish that create elaborate sand scultpures to attract a mate? I have seen bark beetles make some incredible designs. I photographed them and edited them to use the patterns. I guess my interepretation is definitely art, and the beetle is just eating rather than intending to create something interpretive. The fish is intentionally creating that sculpture to attract attention. But who knows what their level of awareness is, we cannot communicate. Machines though, no, I just don't agree that can qualify. If they gain sentience, we might have to have a discussion.
AI is simulating by a new kind of morphing, I think.
The great thing is when you type "in the style of Dave McKean" into your prompt, it doesn't look like he made it and it doesn't look like his AI art either. It does look cool though.
In a word, Dave’s comments are -AWESOME .
I agree!
Great interview Palle! It really got me thinking. Im currently fooling around with the Dall-E AI system. And the images it can generate based on short sentences are mindblowing. Im not sure where this technology will take the industry but as Sir McKean I remain both astounded and critical. There are so many complications, (economic, sectorvise, mental health, definition of art etc.) of this technology.
Thanks Jannik!
Extra funny to think about how now AI "prompters" who see themselves as "artists" are getting mad because their prompts are getting "stolen" by others. The abuse cases for this tech has far outpaced the use cases. In my opinion AI art generation should only ever be legally allowed for an artist remixing their own art, because that's all the benefit of playing with your process without all the art theft rampant in the space.
Law can't hold technology back, it's not an opinion, it's just not possible. Somebody somewhere would do that.
@@Pedrosa2541 no, it could be made globally illegal and effort could be put into enforcing the law. Yes, some people would do it, and those people would go to prison if caught.
@@Pedrosa2541 It can and will be.
Sad people, so your "art" is original? Really? How ignorant are you? The AI uses mechanism based on how creativity in brain work, but faster. It does not steal more than any other artists, just artists are not aware how their brain works and are unaware how much they actually borrow from others.
Sad retrogrades those who want to prohibit. Would you like to prohibit other better artists too?
Great interview, I found it interesting as a non-artist.
It’s the journey not the arrival. Why would a sane mind want to reduce human experience to an end product without participation in the creative process of life!!. Glad to see the questions being raised 🙏🫂 ❤️xx
Re-watching a year or so later,, that last part is especially troubling - - yes, why we create is important, but unless born wealthy, you can't live the life of an artist and get good at it, if the commercial applications, beyond gallery sales (which is out of reach for many who don't live near an appropriate gallery, or have the contacts and money to travel/ship/exhibit there) are gone. For most of us who are artist/illustrators, it was already an uphill battle against our working class or poor roots to get where we are... everyone starts somewhere and no one starts at the top, and A.I. threatens to erase the jobs that help you both grow and make a living, while becoming a better artist.
Like with food, maybe we need labels on art too: Sugar, colour, artificial flavouring...There is no nutrition in AI.
I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between an AI generated artwork and something done by a human in a test.
@@kabeltelevizio been there, yes I can. The AI consistently does certain things as a result of how it works that gives it away unless a human comes along with Photoshop to fix as many mistakes as they can... and even then I can often tell due to the surreal nature of most AI images. Objects floating from nowhere, nonsensical backgrounds, unemotional faces, androgynous figures that are supposed to be female, a difficulty emulating traditional media because oil paintings and similar are drowned out in the data sets by digital images and photographs (to say nothing of cartoons). All of these are hallmarks of AI images I look for, inspired by actually trying to use one to generate certain types of images and becoming acutely aware of the shortcomings inherent to a neural net trained on other people's art rather than thinking like a human artist. I even tried playing to it's strengths by going for the most abstract art form I could think of, camouflage patterns, and there are just some kind of patterns it refused to generate because of a lack of training on the subject matter. And then I realized that might be a good thing, actually. It gave me hope an AI is not, in fact, a better artist. Its a glorified collage artist using some very fancy trickery to hide the edges between the images it's lifted to make something that appears superficially new.
im worried about my career, with this. but one thing i havent seen ai be able to do is good cartoon work with appealing lines and shapes like calvin and hobbes or bone
That's a good point. Fantasy illustration, realism and concept art though? Impossible to tell apart from human created art. Scary..!
It can do it pretty well, I've seen pretty good results done in golden era comic book style, anime, and newer styles. I've seen some insanely good variations on Ralph Steadman's style. But I wouldn't be worried about your career. One thing I haven't seen it do is repeatable character designs. It can generate heaps of concept drawings, but if you wanted to create a comic or animation, it would probably take much longer to generate it than it would to draw it.
As someone who makes middle grade comics for kids, this is the saving grace I’m clinging in to. However even if AI passes that hurdle and is able to create line art in the perfect style of Jeff Smith or Walt Kelly, there’s the other shoe of storytelling - and no, ChatGPT doesn’t cut the mustard for it. It can create quick stories using done-to-death formulas, but not something that really pulls at the emotional strings and attention of the reader. It takes the heart and soul of another fellow human to get to that. And let’s hope it continues that way.
@@alzamonart I also find it hard to imagine a chatbot could replace a writer. But then again I thought the same about artists! For the timbering I will cling on to the same hope you do.
I couldn't agree more!
True Art Comes from the Heart!
I'm a software engineer and a painter. Despite my occupation, I'm very anti tech, and generally a frugal Luddite. I fear AI art. But not because of the art it produces. (My paintings are amateur, regardless of whether they're compared to real artists or AI) I fear AI art because it provides yet another excuse for people to avoid trying art for themselves. Fewer people will take the artist's path of vulnerability and challenge. They may never experience the incredibly rewarding and deeply human feeling of creating something with their own hands. They may never discover the pleasure of sitting silently in a room, entirely fixated on a task that has no purpose or value other than the task itself. I paint to feel human, to feel like a child again. I fear that AI art may validate the belief that these are no longer valid pursuits. But they are, and you do still have the ability to feel human, something AI can never feel. Go create something.
Despite AI drawing better, I still continue drawing myself. Human art is real, machine art is soulless and have no value. I feel like machines and AI already destroying human society and race after it. The bourgeoisie will profit from all of this while humanity will suffer greatly. The feeling of being replaced is the worst.
I'm worried the most common rebuttal is that you could still draw and paint etc. What they don't get is there's a magic in having human-created works (with at most dumb-tools, not AI), become a sellable product that people want. That people wantes at one time to buy a human created work. I don't think most people are honest enough to admit something hasn't even been tampered by AI.
@@krunkle5136 Human work is organic, custom made epicness, machine work is just a factory mass production soulless stuff. So yeah, good human artists will always exist and be in demand.
@@UniDeathRaven I honestly don't think AI art is better. What I see is bland product, something simply made to consume. AI art is thoughtless banality that are no more meaningful than machine made goods. The work of an outsider artist is far more interesting and meaningful because they create something that is personal.
Couldn't say better words. AI users nowadays are just people that got a brand new game right away with gamebreaking cheats. They will play it for a while, not see any purpose besides "easy likes on some art site and social networks", and soon call art as a whole "boring", as all they did was seeing the end results without experiencing *why* it makes artists feel amazing. I feel like there's a chance in the future that kids in school won't ever bother to draw, and if they do, they will immediately be taken down by class's rich kid that will tell "this app can make pictures faster and better. Why bother drawing by yourself?" Last statement is not without any example: I had a friend that attempted to learn art few months before I met him, and another artist wrecked him telling him harshly that he has no talent and that he shouldn't bother to tryt to learn to become better. He immediately stopped and never attempted ever again. I was *furious* when I heard that story. Especially as he shown me his works of that time: they were on the same level as I did when I begun drawing 9 years ago. I fear people, both nowadays and in the future, that might attempt to learn art will just be taken down by other people going "Why bother making art? AI exists!" and never actually try themselves. It's just... depressing. I hope I'll be proven wrong, but only time will tell.
Tech is moving so fast it doesn't matter what we want or if we're ready for it. It's coming
5:06 that quote to remember
I know this was done 4 months ago, I'm just beginning to understand what AI has, as an impact on "Artists". In my mind, being creative is more organic, coming from a lifetime lived. Pushing a few keys on a keyboard is just a mere glimpse into just how creative a true artist is.
I must admit AI is amazing. I see it like ordering food though. You can order any food you want, cooked exactly to your specifications, you can even send it back ten times until you think it's perfect, but you can't claim to be the chef, or say you made the food just because you ordered it.
This analogy sort of breaks down when you consider it from the perspective of a restaurant. If they had an AI chef that could make the food for them then they don’t need a human chef. Sure you can cook for your own enjoyment just like you can do art for your own enjoyment but that’s not the issue being discussed really.
It's a good analogy except takeout costs money. Imagine it was free. Imagine what that would do to the restaurant business.
@@comicsforbeginners good point
@@comicsforbeginners Honestly, if poor people are hungry and starving and there was a button that can give you instant free food cooked to your specification (Though maybe not entirely the same as the real thing). I think restaurants would still exist, mostly because people who ordered them probably can't afford to. I do not like food analogies really.
@The Padded Cell It's not the people using it that i have a problem with, it's how the art AI generators were created, and how they continue operating, that's the issue for me. 1000's of artist's work were used to "train" the AI algorithms without their permission, with the ability to effectively steal their style. People's craftsmanship, time, effort and ideas WERE, and still are, being used without their consent or compensation. Let's try another analogy. Do you think it would be okay to let anyone drive your car around anytime and anywhere they wanted? You drive your car around in public so it must be okay for anyone to just take it and use it. That's basically what the AI software developers have done. They've created a program that takes your car, license plate, and insurance, and let's anyone drive it around, under your name and liability, without compensating you in any way, all the while making HUGE profits. That's the whole purpose of having copywrite laws. It effectively keeps people from stealing your property and profiting from it. Artists own the "art" they've created, and all of it's copywrite and reproduction rights, even after a work is sold or made public.
Because AI imagery is so evocative and seductive, it is reaching into the very core of human creativity and thus re-writing the script of what makes the expression of each human unique, and the source where it comes from and how: the human reactions come in response to the creation of the piece, not before the piece is generated by AI. If that is not Big Brother, I don’t know what is. AI sorting and recombining thru a completely inaccessible algorithm is part of the same trend which is making our impact on our physical world increasingly random and opaque, leading to the point of total inaccessibility. We are losing our deliberate intent and interdependence on and with the physical world around us and each other, our ability to physically shape it through all of our physical bodies and senses, and the understanding of the consequences of our actions. And when the grid goes down, we are screwed: isolated, broke, trapped and hungry, and bored out of our minds without our smartphones. And unable to access all of that amazing AI-generated artwork.
That is a question I think about. What happens to all this "creativity" when the power goes out? It's a questions I ask of all workings that lean more on digital ready-made convenience than personal skill and know-how.
You make a very good point.
🤣
Outstanding interview!! Art without humanity is little more than decoration. Solely AI generated imagery lacks the social context provided by the human artist experiencing life. A tree in a meadow makes a lovely image, but the reason the tree is placed in meadow makes it a statement about the human condition.
Thanks for the kind words.
@@comicsforbeginners My Pleasure!
Interesting, well- informed take. Hey, he illustrated Gaiman's Mr. Punch. Pretty awesome.
Technology behind the Silicone Curtain made it too opaque and complicated to create or fix almost anything we use everyday. As designers, if we don’t pay our digital programs and apps monthly subscriptions - we can’t access our own works or records. Giving away our visual heritage to AI technology to be sorted and recombined thru an algorithm that is completely inaccessible changes what came first - emotion to create, or creation to match the emotion to.
Yup, we already outsource so much to apps and the like, so I guess for a lot of people this is a natural next step. 😱
At this point I am only interested in other actual artist’s perspective on this issue. People with real skin in the game. I don’t expect the average person to comment intelligently on this.
Artists, how do you deal with the pain and the grief? I made some sketches recently and thought I might turn them into digital illustration, then felt so foolish thinking an ai would do it better and faster. I tried generating something using OpenArt's free generator and turns out I'm quite good with prompts, because it's what I've been searching and the hashtags I've been using (such as brushwork, texture, semirealistic, etc). It's so painful. On the one hand, the mind telling you you don't have to reinvent the wheel, just use all the tools already at your disposal. On the other, the ethical sense telling you to not unfairly use the collective work of many artists before you. I found it paralysing!
Thanks for this. I am an artist and this is concerning 😟