[JKCalhoun]

The spate of AI "artwork" I have seen over the past few months has seemed to me to be good "prompts" for artists. Many of what I have seen has a germ of something interesting in it — but is often missing in other regards.

An obvious example that comes to mind are the recent "Jordowsky Tron" images [1]. Any art director could comb those images, consider changes here, there — and end up with something better than the AI.

I guess how derivative you think the final results are depends in part on how much "artist's prerogative" the art director employs, how derivative you think the AI prompts are to begin with, how derivative you see all art....

[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/officialmidjourney/posts/454...

[now__what]

I've already been using AI art to help brainstorm/conceptualize my own artworks. It's a great tool to use alongside others, but you're right that most of it is extremely derivative. It's easy to end up with something that looks hackneyed (and reminiscent of hotel art) if you're not careful. That said, I do feel it allows me to push past my previous limits of composition, because it helps me to single out what creates interest in a piece and "rapid prototype" concepts.

[adamsmith143]

>The spate of AI "artwork" I have seen over the past few months has seemed to me to be good "prompts" for artists.

The best outputs from a model like Midjourney go way beyond mere prompts for other artists.

https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/top/

[barbariangrunge]

That’s a misinterpretation of what art is. In art, the important part is the idea. You then use your technique to convey that idea (often the idea is intimately linked to the aesthetic). If an ai gives you both an idea and a style as your prompts, you’re not really contributing to the final work in the way you should be

[recuter]

The Jordowsky Tron images may be neat but they'll never match the creative brilliance of timeless masterpieces such as Chrome Lords (1988):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdwCE8ScPk4