|
|
|
|
|
|
by zephyrthenoble
755 days ago
|
|
|
You are presenting opinion as objective fact for a subjective medium, which is surprising to hear from an artist. This argument, and this article, are not about the "great masters" but about amateur and professional artists who find their efforts easily reproduced and outproduced by AI. These people are not protected by "This is a REAL Picasso" and some of them could lose their financial security because of it. The article indicates that style can be copied in as few as 20 to 30 images. Could you imagine being an artist who is attempting to gain notoriety, publishing low quality pngs of 20 of their works for their Etsy store, and then someone trains a LoRa on that and profits off of your images? Hundreds of hours of time in an attempt to start your art career, to have it duplicated in seconds by computer. You have no time to grow as an artist, because your required contribution to the data set has already been made. |
|
|
>As I’m contemplating this Cronenberg-like transformation of the image, I can’t help to be struck by the triviality of my own work. There’s something confronting in facing a computational doppelgänger, something akin to the uncanny valley. I’m surprised at how much this affects me, even though my whole schtick is to be reflexive and critical about style, what surprises me the most is that even though the output if “objectively” a failure1, I see myself in it. But maybe what I see in the generation, what I find actually disturbing, is the part of my work that has already been objectified and commodified, the parts of my style I spent years making digestible for clients, consistent for social media, and reproducible for easy production.
This feeling is not present in artists who are not commercial artists or otherwise produce VOLUMES of similar work - because it is functionally impossible
Why?
Again, as with picasso et al... they are performing the work of an artist. Namely it is a lifetime oeuvre - not a single period - that defines an artist.
This is my point, and you can disagree, most commercial artists are not producing art, they are designing propaganda for corporations. It takes artistic skill, but it's not what I would consider relevant for the author
The author sits at the intersection of capitalism and art - that you can produce designs for money repeatedly and so predictably as to be identically imitated is proof enough for me
Nobody can reproduce or copy my art because it's PHYSICAL and hanging on my (and many others' including our own jacquesm) wall. They can try, but forgeries are very hard to do.