[southernplaces7]

If you're an actual artist, who's taken the time to paint and learn its intricacies, yet you're still just as impressed by an automated CG rendering of a work in Old Master style vs. one really done by a dedicated human hand, then you either hate the thing you learned because something about it frustrated you, or you have no clue about forming qualitative measurements of skill.

Also, "old-fashioned"? This to imply that someone rendering painterly visuals in seconds with AI is some new kind of artist? If so, then no, what they do isn't art to begin with. That at least requires an act of effortful creation.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

It might be enlightening to find out a bit about the process of creating CGI; especially 3D scenes. Many works can definitely take over a year.

I spent some time, making CG art, and found it to be very difficult; but that was also back before some of the new tools were available. Apps like Procreate, with Apple Pencil and iPad Pro, are game-changers. They don't remove the need for a trained artist, though.

But really, some of the very best stuff, comes quickly, from skilled hands. Van Gogh used to spit out paintings at a furious pace (and barely made enough to live on. Their value didn't really show, until long after his death).

[southernplaces7]

I fail to see how you're disagreeing with me if you say this, or maybe we're at mixed signals. I'm specifically arguing against being impressed by a visual of some kind that was sludged out automatically by an LLM, my argument isn't against digital art by itself (I know how hard CGI can be, and there's nothing to be dismissed about it because it doesn't directly use physical materials), or against artists who refine their craft to such a point that they can create visual marvels in no time. Both of those require effort. They require a combination of effort with learning, exploring and to some extent also talent I'd say.

Briefly instructing an image model to imitate an Old Master and having it do so in seconds fulfills none of those needs, and at least to me there's nothing impressive about it as soon as I know how it was created (yes, there is a distinction there even if at first glance at a photo of a real old master and an AI-rendered imitation, it might be hard to note a difference)

The latter is not art, and the people who churn it out with their LLM of choice are not artists, at least not if that's their only qualification for professing to be such.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, I’m still not interested in arguing, so I’m not really “disagreeing,” as I think that we’re probably not really talking about the same thing, but I feel that I do have a fairly valid perspective.

When airbrushing became a thing, “real” artists were aghast. They screeched about how it was too “technical,” and removed the “creativity” from the process. Amateurs would be churning out garbage, dogs and cats would be living together, etc.

In fact, airbrushes sucked (I did quite a bit of it, myself), but they ushered in a new way of visualizing creative thinking. Artists like Roger Dean used them to great effect.

So people wanted what airbrushes gave you, but the tool was so limited, that it frustrated, more than enabled. Some real suckass “artists” definitely churned out a bunch of dross.

Airbrushing became a fairly “mercenary” medium; used primarily by commercial artists. That said, commercial artists have always used the same medium as fine artists. This was a medium that actually started as a commercial one.

Airbrushing is really frustrating and difficult. I feel that, given time, the tools could have evolved, but they were never given the chance.

When CG arrived, it basically knocked airbrushes into a cocked hat. It allowed pretty much the same visual effect, and was just as awkward, but not a whole lot more difficult. It also had serious commercial appeal. People could make money, because it allowed easy rendering, copying, and storage. There was no longer an “original,” but that really only bothered fine artists.

This medium was allowed to mature, and developed UI and refined techniques.

The exact same thing happened with electric guitars, digital recording and engineering, synthesizers, and digital photography. Every one of these tools, were decried as “the devil’s right hand,” but became fundamental, once true creatives mastered them, and the tools matured.

“AI” (and we all know that it’s not really “intelligence,” but that’s what everyone calls it, so I will, too. No one likes a pedant) is still in the “larval” stage. The people using it, are still pretty ham-handed and noncreative. That’s going to change.

If you look at Roger Dean’s work, it’s pretty “haphazard.” He mixes mediums, sometimes using their antipathy to each other to produce effects (like mixing water and oil). He cuts out photos, and glues them onto airbrushed backgrounds, etc. He is very much a “modern” creative. Kai Krause is another example. Jimi Hendrix made electric guitars into magical instruments. Ray Kurzweil advanced electronic keyboards, but people like Klaus Schultze, made them into musical instruments. These are folks that are masters of the new tools.

I guarantee that these types of creatives will learn to master the new tools, and will collaborate with engineers, to advance them. I developed digital imaging software, and worked with many talented photographers and retouchers, to refine tools. I know the process.

Of course, commercial applications will have outsized influence, but that’s always the case. Most of the masters were sponsored by patrons, and didn’t have the luxury to “play.” They needed to keep food on the table. That doesn’t make their work any less wonderful.

We’re just at the start of a new revolution. This will reach into almost every creative discipline. New techniques and new tribal knowledge will need to be developed. New artists will become specialists.

Personally, I’m looking forward to what happens, once true creatives start to master the new medium.