I think it's a great thing.
Beyond that, if you think AI algorithms will replace art, you don't understand art. It replaces much of the commercial utility of many artists and creating many types of images, but the idea that it threatens art, generally, is preposterous. People who think art school is only about learning to physically make art are like people who think computer science degrees are only about coding. Most of what you learn in art school is conceptual thinking, communication, really deeply seeing things in a way that most people don't, and stuff like that.
Factories didn't replace potters when they started making pots and dishes or sculptors when they started making cheap home decorations-- it just meant the artisans no longer made money creating a commodity because most people were satisfied buying chintzy shit cheap. Many potters who lived through that change probably died in poverty because of it. Talk big numbers about the way industry shifts all you want, but not everybody can switch to an entirely different category of employment just because someone taught a computer to do it.
There was never anything stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and learning to draw. The idea there's some inborn "talent" for art is absurd. There is only people who practice and people who don't.
What you are actually "democratizing" is the ability to produce finished products without ever putting in any kind of work.
Which means you are absolutely devaluing the people who actually did put in the work.
It is a terrible thing. A miserable race to the bottom of human expression.
Jokes on you, I agree with everything you just said, fully unironically
The web is way worse where people have to put zero effort into uploading their content
The best places on the web are the places where people have crafted the page they want.
Note: I don't really care if people use AI to generate anything but they should be forthright about doing so.
IMHO this is absolutely the case, and has always been the case. Being paid as an artist, on the other hand, is something entirely different, or having one's art recognized as good by other people. But I am sure everyone remembers other more popular artists telling them they're "doing it wrong" in art class, on forums, or even all the way back to preschool coloring books if someone would deign to color outside the lines.
There have always been those who seek to gatekeep what art is and who they view as legitimate participants in it. I suppose everyone does in some sense. But I am very excited by the prospect of art as a personal developmental journey becoming more open to everyone.
This is all explained well by "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". People apply their childhood drawing symbols to realistic art in their teenage years and get frustrated. They never learn to see with an artistic eye and quit.
I was skeptical at first but after going through a couple of the drawing exercises I was convinced. They are so cleverly constructed to make you step outside of your normal brain and just draw, it's kind of amazing the results.
I'm never going to be an artist professionally but I do actually draw as a pastime now and I have improved substantially.
I think if I had practiced more as a kid and teen I may have pursued art professionally.
Part of the problem is that adults see a kid upset that their drawing isn't very good and say things like "That's ok, you're just not an artist. Not everyone can draw" and people internalize that. It's supposed to make the kid feel better and it might cheer them up in the moment, but it also convinces them that they cannot learn to be better at things they are not immediately good at.
Toxic Feel-Good shit.
It’s about expressing and finding yourself and developing a soul through creative action, not just a squirting out a picture that looks “correct”.
You only shortchange your own soul’s development by trying to skip the hard steps that it takes to develop a skill like that.
Because you can make an image on a computer that looks like it was drawn does not mean you can draw. Hell, I’m not even sure it means you can express yourself. The inputs you contribute when using an AI prompt are so minimal compared to the informational input required to create something in the physical space.
Don’t let anyone convince you that it’s an exclusive act. Find a pencil and get at it.
Ultimately though, I realize that trying to get everything what you want from a single prompt won't work. Tokens have implications, and they influence each other too much. Long term, one needs more than just single prompts, and the tools are still evolving to support that.
Still, you'd be surprised at how much you can express even now.
You're already the most complex model and model-maker—the procedure of developing a skill through a creative feedback loop and its output can be vastly more edifying for yourself and others. Don't take my word for it. You can only know by doing it.
These models have their place as useful tools, but are in no way a replacement for the experience of creating and all its challenges. You can't climb a mountain by paying someone else to do it for you. That analogy begs the question—what is the true value in climbing a mountain? What is the value in creating?
* If you grab some pencils and scribble all over a page, you'll get something that looks interesting for a minute, but it's not the picture in your head, and after a while all scribbles start to look the same.
* If you throw some geometric shapes into blender and run a render, you'll get something that looks interesting for -ok maybe a couple of minutes-, but it's not the picture in your head, and after a while all geometric shapes start to look the same.
* If you throw a few tokens into a prompt and hit generate, you'll get something that looks interesting for -now maybe a couple of hours?- but it's still not the picture in your head, and after a while all generated images start to look the same.
Each time, if you want to actually get anywhere close to the picture in your head, you're going to need to practice, and you're going to have to learn the medium, and you'll have a lot of experiences along the way. "There's no mistakes, just happy little trees", right? But the actual path -and the happy little trees you experience along the way- will be rather different for canvas, pencil, blender, or stable diffusion.
Have you ever tried to hold a 7-dimensional, non-linear, chaotic landscape in your head whilst trying to resolve nightmare images of deformed limbs and eldritch landscapes?
And saying that, I don't disagree with the idea that learning how to draw causes a larger mental development than writing prompts, and that prompters will forever miss out on that human development. It's just that not all people are motivated enough to "climb the mountain" of being a decent enough illustrator, whether hobbyist or professional. Some of them are happier with the process of getting decent results quickly than stumbling over themselves for years just to reach the point of what AI can accomplish now. Maybe the process of drawing is painful because of the way they treat the process, discouraging them from persisting, but it's hard to change people, and they're capable of defining failure on their own terms. And those people will always exist. Not everyone who wants to draw will end up enjoying it or succeeding after their preconceived notions are shattered. That in my mind means there will always be a target audience for generative art tools.
I think AI art could reveal a lot of diminished self-confidence towards life in general, and I could imagine that some portion of the people flocking to the generative programs would have become manual artists if they believed in themselves more, but they don't, and AI has won them over because they get to skip steps to have the result. Maybe they didn't want to do though the challenges of self-development to gain a new skill, but imagined artistry as nothing more than a fun hobby, and AI art aligns with that notion (mistaken or not) than doing months and months of practice, in a way that no technology has been capable of up until this point.
But does that mean those people have failed as artists and soul-searchers? I think that's still up for debate. AI could quickly become the new kitch (if it isn't already) but they're happy creating it, and many are happy consuming it. I don't define myself as an artist and have no insights as to the "value" of AI art as opposed to human art, since I'm a programmer who's stumbled into this other world and I feel that's a domain I shouldn't be making solid declarations about. But I believe both types of art have their place. Maybe a collaborative project between artists of both denominations would be useful in showing the unique qualities of both styles of creation.
A 'correct' image on a computer? Then you'll get just that and little more.
But I'm suggesting there is much more to be gained by taking part in a creative act as an experience and its myriad of facets.
Taking the stance that a language or 2-dimensional geometric model is a replacement for the latter is gross hubris. At best it can describe a potential outcome, but it does't provide any of the rest.
To the point about "accomplishing art", there is an old saying often repeated: "art is never finished, it is only abandoned". So if you think art is just something to be accomplished, a box ticked and then profited from then I think it is worth studying the subject further.
Drawing was for anybody who put in the work.
You may as well say football wasn't democratized until the release of FIFA International Soccer in '94.