Damn, it's almost like art is a form of expression and communication, and not just aesthetic for the sake of aesthetic. If only somebody had told the corporate ghouls that before they put all their money into AI
Interesting, and reflects my personal experience. However I fear for those artists working within a commercial or studio pipeline, where it seems like reverting to traditional media isn’t a viable option. I think those of us who have carved our own little niche will be ok, but aren’t we a minority?
The medium is the problem. If your work is just pixels on a screen, a lot of people can’t tell the difference between ‘AI’ & an artist’s work unless they’ve a specific interest in art or that artist. And a lot of people who commission art haven’t got that artist’s eye. Starting out will get harder.
I suppose the best we can hope for is that the AI backlash results in a push for more original stylistic choices. The past decade or so has seen a trend towards homogeneous art styles in entertainment and publishing, and that really has provided an open-goal for (inherently homogenised) genAI.
I’ve also seen a major uptake in the audience wanting “authentic” art, especially at conventions. But I assume very few of us can make a living from cons, which is why we do commercial work, and I can’t imagine the level of audience groundswell necessary to affect that…
More likely it will just lead to lying. Like the current backlash against “cgi” in films (which is actually a backlash against bad or rushed cgi). More cgi is being used than ever before, it’s just studios and directors are lying that it was all practical.
Yeah, I've noticed desaturated green screens and rigging hastily painted out in behind the scenes, it's a bit weird.
There was a good clip of Alex Garland talking about some people being pious about it being practical when he was talking about CGI/Bluescreen work for the DC shots in Civil War
There is a issue accusing work of AI. There is a passion project that got picked up by A24 where all the backdrops are matte paintings each one painted by hand by the director. Because it makes the movie look different. Every one is accusing the movie of using gen AI.
I don’t agree. It’s gone from seeing endless comments under ai shite of wonder and enthusiasm, to now you get endless comments with eye rolling and complaining that its ai, in the space of a year.
I’m not saying it’s not going to affect artists and more, it already is, but I do think humans crave human made stuff. They might have to find out how shit ai slop is going to make the world first before figuring that out though.
It is still developing and will outpace us. AI chess is far better than the best humans but we still watch human matches, not bot matches. The reason to value human art is simply because it is human. Let the bots push us to improve (and use them as you like) but expect it to eventually be better
They’re a bit behind - I’ve been saying this, and seeing this, since image generators first exploded in popularity, if not before. Sure, non-artist/non-creative audiences were wowed, but I saw them quickly get bored and start seeking trad art instead.
This is so weirdly calming to read lmao. And I guess it’s a good thing I cleaned up my drafting table yesterday with the intent of finally dedicated some time to traditional art in the coming year
Comments
There was a good clip of Alex Garland talking about some people being pious about it being practical when he was talking about CGI/Bluescreen work for the DC shots in Civil War
PS - looking forward to your new book.
https://youtu.be/_jTFLg3arYU?feature=shared
/s
Me, suddenly beret'd: Non.