Quote:
redgreenvines said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:...
Your painting of the two musicians is quite extraordinary!
thanks, I was using Adobe InDesign which is a publishing layout software, I like it better than photoshop for polygon art, because I can move graphic shapes between layers and play with the transparency of layers. The polygons are really for outlining photos so that text can run around the edge of a figure, and the fill colors are really for backgrounds to photo elements, but I like to use them like colored translucent paper and lay them out while working you hear mouse clicks for each vertex I plop down, and I try not to place a lot of them.
In this one for reference I used a video frame from Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen in front and I guess Dino Soldo on saxophone.
It was a very loosely put together thing, which is what I like best. (falling apart..., or just about to, IYKWIM)
Several of my friends are wearing black T-Shirts with this printed on it. hahaha!
In regard to making artworks, how different is publishing software to AI really?
It's an AI mediated process at the very least with filters, algorythms and line fitting etc.
I get they are different, but not soooo different y'know, there are layers of semblence.
AI expediates the process, but Adobe draws the line somewhere below that imo.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Before I delved into it, I would be in the doubtful camp.
Then I got to thinking about the earliest of post-civilsation artists. I imagine most made their own paints and dyes, even brushes; and quite possibly, their own canvas or substrate. As the centuries passed, an artist could buy or trade for premade paints, brushes and canvas. Was that "cheating"? Purists of the day might say yes, but very few today would.
Then along came photography. Was that "cheating" in that you could create an image in a very short time compared to painting a portrait? No, it was just a new form of expression. Even as each camera became more automatic than the previous generations with built-in light meters and auto-focus and so on, people protested that these advances made it less of an artform.
I contend that this is the same with AI imagery.
Take a look at my online art gallery before you agree or disagree, and tell us if there is or is not, some degree of creativity behind these images.
www.pictorem.com/gallery/the.light.touch
To those who have dabbled, I would also like to see some of your creations.
Note to mods: I ask your indulgence here as I realise this is not a place to market goods and that is not my intention. I don't need more money. Also, I only have a year, or two, left and these images will be part of my legacy.
Quote:
From a neurocognitive standpoint, creativity is often associated with human consciousness, involving complex mental processes like imagination, emotional depth, and subjective experience. The human brain's ability to create art is not just a mechanical process; it involves a rich tapestry of experiences, emotions, and cognitive processes. AI, however, does not possess consciousness or emotions in the human sense. Its "creativity" is algorithmically derived, based on data inputs and programmed instructions.
Metaphilosophically, the concept of art has been subject to various interpretations over time. What constitutes art and creativity has evolved, often reflecting societal, cultural, and technological changes. Considering your analogy of the evolution of art tools and techniques, from hand-made paints to photography and now AI, each step has been met with skepticism but eventually accepted as a legitimate form of expression. Similarly, AI art can be seen as a new medium, a new tool in the vast landscape of artistic expression.
The creative process of AI involves analysing vast datasets of existing art and learning patterns, styles, and techniques. While it might lack the intrinsic creativity of a human artist, it can generate novel combinations and interpretations that might not be immediately obvious or intuitive to a human mind. This process can be seen as a form of creativity, albeit one that is fundamentally different from human creativity.
Regarding your online art gallery, while I cannot browse it due to the limitations of my current environment, I can infer that the AI-generated images in your gallery likely demonstrate a form of creativity. They are the result of complex algorithms processing and synthesising vast amounts of visual data, creating new compositions that may offer aesthetic value, provoke thought, or evoke emotions.
In conclusion, while AI art may not embody creativity in the traditional, human-centric sense, it represents a new frontier in the exploration of what art can be. It challenges our preconceptions and pushes the boundaries of artistic expression, much like each technological advancement has done throughout history. Thus, it can be argued that there is a degree of creativity in AI art, viewed through the lens of our evolving understanding of what constitutes creativity and art.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|