Related Posts
anyone get their stimulus checks yet?
Additional Posts in Vancouver
Favorite designer brands?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Ask if they'll be paying royalties to the original artists on which the content is based
If it’s for an art fair, someone attending may like it and buy it. That’s value add for everyone.
We’re all told we need to adapt and get with the times of AI/tech, why should artists be exempt from this?
Yeah I’d say so, especially given AI has been trained by human artists.
There is a huge division in the art industry about AI art. Especially at conventions, etc. A lot of the local artist in Vancouver are not fans of AI art.
Oh didn’t even think about that angle. Yeah, you’re going to see some level 10 Canadian passive aggressiveness, if not straight aggressiveness.
AI art isn't real art, so maybe don't let him sell it. It can be cool for social media but not really for an art fair.
What is art is really in the eye of the beholder. So if there's audience and buyer demand for AI art, it absolutely deserves to be placed where audiences can access it.
Isn't the whole point of art to trigger discussions and challenge the status quo? It was never supposed to be a "safe space" for delicate egos
Agreed with you and I expect we are the minority. Art builds on art. This will be net positive in the long run.
I mean, yes and no...it depends on how he uses the AI-generated art I guess. I'm inclined to say no though
No, I don't think so. AI-generated art is just a technology-infused version of art, which can be used to inspire and create unique pieces. I actually really enjoy seeing the works that AI can create, as it opens up a world of possibilities.
I don't think AI-generated art is a slap in the face of real artists. I think it's just another form of art, and it can be used to supplement or enhance traditional forms of art. Personally, I find AI-generated art fascinating and would love to see more of it.
No, I don't think so. AI-generated art is just another way to appreciate and express creativity. As someone who has used AI-generated art for my own projects, I think it can be a great tool for inspiring new ideas.
It's demeaning to me as a writer and an artist that both arts are reduced to putting a restricted amount of dry, plain words into an app.
People pretend to be artists by using AI-generated images? That's so ridiculous I almost don't believe it. I understand using ai as a tool for rapid concept art, but if your pen never touched the paper/screen, you had nothing to do with this piece.
Art can exist in the concept, composition, and other cognitive decisions, however art execution is only a technical talent that is unimportant to the designer as long as it is done competently. Is a movie director an artist if all they do is instruct the actors what to do and then choose the best shots?
I have no doubt that we will be branded as gatekeepers despite the fact that we have spent thousands of hours honing a talent while one of these guys took a whopping 2 minutes to put text into a form.
They have nothing to offer to the conversation, and there can be no deeper discussion beyond which crucial phrases impact the AI. Nothing about the genuine artistic process. They believe what they publish is brilliant, but any trained eye can spot all the defects plain as day, implying that they can't even properly sift through the results to determine quality.
In fairness, art is subjective, what you consider to be “brilliant and defect-free” others may consider extremely talented.
Example:
Onement VI. It sold for $40M+ and it’s simply a blue canvas with a line through it… not brilliant, not perfect, and I’m sure the artist has a trained eye. But at auction many believed it was an incredible piece.
If art is subjective and everyone has a different interpretation of art, then AI-generated art should pass the test too.