Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

I can't believe this needs to be said...

Too many people of late have decided they somehow have the authority to speak for others on what is or isn't considered art, that they can somehow predict the reaction of artists and what they will do, and so on.. as if they are now the duly appointed art police.

The sad truth is the more vocal these kind of people are, the more threatened they are feeling as new technologies come around and are only projecting onto the community their own fears, fears that are NOT universal.

I'm old enough to have seen how disruptive technologies affect many different fields, and art is no different. Yes, people will try and have it blocked, banned, and otherwise restricted. Why? The reasons vary, but in every case I've seen it's unrealistic niche protection that they're after.

Just because machine generated images have made leaps and bounds over the last few years, it's caused quite a few who wanted to keep their niche to themselves to start being vocal and demonizing the latest in Chat GPT, Dall-E and similar technologies. Why? Anyone can look at what's generated and know where it came from. There is no way that what is produced can be confused with the skill of an actual artist.

So when people start making claims about how people 'will' react, as if they were some kind of soothsayer that could read people and generalize how everyone will react... and in about every case are so radically wrong when it's put to the test? No.

What these 'art police' want to implement is a new form of censorship that favors their niche, while stifling creativity in any medium they disapprove of.

When Mosaic hit mainstream in 1993, there were a lot of arguments that art can't exist in a digital form. Those same arguments? I'm seeing here and now being applied to AI.

If that's how these art police truly feel then they should put down their digital pens because it doesn't produce real art, and go back to painting on canvas with oil paints.

AI is just a new medium, no more. And because it is a new medium, it will in time develop it's own standards on what is considered good... but I can guarantee you, just like how digital medium does not have the same standards as a oil painting, AI generated art won't have the same standards either.

People, speak for yourselves, don't make claims about what the community will do when you don't speak for the community, nor pretend to be fortune tellers when history itself has already proven different. Speak for yourselves.

That should be enough.

Viewed:	46 times
Added:	1 year ago 19 Dec 2023 01:55 CET

18 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

dmfalk

1 year ago

link

I'm with you, here... :) Those who protest AI don't know what art really is: Tools + medium + imagination/inspiration/expression. A tool can be a brush, a chisel, a keyboard, a voice, a word... A medium can be paper, canvas, stone, electromagnetic storage.... And we all know the rest... ;)

I do remember the anti-digital days of the '90s, when computer art emerged... :) I was born shortly after an artist used xerography for art, and the same arguments abounded then.... So I'm old enough to remember these arguments, and these arguments will persist with every new twist, for decades to come...

AI art is art, because it follows the definition of art. Just because one asks a prompt to do something, does not mean you aren't using a tool.

d.m.f.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

@ dmfalk

I remember something vaguely at the time about xerography art and was left wondering, and even thought it ridiculous.

Now I know better.

Sometimes perspective really does only come with age.

mrluca

1 year ago

link

Thank you for your kind words! <3

moyomongoose

1 year ago

link

I'm not critical against AI art myself. In fact, I have faved quite a bit of AI uploads.

Though as for myself, I don't use it. It's more satisfying to me drawing and posting characters that are of my own creation.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

@ moyomongoose

You do you, and if you enjoy it, then that is its own reward on top of any commercial value it might have or that you can give it.

I'm (almost) never going to say "-x- isn't art", because any endeavor that has a creative element to it, be it wordsmithing prompts for AI or picking up a digitizer (ahem, an apple pencil), a movie camera or even just a paintbrush or pen to draw and write with and can create something that can invoke that human element, be it a story or a picture that pulls at our heart strings or frighten and fear...

It's all art. It's the human being expressing themselves.

(I'm not going to say a regular day job doing the same thing every day is 'art'.. but I suppose someone who appreciates sterile, soul crushing monotony might call it art. I shudder to think who would.)

bulletcrow

1 year ago

link

Disney has used it at least once. I bet they'll do it again. Maybe they'll do a Steamboat Willie update with improved graphics and sound.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

@ bulletcrow

If they do, they better move fast because Steamboat Willie is set to enter the public domain on Jan 1st, 2024.

If they can squeak in something under the wire, then Disney can renew SOME of their copyright on the character as then legally they can show that the copyright is in active use, so therefore derivative works are considered their property.

They might do just that considering the legal uproar "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" caused.

bulletcrow

1 year ago

link

@ whiskeyfur

From my understanding, the black and white original goes into public domain on January first no matter what they do. The new improved version would be treated as a new cartoon and protected for 95 years.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

@ bulletcrow

That's about in line with how I understand it.

Where the legal tactics come into play is when/if someone makes a derivative work off of the old Steamboat Willy, and if Disney ONLY improves the rendering and display of the character yet does not substantially change the design of Willy himself, then someone they don't like can be sued for infringing on the new character.

Yes, it's a legal bait and switch.. and Disney has in fact done this before.

It's not Disney or the defendant who get to decide which the defendant infringed, it's the judge and jury. And if their remake is far more recent and well known than the original, then the jury will essentially be tricked because the original Steamboat Willy won't be as well known.

Case in point, if you saw an anthropomorphic fox on public media, pre-zootopia, many people would have said that's Disney's animated Robin Hood. After Zootopia, it's a certain well known fox.

But look at the actual character design, sans clothes.. they're functionally the same and and differences can be written off as the conversion process from cartoon (hand drawn) to CGI.

Disney does not play nice nor does it play fair. I have no love for the mouse.

Is it a stretch? yes. But is it plausible? also Yes.

bulletcrow

1 year ago

link

@ whiskeyfur

Mickey and Minnie weren't very original in 1928. Terry-toons had a mouse couple that Mickey and Minnie may have been based on. https://reelrundown.com/animation/The-Stolen-Legacy-of-...
Milton and Mary (or Rita Mouse) are public domain now.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

@ bulletcrow

Creatively, no. Legally... that's a whole different story.

Right or wrong, Disney still has the copyright.

And to sum it up... ugh.

ZwolfJareAlt306

1 year ago

link

I hereby fave this journal!

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

@ ZwolfJareAlt306

Thank you!

Chira

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

lol this dude made a whole journal because of me.
ya all can see the conversation here
https://inkbunny.net/s/3199131#commentid_8357152
just gotta scroll a bit up to see it from the beginning.
what he wrote here in this journal is completely wrong aswell
it got said "those who are against AI artwork" not "everyone" like this "i am better then everyone else" (i get to this soon too) guy wrote. he wrote a few other things in a way down to stand in the so called "good light".

imma say it in this way, i am not against AI artwork but i am not using said AI generators either because i respect artists and their work.
now, we have this individual here which thinks its ok to disrespect and stealing the artwork from other artists because he appereantly spends 50k USD every year? for comissions (so wrote he atleast) and thinks he stands above everyone else(ya all can see that in his last reply to me or rather to himself but quoted me). like he putts himself above me and degrades what i wrote down with hisreply and is literarly like "i am better then you".

this guy is an arogant idiot and i would be not surprised that artists literarly just using him as moneybag if he has really done what he says. which i by the way doubt because he would not need AI to generate stuff, so i believe what he wrote down is a lie anyways.
he will probably delete this post too.
the most fun part of all is that he wrote multible times "you dont read" but in the way he replied did he not readed my replies at all or (which this journal shows) reads either in between the lines or missunderstood somewhere something. i mean, english isnt my native language and not the best either but all my english speaking friends understand me fine, so. he should be able to aswell.

but whatever, ya peoples can continue to crawl into his ass, maybe he pays you guys to support him/her because he is appereantly rich =D.
that cheetah dude in the journal has right. peoples like whiskeyfur which think they are better then everyone else because they did [insert stuff here] turns them into a god or something like that. thats how he literarly acts in the journal i´ve posted.
and yes, i keep you blocked and probably will block everyone here in this journal which supports you.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

@ Chira

Not even close.

You are just the latest in a long series of similarly minded, yet historically ignorant, 'artists' who think they can speak for others.

History has proven you wrong because the same arguments have been used before.

If you want to use them, then respect the original intent behind them when those arguments were used by deleting your paint programs, throw away your digitizer, and restrict yourself to just oil and canvas. You know, the REAL artist skills (supposedly).

The fact you're willing to unban me just to try and get the last word in shows how immature you really are.

Chira

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

@ whiskeyfur

i didnt unban you, you idiot, you can only reply to me because its your journal. unbanning someone needs over 24 hours aka it gets scheduled.
https://gyazo.com/2042dbb4b97aae7d719cbd6595b5f083
therefore, i never unbanned you. IB changed that because the ban/unban got in the past abused. means, you cant unban someone in an instant anymore. try it on your own, you would be surprised.
and what does this even mean:

"	when those arguments were used by deleting your paint programs, throw away your digitizer, and restrict yourself to just oil and canvas. You know, the REAL artist skills (supposedly).

am not an artist. so, your dumb "you" talking doesnt applies to me. you did that already in seanys journal for some weird reason.

you are just unable to accept the fact that you disrespect the work of artists as soon you use AI to generate pictures. i write it here again but, its technicly useless because you are a stubborn lost cause and think you have right because you spend 50k USD for comissions which i think is a lie. you are simply unable to accept that you steal artwork because you think "its ok, i spend 50k USD every year".

again, every artist which is against AI artwork and dislikes it would block you. but, for some reason made you that part up and understood it as "everyone would block you as soon they notice that you like/enjoy/generate AI artwork"

you are just a troll which loves to poke at weakspots and keeps provoking until the other person rages (and you get them banned), gives up and/or ignores you and in your little troll brain means it "i won" but the truth is that you are a person which disrespects the work of other artists by stealing said art and thinks its ok because you spend 50k USD every yea for comissions.

thats like putin would throw an atombomb at the USA but gave the USA 500billion USD to rebuild everything, so thats ok.
BUT IT ISNT!!!
and thats what you dont want to understand.
this has nothing to do with any arguments or whatever.
this has solely to do with the fact that you cant accept that you disrespect the work from other artists to generate pictures by simply stealing their work.
and with that am i now seriously done. if you havent understood by now what i mean are you (like i wrote already) a stubborn lost cause, unable to accept things which doesnt wants to accept that it is wrong what you do.
but how did you wrote? you do you.
like i wrote already, i have nothing against AI artwork. but i value the work from artists enough that i refuse to use an AI picture generating program and that simply differs you from me. i respect the work of artists, you dont, you just steal said work.

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

Edited 1 year ago by Owner

@ Chira

So... you're not an artist, yet seem to think you can speak for artists and how they 'will' respond when told that I happen to like AI generated art...

"	Chira wrote:
	IB changed that because the ban/unban got in the past abused. means, you cant unban someone in an instant anymore. try it on your own, you would be surprised.

Seeing as the only person I have banned was basically for rampant vulgarity, an inability to string together a coherent thought together, and basically a very poor grasp over the English language in general, it's safe to say you are not banned. And I've no interest in unbanning an ogre.

"	Chira wrote:
	again, every artist which is against AI artwork and dislikes it would block you. but, for some reason made you that part up and understood it as "everyone would block you as soon they notice that you like/enjoy/generate AI artwork"

In case you forgot your own words:

"	Chira wrote:
	artists which realize that you are an AI fan will just ban you from their page if they notice it and effectively expel you from their community. mostly all artists do this.

and

"	Chira wrote:
	tell an artist that you are an AI fan and like AI. he/she will mostlikely block you if they are against AI and will never take comissions from you again and if possible (which would be impossible to do) would try to hide their art away from you.

"	Chira wrote:
	... thinks its ok because you spend 50k USD every yea for comissions.

I had only mentioned that because you cited as your 'credentials' how many people you supported.

Remember this?

"	Chira wrote:
	i have way more done then you ever will and supported 2 artists over 5 years

yea, 'more than I ever will'... sure.

"	Chira wrote:
	you are simply unable to accept that you steal artwork because you think "its ok, i spend 50k USD every year".

It was over 10 years, not a year. Again, more proof that you can't read for understanding.

Just like you refuse to accept when I explained my interest in AI is the process behind how it works, not the same standards as I would apply for pure human created art.

"	Chira wrote:
	like i wrote already, i have nothing against AI artwork.

Funny.. you seem like you have a lot to say against it. The dishonesty is pretty transparent here.

And lest you forget... you came into my blog to continue arguing, and specifically hunted it down really even though I hadn't posted a link to it, nor even referenced this blog over there at all.

You looked for it and found it on your own.

So who is the troll here?

whiskeyfur

1 year ago

link

@ whiskeyfur

I am going to have to correct one thing I said.

My ban list is empty, so it's safe to say no one has been banned from my account, ever.

My apologies.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.