I thought this was going to be a serious (or at least semi-serious) article about Dominion and just ended up disappointed.

After reading this, I have serious questions about your journalistic integrity, and would have those questions even if I agreed with you 100%. This is a naked diatribe. I know This site blends “opinion” in with the rest without denoting it as such, but this just reads like blind, babbling rage. I’m interested in takes…

Never mind Greg Land, how about Roy Lichtenstein?

I find I can’t agree with your reasoning. It comes down to an age old argument. Is any art entirely unique? Or is all art derivative? I believe the latter. I believe that not a single artist in human existence has ever created art that didn’t take from someone else. We as humans, are simply incapable of perceiving…

Except everything you have just listed is the exact same issue as the majority of human artists. Do those who are “inspired” by the masters or others pay them for the inspiration when they then copy aspects of those works? No. Do those who essentially write reports mostly just rewording another person’s report…

Is people getting sued to oblivion by Disney really the vindication you’re looking for in this matter?

That’s quite a few words to say basically nothing.

“Without intent it’s just empty beauty. Intent is what allowed Duchamp to turn a urinal into a sculpture.”

That’s not entirely true. As it stands, yes, you could “generate” art by throwing a salad of words into any present AI art service, and 15 seconds later, publish that piece of art. And yes, that leaves you wanting when you examine this particular piece, more often than not.

Right there with you on the last part. 10 years ago I was doing art constantly and ended up with the usual problems of posting your work online, its a popularity contest. So I stopped posting stuff as often but slowly also just started making less. I still do make stuff, just gone from weekly to yearly some times. But…

Either AI-generated art doesn’t fill the same need as human-made, “real” art or is a threat to artists. Both things cannot be true for a given area of art.

I for one am looking forward to ChatGPT replacing your job so I don’t have to read stupid takes like this from bloggers anymore.

What an absolutely awful article. Are we at the point where the most liberally minded people online are deciding what is and isn’t art? Just wondering if I should check that off on my dumb as fuck world bingo card.

Nah this is just the next iteration of luddites, people seeing that technology is making them redundant and as a result screaming cold-blooded murder. It’s not a process, it’s a craft. And you can’t replace that... except of course you can hence why already there are many digital art programs that automate more…

As someone who has been a professional artist for close to 15 years now I can say that I am not worried at all over AI replacing me anytime soon.
This is gonna be a repeat of when automation became a thing. The way we work will change and new skills and jobs are being created in the process.

Yes there is a lot of…

As someone with dysgraphia (I cannot write with a pen, or draw/paint for more than 5 minutes at a time without getting crippling pain in my hands), I have struggled my entire life with the desire to draw and create art, and being unable to actually learn it as a skill. The last few months has been a revelation for me,…

“Machines don’t make art. They’re machines”

“Machines don’t make art. They’re machines!”

I’ve always admired the work that goes into creating them (both illustrations and photos), and I think the average person has too, which is why so many have become memes over the years.

I just watched a pro-AI video from Marques Brownlee (yes, he has concerns about crediting, too, but overall his video is AI Positive) so I think the ship has sailed for trying to stop AI art from growing.