WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[Paul Farquhar]

Art is created by Elephant being handed a paint brush saw that on CBS Sunday Morning.
Art is created by a dog stepping on paint and walking across canvas.
Art is created by programmer who creates a program to slice together bits and blots, and shots.
Art is a bird nest which some red neck sprayed it down with hairspray and entered in an art show.

All of these require input by humans, built on technological development. AI art is just another paintbrush.

 

[JAMUMU]

My feelings on AI art are complex and it's a bit of a Gordian knot type problem. However something happened the other day that has been a bee in my bonnet ever since. Out walking the doggo, we found a whole deer skeleton, picked pretty clean. I took a few photographs on my phone, for no particular reason other than it was a pretty novel sight.

On the way home it occurred to me that if I took the images of the skeleton and spent a few hours playing around on Photoshop/GIMP, then the end product might be something seen as a piece of art. However, if I spent a few hours "remixing" the images on an AI art programme (which requires knowledge of the programme's syntax and other quirks, analagous to the skills needed to use image manipulation software effectively), then most people would not consider that art.

There's no easy answer to that I can think of, but reading this thread reminded me of the conundrum and now it's going to annoy me for the rest of the day! Perhaps I should go and re-read Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and see if it offers any insights.

 

[Vaalingrade]

However, if I spent a few hours "remixing" the images on an AI art programme (which requires knowledge of the programme's syntax and other quirks, analagous to the skills needed to use image manipulation software effectively), then most people would not consider that art.

Mixed media art has been a thing for decades.

The issue that people have is if you weren't using media you didn't make to feed the algo.

Trying to say the results of AI art aren't art is... well wrong. It is, however, highly unethical art.

 

[Charlaquin]

A proto-human fell into a puddle of mud, then put their hand on a cave wall.

That ain’t art, and doesn’t do anything to explain how ancient art developed.

They learn from parents/caregivers. You think a child could make paint and paper on their own?

Who said anything about making paint and paper? We’re talking about making art, which can be done in any of countless mediums, including mediums that don’t require any specific materials.

Also, as someone already pointed out, outsider art is a thing. The notion that humans can’t create art without an preexisting art backlog to draw from just does not hold water.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That ain’t art, and doesn’t do anything to explain how ancient art developed.

Sure it does. Protohuman realises the have made an interesting mark, and reproduces it. They pass that on to the next generation, who develops it further. Because that's what humans can do. 12,000 generations of development later, Human invents a machine to do it for them.

Who said anything about making paint and paper? We’re talking about making art, which can be done in any of countless mediums, including mediums that don’t require any specific materials.

There are lots of different ways of making art, but you can't make it out of thin air. They are all dependent on some kind of technology, that has to have been invented by a previous generation, and conveyed to the next by teaching/learning.

Also, as someone already pointed out, outsider art is a thing.

Is an opinion, not a fact. "Outsider art" can only exist because of something previously done by a human, such as invent paint and a brush, and give it to an animal.

The notion that humans can’t create art without an preexisting art backlog to draw from just does not hold water.

It holds plenty of water, it's just something you don't want to accept.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I tried to do a blind Tiefling priest and it didn't go well

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure it does. Protohuman realises the have made an interesting mark, and reproduces it. They pass that on to the next generation, who develops it further. Because that's what humans can do. 12,000 generations of development later, Human invents a machine to do it for them.

This is still the creation of art by humans, where no art existed before, which is something algorithms cannot do.

There are lots of different ways of making art, but you can't make it out of thin air. They are all dependent on some kind of technology, that has to have been invented by a previous generation, and conveyed to the next by teaching/learning.

I’m not arguing that art doesn’t require some kind of technology to create.

Is an opinion, not a fact. "Outsider art" can only exist because of something previously done by a human, such as invent paint and a brush, and give it to an animal.

Again, I’m not saying technology isn’t involved in the creation of art. I’m saying humans can create art without drawing on existing human-created art, which algorithms cannot.

It holds plenty of water, it's just something you don't want to accept.

It really doesn’t.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, I finally downloaded this app and tried it.

I don't think human artists have much to worry about from this particular app.

EDIT: The art instantly becomes more professional looking if you toss the results into something that turns images into "paintings" or "etchings."

 

[jasper]

All of these require input by humans, built on technological development. AI art is just another paintbrush.

Jasper inputs to the program
Elmore, Dragon, Bikinis, Swedish Bikini Team, D20
It is now art because I is human. Or maybe not.

 

[cbwjm]

Playing around on Dream and I got this when asking for an elf paladin riding a unicorn, I think it's brilliant (even with all the weird mistakes)!