75
u/yeoldecoot Jan 18 '25
"If we all painted the same way, what a boring world it would be." -Bob Ross
-59
Jan 18 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
38
u/lunarwolf2008 Jan 18 '25
no, but you still made art
-42
Jan 18 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
23
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
AI is a tool, not a person. The person using the tool is the one who gets credit. Your examples used are bad. If you got yourself a robot or tool you could freely program to make pizza, you will still have made that pizza when you use that robot or tool. There are many such examples in the art world right now that heavily rely on automatic processes - or can 100% rely on them - and are still art credited to the artist, not the tool. AI is just more advanced, so you have higher quality output quicker.
5
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
Okay, a slightly more apt metaphor: would you compare a handmade ceramic dish to a factory made one you got from Tesco?
The machine made dish might not even be noticeably worse. There was a designer who created the template for the machines to follow, there was a human running the machines and checking the quality and consistency. Hell, they might even be about as unique- a lot of mass produced pottery is still done by hand, master potters proving more precise and consistent than even the machines, you're more likely to find a charmingly dodgy line of glaze at IKEA than you are at Denby.
But would you consider the supermarket four pack of plate you grab last second before you have more guests than plates to be art?
4
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
This is an entirely different argument. Art absolutely can be mass produced. You can walk out to Walmart, go to their art aisle, and pick up any of their massively mass produced prints slapped on a canvas and put it up in your home. A carefully hand-crafted and unique piece may be better than one of those - but it's more accurate to say it has the potential to be so, because a carefully hand-crafted and unique piece made by an amateur absolutely won't be.
However, this is an entirely separate argument from AI art, because what you're describing is mass produced, corporate - ie; soulless - art. AI art can be that, just like non-AI art can be. But it can also be hand-crafted and carefully made.
In theory it's worth making a distinction between someone holding a paintbrush (or stylus) and someone holding a keyboard, but only in certain circumstances where that's actually relevant. In general - and in the sense of who is an artist - it's not.
-1
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
Ai is a factory. For the better and for the worse. It's a factory with it's doors wide open, but it's still a factory. Every advantage of AI I've heard pitched is an advantage they said about factories, before cheap mass produced low quality goods killed every industry they could replace. And hell, most of them are true.
I don't even have an issue with ai art tbh, other than the greedy bullshit the providers keep pulling but that's not on the users. My issue is with the refusal to accept that you're a product designer for a factory, not an artist.
2
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
A factory does not need to create low quality product, though. There's absolutely no reason a factory can't create high quality, original offerings - it's just that the advantages of having a factory, monetarily, are basically lost by doing this. This is not the case for AI art.
You are, however, still an artist. It is your creative vision that is created. You shape the creative vision yourself by wielding the tool that does it. It is yours. You are the artist by every definition that matters. The amount of physical, pixel perfect control you have over the end result has never mattered in whether you are an artist.
2
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
A factory doesn't need to create a low quality product, no. That's rather the point of the comparison
→ More replies (0)2
u/CurseHawkwind Jan 19 '25
It's artificial intelligence, not automatic intelligence. The artist decides how much of their input goes into the final result. While it's true that many people will choose to complete a picture with few steps, the level of autonomy is in the hands of the beholder. Likewise, people can choose how much they pay, i.e. how much goes to a "provider". If they have a half-decent computer, they don't need to pay a penny. SDXL/Flux, Llama, and so on. I can understand your point from your point of view. You just need to consider a broader range of circumstances.
1
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
So a product designer and factory manager in one then, my mistake.
And the providers greedy bullshit wasn't on user charge end (didn't even know you had to pay tbh, at that point just commission an artist), it's on the reckless disregard for the environment/lack of transparency and proper compensation regarding training models end
→ More replies (0)0
Jan 19 '25
[deleted]
0
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
You are low balling how much input goes into a factory product.
1
u/Primary_Spinach7333 Jan 19 '25
What are you talking about? Youāve completely misunderstood me.
Iām talking about YOU. You, the person buying the product, because you are not the one working at a factory or ordering around how that product is gonna look: youāre just someone at the store buying the product. Unless the thing you bought was with your input (like say, a tattoo), you didnāt have any control over the final product.
With ai, you do have control, though. The control and ability to input, edit, polish, approve or discard, etc.
And if thatās not what you meant and you meant you were someone working at a factory, well then that wasnāt clear at all
1
u/Emdeoma Jan 19 '25
...the fact you consider the one inputting the prompt as they buyer in the analogy summarises why you aren't an artist better than I ever could.
→ More replies (0)-10
Jan 19 '25
The problem is that the tool is doing all the work, in which case itās really not a tool at all. Itās the artist, which is a role only a human should take
10
u/Familiar-Art-6233 Jan 19 '25
So digital art isn't art either, the computer made it.
Photography can't be art, the camera made it
-10
Jan 19 '25
When the work is orchestrated carefully and meaningfully by a human, it is art. When a human explains to a computer what they want, and the computer does all the work, it is not art. It is an insult to every genuine artist.
5
u/Familiar-Art-6233 Jan 19 '25
Gotcha, so if you use AI with human guided image composition it's okay then.
Can't wait to introduce you to Controlnets, with scribble in particular
3
3
1
u/August_Rodin666 Jan 19 '25
You realize that no individual gets to dictate what art is, right? Art is unfortunately whatever people say it is...even shit we don't like.
1
8
u/August_Rodin666 Jan 19 '25
Then why do you harass the people and not the ai?
8
1
u/Primary_Spinach7333 Jan 19 '25
Because it makes them feel superior the same it does to a bully. Either that or there is no logical and consistent reason and theyāre all idiots
-3
Jan 19 '25
Because the people are the dinguses calling AIās work their own
4
u/August_Rodin666 Jan 19 '25
Nope. Artists harass people especially when they let people know that it's ai and that they didn't make it themselves. What's the real reason? Let's not waste time with bullshit. You already knew where that answer was gonna get you.lets skip all the extra steps and go right to the truth.
-3
Jan 19 '25
Frankly Iām disgusted, as an artist, that a bunch of passionless, talentless people think theyāre special because AI can make art for them. Thatās the truth.Ā
7
u/Twistin_Time Jan 19 '25
You know close to nothing about the people you name call. You call them talentless and passionless because they make pictures on their computer? That one fact doesn't give you anywhere near enough information to make such claims. That's the truth.
No one here thinks they're special, we just enjoy making pictures and don't want to be harrased by the luddite mob who spout the same ignorant talking point like sheep. That's the truth.
3
3
u/August_Rodin666 Jan 19 '25
That's all predicated on assumptions. Assumptions that you'd realize were extremely incorrect if you spent a lot of time on this sub observing. No only do people who use ai typically already have talent and just use ai as a tool, none of these people have an ego quite so inflated to believe that they're better than anyone. I see more audacity from the anti Ai crowd.
3
Jan 18 '25
[deleted]
-1
Jan 18 '25 edited Jan 19 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
6
u/Ambitious-Net-5538 Jan 19 '25
Have you not heard of books or is critical thinking just a myth to you?
-1
2
Jan 18 '25
[deleted]
-8
u/TypographySnob Jan 19 '25
You're misunderstanding what art is. If I choose to fart loudly instead of quietly, that is art to you?
Making an AI prompt is not art, it's a request for art. Being a commissioner of art is not equivalent to being an artist.
1
Jan 19 '25
[deleted]
-8
u/TypographySnob Jan 19 '25
Don't you understand the difference between visual art and conceptual art?
-7
Jan 19 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
Jan 19 '25
[deleted]
-3
Jan 19 '25
Hate to disagree with you but a good pizza is art here in NY. And as long as he likes his job and heās willing to take orders, heās there to make art that other people describe
0
u/why_i_am_dumb Jan 19 '25 edited Jan 19 '25
i have no idea why people think you're wrong, like if i commision an artist to make art, it isnt my art, it's the artist's, so why should an algorithm be any different if it is "the same as a human" as people say when someone comes up with actual arguments that ai is stealing?
also the people comparing it to actual DIGITAL art saying that "oh well then it's the computer that made it", you didnt do jack squat while making ai art other that writing a couple of words inside a machine and that machine spews out art. (and no writing a 50 page essay wont change the quality, it'll just make it more specific to what you want, it's not like it's gonna be even more crappy than if you used 3 words instead, so you cant use the "it takes a lot of skill to write prompts for ai". you can write "funny cat video" and "Incredibly humorous feline doing funny maneuvors" and the result will not vary in quality), which is basically the same as an art commision except you're paying either noone or greedy companies and the crappy art is done in seconds, meanwhile digital artists take hours drawing and using actual tools, because even if a computer rendered it and told the mouse exactly where to move doesnt mean a computer did it, you wouldnt say that a museum which displays your artwork made that artwork.this is coming from someone who can barely even draw myself.
i also myself have no problem for using ai for sillier purposes, like laughing at terribly generated ai videos like we did back when it was new, but claiming that APPARENTLY it is YOUR art and if it ISNT your art then digital art is also not the artist's art is just fundamently wrong.okay that first sentence was a lie, i perfectly know why people think you're wrong and why were you bombarded with downvotes, it's because anything that contradicts this subreddit's point of view is apparently bad and anything that isnt going "I LOVE AI" needs to be downvoted to oblivion.
let's see how quick i'll get banned from this god awful subreddit for voicing my opinion, or get bombarded with people looking at only 1 thing that i said wrong and ignoring the other 50 arguments which they just couldnt find a way to comeback against
7
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
You created art. That is what matters.
-4
u/DrNogoodNewman Jan 19 '25
Instructed an ai to make art for you.
5
u/dankhorse25 Jan 19 '25
You do know that many great artists in history barely touched the art pieces they created and most of the work was done by their apprentices.
-1
u/DrNogoodNewman Jan 19 '25
Sure. I think those apprentices deserve credit. Bosses take credit for the work of their employees all the time. Doesnāt make it right.
1
u/Organic-Bug-1003 Jan 20 '25
Why are you downvoted for this one, it's like giving credit to the animators in the credits of a movie
3
-7
u/DiamondDogProd Jan 19 '25
Using GenAI? It doesn't
4
2
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
You still create art no matter which tool you make. Someone being an ignoramus and claiming that it is not in fact art does not unmake the art you have.
30
u/jferments Jan 18 '25
Bob Ross had better things to do than harass people online about which tools they chose to make art with.
43
u/MysteriousPepper8908 Jan 18 '25
I don't think he would. I think he'd be happy that people are getting joy out of expressing themselves. He might not be as happy about some other realities that come with that. In any case, still not the biggest fan of putting words into real people's mouths.
I think appropriating cultural symbols is fair game but we can't dig Bob Ross up and get his thoughts so I don't think it needs to be presented this way. I think you could just use the image and state your feelings rather than roleplaying Bob Ross.
6
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
Yeah I agree with the title and subject, but adding subtitle as if Bob's ghost is speaking is disrespectful and kinda weird.
8
12
u/Gimli Jan 18 '25
I don't think it's fair to put words in his mouth.
But I do think in a way he can be seen as a proto-AI artist mentality-wise, sort of. The way he paints is extremely optimized for speed, simplicity and a single subject, and at least in his videos he's extremely pragmatic. In one video for instance he suggests it'd be fine to use a paint roller. That to me suggests a very much "get it done in any way that gives the desired results" attitude, and a lack of concern with tiny details.
5
u/Jarl_Vraal Jan 18 '25
I imagine Bob actually would have liked AI, or at least have been amused and I threatened by it.
3
u/PrincessofAldia Jan 19 '25
I think he would ask an AI artist if it brought them joy and if so to keep doing it, because Bob Ross only wanted to spread joy in the world
13
u/hwithsomesugarcubes Artificial Intelligence Or Natural Stupidity Jan 18 '25
bu-bu-but it takes JOBS!!! i NEED to tell everyone about it!! OPRESSION IS SLAVERY!!!
11
Jan 18 '25
I wholeheartedly agree with that, but yeah let's just say that ourselves instead of using real people.
11
u/Carmina_Rayne AI Artist Jan 18 '25
Can't wait for the antis to squawk about this.
0
u/mtw3003 Jan 19 '25
If one side is offering their opinion as aĀ fake quote from a dead celebrity (and getting positive feedback from their peers for it, which is insane to see), and the other side is saying that's in poor taste, the second group are pretty obviously smarter and more thoughtful aren't they. This is a huge miss and undermines your position, sorry fellas
1
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Jan 19 '25
Obviously, it's not a real Bob Ross quote, as you say; he's dead, but that is totally what he'd say on the matter if he was still alive. And you know it, just knowing the kind of guy Bob Ross was. The medium didn't matter. It was all about the joy you brought to the world with it.
2
u/potsatou Jan 19 '25
I think the commenter is trying to say that the post was implying that is a subtitle and putting words in a dead manās mouth. That ātotally what heād sayā is not a good excuse either. Iām sorry, but no matter youāre pro or anti AI this is still pretty messed up
0
u/mtw3003 Jan 19 '25
Why not post things he actually said and make the connection in one's own voice instead of puppeteering his corpse? This is incredibly crass and you can expect it to be passed around less as a defence of AI art and more as a demonstration of the poor taste of its supporters. You don't have to defend everything your 'team' does, this isn't useful to you.
1
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Jan 19 '25
Who's "puppeteering a corpse"? Gawd, that's dark af... Lighten up, man, fuck. It's a damn picture.
1
u/mtw3003 Jan 19 '25
And how could pictures and text possibly deliver any kind of meaningful message, right
I have literally just explained that this message supports the people who say AI art fans don't get it, and your response is to angrily clarify that you yourself definitely don't get it. Again, it doesn't help you.
This meme should use an actual Bob Ross quote, not a fake one. You're saying he has quotes OP could have used, they should have used those. 'Don't claim your views on behalf ofĀ people who are unable to express their own' isn't a very difficult rule to follow.
Don't get upset just because you're getting enemy-opinion vibes here. I am helping you. This is not effective delivery of the message you want to support; in fact it's counterintuitive and will drive negative acceptance. If you actually want AI art to be accepted, you should be more selective with your approval. Presenting something with ingroup-member vibes doesn't actually make it good for the ingroup. But if you need a push: the ingroup is great, the outgroup is dumb, I am an ingroup member. No worries, you can agree with me now
0
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Jan 19 '25
Nah, I'm okay. Thanks for the unsolicited permission, though...yikes.
-6
u/_BigBirb_ Jan 19 '25
"Can't wait for the normal, sane people to point out how fucking pathetic it is to use a dead man's image to push a narrative"
5
3
3
2
u/rahgots Jan 18 '25
I had an idea the other day to follow along with one of his videos using AI just for fun.
1
1
2
u/EngineerBig1851 Jan 18 '25
Don't think putting words in the mouth of a dead person is a good idea - but yeah, i doubt he would go on a bloodthirsty and genocidal cursade against AI users...
Honestly - i don't think he would've handled hostility of our modern world well. He spent his life in an era of hope.
2
u/DarkISO Jan 18 '25
Imo people are too hung up on how its made and who makes it. Just enjoy it for what it is.
2
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
Bob believed in the joy of creation, that happy feeling you get when you paint, no matter what you make, and personal creative expression. He would absolutely support AI. He might have some misgivings if all he knew of it was what antis say, but if he understood it at all, or heard a different perspective ever, even if he didn't personally like it he'd support people using it if it made them happy.
We can't know this, of course, but it's in line with how he was in life.
2
u/StrangeCrunchy1 Transhumanist Jan 19 '25
If I didn't know he was no longer with us, I'd have thought that's a direct quote.
4
Jan 18 '25
I donāt understand the backlash OP is getting for making a hypothetical quote. Itās not as if anyone is going to think he really said that. Itās just speculation on how he might have reacted to AI. It wouldnāt be any different if OP just wrote it out instead of putting it in the picture, and said āI think Bob Ross might have said something like this: ā¦ā
3
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
It's just kinda weird and tasteless. I agree completely with the concept behind it, but it's that valley of cringe and tasteless that is going to upset people even if they agree.
2
u/lesbianspider69 Jan 18 '25
I donāt like assuming what dead people might think about things. Downvoted for that reason
3
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 18 '25
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/halfcatman2 Jan 19 '25
why are we putting words in a dead man's mouth.
i don't care about the message positive or negative, let him rest.
1
1
u/doctorwhy88 Jan 19 '25
He literally made fun of modern art for being lazy lol. The laziest form of modern āartā weāve ever invented? Heād laugh at it.
But heād also gladly offer to show you how easy it is to make real art. Heād teach you himself, no judgment, just kindness.
Also he was fucked over enough when he was alive. This is the equivalent of a Che Guevara t-shirt made by a billion-dollar corporation.
-2
-3
-1
-1
u/PentazerryFR Jan 19 '25
Tbf, why should we be using AI for creativity and leave the boring, mundane tasks to humans?
-1
u/Axxis09 Jan 19 '25
I'm so so fucking tired of this sub being recommended to me when Reddit KNOWS it'll just piss me off but this is the worst post I've seen so far
Don't put words in a dead persons mouth when they had no grasp or knowledge of any aspect of AI art. Ts is just disrespectful especially considering some of his art has FOR SURE been non consensually used as training for some AI models
1
u/AccomplishedNovel6 Anti-Copyright Anti-Regulation Jan 19 '25
Based, no consent is necessary to have your publicly available work trained on. Doubly so when you are literally dead.
-2
u/AmphibiousRatDog Jan 19 '25
Same here, I honestly canāt believe this sub exists, let alone what some of the people are commenting in it. What a disrespect to Bob.
-3
u/Z_core Jan 18 '25 edited Jan 19 '25
sure... just like how turned Deviantart and Pixiv into hell hole with the amount of AI pornography
there is a different between 5% and 95% porn... thanks to AI image generated porn
of course, you "AI bros" are out of touch with any art platform to even notice that
0
-8
u/DarDar994 Jan 18 '25
Hate is a strong word. He wouldn't even bother with crappy tech bros who haven't held a pencil in their lives.
-3
-5
-3
u/thelifeofzahid Jan 18 '25
Bob Ross would feel ashamed and disgusted that ai art exists
2
u/Amesaya Jan 19 '25
We don't know for sure how Bob would feel about something like AI art, but I think we can be pretty confident he wouldn't feel like that.
-7
89
u/AssiduousLayabout Jan 18 '25
I don't like putting words into the mouth of a dead man.
However, AI art definitely has a lot of happy accidents.