AI generated art

[zzles]

I join you, but with less concerns.

AIs will only become a threat only for artists that rely only on stand alone creations. Yes, one day an AI will probably be able to do paintings like, hmm let's say

You must be registered to see the links

. But it's only his paintings that the AI will be able to mimic, not his comics. Not because an AI will never be able to write a story, but it will always lack the constancy needed to illustrate it.

Single images can tell a story. Although most artists, it appears, don't utilize that much. Must be because their imagination is lacking in that regard, unlike a writer's. They make abstract backgrounds, despite they being vital for story-telling. (Just imagine a photo of a person in a certain place; what it tells.) And takes more skill to make the characters express themselves precisely...

Someone mentioned they've difficulty getting off to a single image. In my case, having consumed so much fictional porn and having a developed imagination, I'm finding images that fit a certain fantasy I'm interested in to be more stimulating than some video or a comic. Normally, the images aren't precisely what I'm looking for, so I don't even look at them much, but more to kindle the imagination or fool the mind more effectively.

From what I have seen, AI art is good for making hyper-realistic illustrations--which isn't worth it for artists to do since a single piece may take tens of hours instead of only some hours.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[anne O'nymous]

Single images can tell a story.

Yes, but the point you're answering too was that an illustrated story need constancy in its illustrations, not that the said illustrations can't convey a big part of the story.

Although most artists, it appears, don't utilize that much.

Artists constantly utilize this. It's adult game illustrators doing it who are too few.

Someone mentioned they've difficulty getting off to a single image.

Well, I join that person. A single image is missing what's more important in sex, and therefore in pleasure, both the reciprocity and the feeling you have for the character. It's something that can only come from a story.
A single image can turn you on, making you hard as a rock, but all you'll get is nothing like what pleasure is. You want her and act out of it, while possibly imagining that she want you too. But it's focused on your pleasure, while there's so much to gain from hers.
Images and porn provide a release, stories and sex provide an orgasm.

 

[zzles]

Yes, but the point you're answering too was that an illustrated story need constancy in its illustrations, not that the said illustrations can't convey a big part of the story.




Artists constantly utilize this. It's adult game illustrators doing it who are too few.




Well, I join that person. A single image is missing what's more important in sex, and therefore in pleasure, both the reciprocity and the feeling you have for the character. It's something that can only come from a story.
A single image can turn you on, making you hard as a rock, but all you'll get is nothing like what pleasure is. You want her and act out of it, while possibly imagining that she want you too. But it's focused on your pleasure, while there's so much to gain from hers.
Images and porn provide a release, stories and sex provide an orgasm.

I meant that artists who can tell a story well aren't threatened in your reasoning. At least, for the people who can imagine enough.

Seems that I forgot about traditional artists and such since they seem pretty irrelevant on the internet, since we normally only see digital art from animations, game and porn (and comics).

The thing is that I can imagine enough from a single image. The characters' appearance and attitude can tell enough. And the more you tell of a character, the more you define it, thus the more you specify and the less you leave to the imagination, which makes it harder for the character to fit someone's preference... unless they're a popular archetype.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I meant that artists who can tell a story well aren't threatened in your reasoning.

My reasoning is, explicitly, that no artist is threatened before few decades, if even they are effectively threatened...

"AIs will only become a threat only for artists that rely only on stand alone creations. Yes, one day an AI will probably be able to do paintings like, hmm let's say Enki Bilal. But it's only his paintings that the AI will be able to mimic, not his comics."
One day (so not now) AIs will probably (so it's not sure) be able to generate single images that convey a story, but they'll still not be able to generate a series of images that convey a story, both by themselves and through the said series of images.

At least, for the people who can imagine enough.

It's not a question of personal imagination capabilities.

Someone who only rely on his imagination will invent the meaning of the image, especially when there's none. But artists don't want you to imagine what you want them to say through their creation, they want you to feel what they expressed through it. It's with our empathy that we read an image and understand its meaning.
And it's precisely why AIs are still, and will probably always stay, limited. To some extend, because the word is here abused, AIs can already imagine. But they don't feel, and therefore aren't able of the mandatory empathy needed to convey something through their creations.

AIs will, and in fact already can, replace illustrators who address the masses. Not because the majority don't have empathy, but because we are over saturated by images and self-learned to not try to read them ; an illustration is nothing more than an illustration, if it's supposed to carry something, we don't care.
But they cannot, and perhaps will never be able to, be an artist. And, anyway, if one day AIs are in capacity to feel empathy, it's not for the artists that I will fear.

The thing is that I can imagine enough from a single image. The characters' appearance and attitude can tell enough.

If you imagine, then the appearance and attitude tell you nothing, it's your imagination that is talking, not them.

And the more you tell of a character, the more you define it, thus the more you specify and the less you leave to the imagination, which makes it harder for the character to fit someone's preference...

And so, as I said above, it's not the drawing that is talking to you. You are in a pure monologue between you and yourself. At no time you are caring about what the image is, the only thing that interest you is what you want it to be.

The more you define a character, the more you call to the player/reader empathy, making him feel something for that character, from love to hate, passing by pure disdain or disinterest. Then, the less you are supposed to leave place to his imagination, because letting him imagine what the character is goes against the interest of the story you are telling.

 

[zzles]

My reasoning is, explicitly, that no artist is threatened before few decades, if even they are effectively threatened...

"AIs will only become a threat only for artists that rely only on stand alone creations. Yes, one day an AI will probably be able to do paintings like, hmm let's say Enki Bilal. But it's only his paintings that the AI will be able to mimic, not his comics."
One day (so not now) AIs will probably (so it's not sure) be able to generate single images that convey a story, but they'll still not be able to generate a series of images that convey a story, both by themselves and through the said series of images.




It's not a question of personal imagination capabilities.

Someone who only rely on his imagination will invent the meaning of the image, especially when there's none. But artists don't want you to imagine what you want them to say through their creation, they want you to feel what they expressed through it. It's with our empathy that we read an image and understand its meaning.
And it's precisely why AIs are still, and will probably always stay, limited. To some extend, because the word is here abused, AIs can already imagine. But they don't feel, and therefore aren't able of the mandatory empathy needed to convey something through their creations.

AIs will, and in fact already can, replace illustrators who address the masses. Not because the majority don't have empathy, but because we are over saturated by images and self-learned to not try to read them ; an illustration is nothing more than an illustration, if it's supposed to carry something, we don't care.
But they cannot, and perhaps will never be able to, be an artist. And, anyway, if one day AIs are in capacity to feel empathy, it's not for the artists that I will fear.




If you imagine, then the appearance and attitude tell you nothing, it's your imagination that is talking, not them.




And so, as I said above, it's not the drawing that is talking to you. You are in a pure monologue between you and yourself. At no time you are caring about what the image is, the only thing that interest you is what you want it to be.

The more you define a character, the more you call to the player/reader empathy, making him feel something for that character, from love to hate, passing by pure disdain or disinterest. Then, the less you are supposed to leave place to his imagination, because letting him imagine what the character is goes against the interest of the story you are telling.

Artists, coders and other major occupations being threated to a high degree will be interesting to see in that, personally, it'll expose how this world isn't special, but anything may change/cease to matter. Just like just life happened by chance.
Humans just letting that happen will be another thing adding to the embarrassment of our incompetency.


Artists don't necessarily want you to precisely understand their creations. Their products are meant for recreation, anyway--they're not serious. What's vital is engagement. Their creations evoking wonder is enough.


They may replace low-skill illustrators, which seems natural to me, something deterministic (most of them can't even make a living out of their art). Those illustrators and even higher-skill ones--most of them, from the popular mediums--don't tell stories well. (In many cases, they lack the opportunity to even do so, because their medium limits them.) People must've naturally learned not to pay much attention to the artworks.
But another main reason is the lack of relevancy of most artworks. Some random character in some random background... should we prioritize paying much attention to them? If they're not tied to some popular (relevant) story or we aren't following its creator closely, etc.

Something to keep in mind is that not every artwork is art. Not every illustration is artistic enough to be considered art. People enjoy saying that any drawing is art (almost like virtue-signaling), but that's inaccurate. There are degrees of artistry. A simple illustration of a person may just be a blurred or stylized picture. Realism art normally has a lower degree of artistry than conceptual art.


What the appearance and attitude tells will be partially used in the fantasy.

I understand what the image is telling, but normally it will not be telling precisely what I prefer or seek at the moment, which is inevitable for someone with a more developed imagination. (Will a chef appreciate any meal?)

 

[anne O'nymous]

Artists, coders and other major occupations being threated to a high degree will be interesting to see in that, personally, it'll expose how this world isn't special, but anything may change/cease to matter.

What, like I said, will not happen before decades, if even it happen on day... And it was mostly your point three posts ago...

They may replace low-skill illustrators, which seems natural to me, something deterministic (most of them can't even make a living out of their art).

Artists and illustrators aren't the same. It's artists who can't really make a living from their creation. Illustrators have way less problem because, as I said, nowadays illustrations are everywhere. This while it's illustrators who are, more or less, threatened by AI, not artists.

Those illustrators and even higher-skill ones--most of them, from the popular mediums--don't tell stories well. (In many cases, they lack the opportunity to even do so, because their medium limits them.) People must've naturally learned not to pay much attention to the artworks.

Thanks for agreeing with me...
"[...] we are over saturated by images and self-learned to not try to read them ; an illustration is nothing more than an illustration, if it's supposed to carry something, we don't care."

Something to keep in mind is that not every artwork is art.

What is exactly what I said, twice.

People enjoy saying that any drawing is art [...]

You repeat yourself, again agreeing with what I said (and quoted above).

I understand what the image is telling, but normally it will not be telling precisely what I prefer or seek at the moment, which is inevitable for someone with a more developed imagination.

Is imagination the new IQ ?
But well, anyway it goes for one like it goes for the other, they both are irrelevant factors. It need more imagination to believe that Earth is controlled by reptilians, who live since millions years under the surface, and who disguise themselves into humans, doing all this unnoticed except by a really small minority, than to see something in an illustration that, like it's the case for most illustrations, convey no meanings.
In the end, it's not different from pareidolia. It's a nice addition to ones capabilities, but a relatively useless one, and for some, like clinical paranoids by example, a handicap.

This being said, it's funny how you achieved to explain why stories are better than single image. The instant you accept that not all stories are interesting, and therefore only care to "follow", the ones that match your mood, the story itself will give you what you are seeking for. Then, there's no need to rely on imagination to invent your own story over a single image.

(Will a chef appreciate any meal?)

He will appreciate the making process, and his appreciation will not necessarily be positive.

 

[zzles]

Is imagination the new IQ ?
But well, anyway it goes for one like it goes for the other, they both are irrelevant factors. It need more imagination to believe that Earth is controlled by reptilians, who live since millions years under the surface, and who disguise themselves into humans, doing all this unnoticed except by a really small minority, than to see something in an illustration that, like it's the case for most illustrations, convey no meanings.
In the end, it's not different from pareidolia. It's a nice addition to ones capabilities, but a relatively useless one, and for some, like clinical paranoids by example, a handicap.

This being said, it's funny how you achieved to explain why stories are better than single image. The instant you accept that not all stories are interesting, and therefore only care to "follow", the ones that match your mood, the story itself will give you what you are seeking for. Then, there's no need to rely on imagination to invent your own story over a single image.




He will appreciate the making process, and his appreciation will not necessarily be positive.

Seems like we've quite different understandings of 'imagination'. Check what the wikipedia tells about it. "Imagination is the production of

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

and

You must be registered to see the links

informing

You must be registered to see the links

.

You must be registered to see the links

These experiences can be re-creations of past experiences, such as vivid memories with imagined changes, or completely invented and possibly fantastic scenes."

Kim Jung Gi had a trained, great imagination... for realistic stuff. He was said to have a "library of images". Thus, he was able to draw a lot of (realistic) stuff from imagination (without reference). He could draw some car's engine (free-hand), despite its complexity. More practiced artists, like him, can rely much less on the fundamentals of drawing--they don't have to measure their backgrounds with some ruler, use vanishing points and more complex perspective methods, etc., which is advantageous mainly for saving time.

Imagination is vital for artists. Without it, Naruto, One Piece, Dragon Ball wouldn't be a thing.

Not how it works for me. Things interest us because we've what to learn from them, and because we believe that what we've to learn is useful. There are thousands of manga that don't interest me since they're mostly derivations and/or don't fit my preferences.


That's if he has no choice. Time is limited and persons have preferences.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Seems like we've quite different understandings of 'imagination'.

At no time is there something in what I said that define, or can be seen as defining, what "imagination" is. So, what are you answering to exactly ?
Or should I ask you what you've read, since it's, like for all your post in this thread, not what I wrote ?


My point was relatively explicit: Claiming to have more imagination than the average, like you're doing in all your posts, is as useless and ridiculous as claiming to have an higher IQ than the average.
It don't turn you into a figure of authority, nor did it present you under a better light. And, of course, at no time did it imply that you're more surely right than anyone else.

In some, relatively limited, cases one or the other can come handy, presenting an advantage for the person who benefit from it. But here it wasn't one of those cases. You weren't talking about creators, who effectively would benefit from a high imagination, you were talking about you as spectator. And, obviously, it's to this that I was answering...

There are thousands of manga that don't interest me since they're mostly derivations and/or don't fit my preferences.

Sorry to be the one breaking the news, but it's exactly the same for every single human being that lived, live, or will live.

But the funny part is that this precise sentence disprove your claim regarding your high imagination. Would you effectively have one, you wouldn't care if it's a derivation, and not necessarily care if it was effectively fitting your preferences, as long as it don't fall in what you dislike. Your imagination acting as a filter, the pink glasses making you see everything differently from how it was served to you ; making then the story fit your preference, because directly tweaked in your mind, and by your imagination, for this to happen.

In top of that, you also wouldn't care because it would be fuel for your imagination. Whatever how small a variation could be, it would be the key that open a whole new world in your mind ; "Oh ! So, just changing this have so much implication...". Each derivation would then nurture your imagination, helping it to grow even bigger and to come up, all by itself, with even more variations and their endless possibilities.
And of course, it's by being confronted to novelty, being put outside of your comfort zone, that you've the most to learn when it come to your own imagination. This too open new worlds of wonders, nurturing the imagination more than all possible variations that can take place in the limited space of one's preferences.

 

[zzles]

At no time is there something in what I said that define, or can be seen as defining, what "imagination" is. So, what are you answering to exactly ?
Or should I ask you what you've read, since it's, like for all your post in this thread, not what I wrote ?


My point was relatively explicit: Claiming to have more imagination than the average, like you're doing in all your posts, is as useless and ridiculous as claiming to have an higher IQ than the average.
It don't turn you into a figure of authority, nor did it present you under a better light. And, of course, at no time did it imply that you're more surely right than anyone else.

In some, relatively limited, cases one or the other can come handy, presenting an advantage for the person who benefit from it. But here it wasn't one of those cases. You weren't talking about creators, who effectively would benefit from a high imagination, you were talking about you as spectator. And, obviously, it's to this that I was answering...




Sorry to be the one breaking the news, but it's exactly the same for every single human being that lived, live, or will live.

But the funny part is that this precise sentence disprove your claim regarding your high imagination. Would you effectively have one, you wouldn't care if it's a derivation, and not necessarily care if it was effectively fitting your preferences, as long as it don't fall in what you dislike. Your imagination acting as a filter, the pink glasses making you see everything differently from how it was served to you ; making then the story fit your preference, because directly tweaked in your mind, and by your imagination, for this to happen.

In top of that, you also wouldn't care because it would be fuel for your imagination. Whatever how small a variation could be, it would be the key that open a whole new world in your mind ; "Oh ! So, just changing this have so much implication...". Each derivation would then nurture your imagination, helping it to grow even bigger and to come up, all by itself, with even more variations and their endless possibilities.
And of course, it's by being confronted to novelty, being put outside of your comfort zone, that you've the most to learn when it come to your own imagination. This too open new worlds of wonders, nurturing the imagination more than all possible variations that can take place in the limited space of one's preferences.

Imagination stems from knowledge. The more one has perceived, the more one can imagine. Not hard to imagine how it can be useful IRL for non-creators.
It does make one more of an authority in subjects one's familiar with. I myself have criticized, for instance, the work of game developers, have suggested changes. I did it casually but it helped improve a few games.


Ahem. While reading manga or watching something, we are focused, therefore we don't have time to imagine. I may stop at a panel I find interesting and imagine something out of it, but that's it.

It's inefficient and unenjoyable to go through so many chapters of a story, most of it being uninteresting, for the hope of finding something interesting... And, again, time is limited. (And normally we can get glimpses of what the story will be about.)

 

[XcentY]

This is becoming crazy

You must be registered to see the links