#Stop AI | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kimyoonmiauthor · 1 month ago

Text

Tears for Fears and AI

Back to posting about AI. Stick around and maybe you'll learn some basic copyright law and Graphic design principles about why the cover sucks. AKA why you spend the money to pay for a graphic designer at least if not a photographer/designer.

Background: So Tears for Fears released an album cover which was made by someone who "professionally uses AI"

I should note that some of the content of this post, though not copied by words, was said under the Tears for Fears post. The notes I made about composition failing and Typography, the sky, and color notes are mine. I have done my best to give credit, but I missed a few and thus have pointed out when it wasn't my own idea. 'cause stealing other people's observations would defeat the purpose of this post.

Then they have the audacity after looking at that man's Photoshop layers to call that a collage. Even though the image itself is terrible and has a lot of basic issues.

If you can't see the Photoshop layers, it's basically. Gen AI, Gen AI, Gen AI Black layer, and text layer. Gen AI background. They are calling this a collage. Oh, Masking. Oh, look, set out the guidelines for the print bleed and then botched the composition lines without a ruler.

A collage is done in fair use category in such a way that the arrangement of elements is 1. unique, 2. makes a new statement and 3. uses less than 10 percent of the total image and/or is used as a parody.

A collage actually uses design principles and juxtaposition to boost the core message of the piece being produced, not overall harms it.

This image is far from that.

BUT BUT THE CONCEPT IS ORIGINAL...

BTW, the horizon line on the helmet is correct on this one, not that AI would ever understand that. It's called perspective.

Yeah, no.

Look, most AI prompters haven't developed or challenged their creativity that much so they don't know what the hell they are doing.

And besides, look at the other Album covers. They are better composed. The AI generated one needs to be composted.

But AI was only "one of the elements used."

99%, the other percentage is the text.

OK, let's get past the point that the idea isn't new which is terrible marketing, BTW. And all of the basic ethical concerns about AI.

But the composition is decent...

Honestly, the composition makes me want to cry.

First off the horizon line should follow the rule of thirds.

Either 2/3rds sky to 1/3 middle ground. Or 2/3rds middle ground to 1/3 sky. This is almost dead center, which sets my graphic designer and photographer senses on edge. I want to swear so much. DO NOT SPLIT your composition in half unless you have a really good reason for it. And he has no reason for it. There is no "choice" between two things, your eyes doesn't need to switch, he's got absolutely no clue how to do any basic composition.

Barring that, the horizon line cuts straight through the middle of the head which looks awkward. The horizon line reflected is odd compared to the picture. See the genuine plagiarized from picture has a different horizon line? Yes, because reflections are like this.

This is purely my note.

Second the guy botched The golden mean.

Not going to explain it. But the placement of the astronaut in the larger composition is incorrect. If the helmet is the focal point, he messed it up severely. Notice that the other compositions of the same theme do not mess it up.

This is also purely my note.

The typography is horrid.

What is with the same value for the album title and the name of the band? My typography prof would have my head for that choice alone. Then you have the fact that you can't see the title at all. Remember, large contrast with small text on large space is readable. This does not do that.

I didn't realize there was a title or the name of the band on it until someone pointed it out, and then when I looked at the typography I about lost it.

The font choice is strange. The color is wrong and the margin spacing makes me cry in the print bleed.

And the tracking? What are you doing? There is a huge space between the words for "Songs for" then "a" then "Nervous Planet."

What is that? That's not a good choice.

Did you get AI to do your crappy typography too? Typography also communicates and works with, not against the image.

Uhhhghhh I could spend so much type ranting against the typography, but there are other errors to get into.

lol This is purely me, though I didn't see the type at first until it was pointed out.

The details of the space suit are wrong.

An Astronaut suit doesn't look like that.

What are you doing?

Would be faster to use a NASA Suit and then Photoshop in the reflection. You'd have to get permission, but that's not difficult.

This is purely my note. ^^;; I drew an astronaut by hand in a pixel program, so I roughly knew the one used was wrong.

The sunflowers are wrong

You know why sunflowers are called sunflowers? Oh, because they are famous for pointing every which way the sun is not? What? What?! So they will point at the ground, they will point east and west in the same photo. You know, that's why they are called effing sunflowers. What? What do you mean that makes no sense?

The AI genned photo versus the genuine one he copied and plagiarized from, see the difference? Oh My! The sunflowers are lined up in the same direction, as if they are pointed towards the what? The sun! Maybe that's why they are called effing sunflowers.

See, a human out in the world can experience sunflowers and see them throughout the day to know they are going to what? Always point towards the sun.

This was pointed out by someone else on the posts. But damned brilliant. The words are mine.

The clouds are wrong

I learned this in geography class, but there are cloud types for different levels of the atmosphere. Cumulus clouds are more likely to hang lower. Do you see the problem yet?

Also the clouds look too similar and the same.

Compare the images of the AI genned and the one he plagiarized from.

See, there is actual ranking to the clouds which also gives it depth. (Plus the earth in the background is pretty cool since it ranks the background int a secondary background. Did you learn about perspective? No?)

This is purely me.

The green nurple?

AI made a mistake with the sunflowers trying to twist the nipples of the suit? What?

If the guy could paint, it's an easy fix, but he can't paint so he leaves that mess there?

This was pointed out by someone else. Finding the origin of this turned out to be difficult since it was copy-pasted by different people.

The color scheme isn't my favorite.

My personal thing, but the colors feel off to me as if the guy has never met a color wheel before. I would wholly be tempted to force primary triadic especially since he wants to make the type red, though the shades of blue and yellow feel "off" to me compared to the genuinely made ones. I want more depth to the color ranges.

To show what I mean, the basics of color are usually saturation, hue, and brightness.

Ideally you want three shades of the same color for what are called highlights, midtones, and darks.

See, this, feels rich in color even though it's only bichromatic.

This is a genuine cumulus cloud formation.

The reason for the feeling of DEPTH is simply because there is a midtone blue, a dark saturated blue and then a different, but similar lighter, less saturated blue on the opposite end, but not on the direct diagonal. AND it comes to a logical horizon.

Does the AI genned image understand that and how light reacts? No, it does not.

This makes the image feel lifeless and flat, without purpose to do so. It doesn't add to the words "Planet" or "Nervous"

When a golden mean diagram has better understanding of gradients than your AI genned horizon which totally does not understand how a horizon line works, that's when you know you've been scammed.

Look at the horizon line on the genuine sky? !@#$. Do you see the issue yet compared to the genned AI image. Yes, yes. I know you see it.

!@#$.

When you remove say the midtones, it's an artistic choice, but in doing so, you have to really make it carefully or you eff the whole piece. The choices we make as graphic designers are purposeful, thought out and composed and then pushed into the art piece. Why? We have some semblance of how people think because we are humans.

This is purely me. I really hate the color scheme here. It's off. This is purely graphic design training on my part.

Ethical Concerns

"Songs for a nervous planet"

Sounds environmental until you know that gen ai machines eat a TON of electricity, thus power, thus pollute the planet, and create more heat and also contribute to global warming. They also drain the power grid as well and don't use the amount of sustainable energy as they say they do.

I suppose Boomers no longer care about the planet?

Been floating around for a while. I didn't originally find it, but you can see MIT here.

Plagiarism

The concept isn't new. The art is all stolen, but not done correctly anyway. The basis of gen AI is stolen. (Credited already).

Why are we here anyway? Oh yeah, some tech bros who knew nothing about art decided to collectively steal everyone's work without their permission and then try to undercut the artists until the artist put up protections against them, and now the tech bros are crying, but we need to force you to give up your material without an opt out option so we can feed our AI machine to undercut you with degenerate and substandard creations that don't understand the fundamentals of what it is like to be a human being because their AI is a simulacrum of humanness rather than an experience or a collective experience of humanness.

Clearly I side with Althusser on this one.

Anyway, the law from what I know (not a lawyer) says that art is fair use if it only uses 10% or is public domain. the majority of NASA images are public domain, it wasn't that hard to find a picture of an astronaut, make sure it was fair domain. What is hard for this prompter--not artist is that they clearly, clearly do not know the basics of life and graphic design if they think the final image is "good".

The problem here is that AI is based 100% on stolen art and 0% on personal life experiences. And the last part is what it makes it art and I would argue copyrightable.

Conclusion

What graphic design artists and artists do, etc is give you that feeling of the more you stare at it, the more satisfied you feel about the emotions it's trying to give you because those little details start to stick out at you, such as the energy or precision of the brush strokes, even in digital art. Or the amount of time you have to know that person spent

on something minute such as the tick on where the clock hand should go, or how the 6 is just a tiny bit off compared to the perspective on this piece.

This painting rewards you the more you stare at it. The closer you are to it since I've seen it in real life and would keep spotting more and more every time. That little rock behind what looks like a dead tree or branch, the hollowness of the tree, the indefinite shoreline of water, the water itself alluding to memory and of the mind. The way the horizon isn't quite precise, but that's a purposeful suggestion to suck you in. Each precision speaks to you until an emotion washes over you and then the next little detail sticks out at you and keeps pulling you ever in.

Gen AI makes you recoil every time you look at the details. You're left with asking about intention and then you have none. AI does not care about the details. It has not breathed or lived a full life.

Art not only delivers a point of view to the viewer, but graphic design also delivers a type of psychology that cannot be replicated by someone whose never lived and breathed, needed to eat, go to the bathroom, never experienced a field of flowers brushing past your hands, never seen a beach, never laughed when they saw someone botch taking photography of a beach, never cried over loss or extreme happiness and never dreamed. These are points of view. This is what art allows us to tap into fundamentally and this is why AI ultimately is flat. There is no surface to delve into. The surface is flat. And the details make you hate the art, rather than make you think or feel, and who wants art like that?

!@#$ I tested AI once and it couldn't figure out how to get out of the subway station. What makes you think it can make one effectively?

For those artists out there, don't use AI. Who wants to eat chocolate chip cookies that are ooey gooey inside, hot from the oven only to find out that there are egg shells inside, lumps of salt, not well sifted sugar, lumps of baking soda, and find out that the chocolate chips are melting plastic. To me, that is in essence AI. Looks good until you try to consume it and then you try not to cry for the next 20 minutes, not from overwhelming emotion of something great or something that made you happy, but that you're not rewarded but rather disappointed by the reality of the situation. Where is the final kick of detail that connects you to your audience and the understanding of what it really means to be a human being with a perspective on life? And that's why AI can't do art.

#respect artists #AI sucks #stop AI #fuck ai everything #tears for fears #album cover #graphic design

5 notes · View notes