#also once again why are ai held to a different standard than actual creative professionals

[do-you-have-a-flag]

there is a lot to say about the ethical problems and blandness of AI art but also just as someone who likes digital art because it’s low maintenance low cost to pursue, i think that it’s INCREDIBLY BORING to look at ai art because the creative process is lost

like people might gripe that digital art isn’t “real” art because of the difference in craft 

but ultimately i think each individual artist shapes their workflow to suit their needs and some people are able to do a lot of design work using presets and filters and photo-bashing and generative tools in ways that are creative and using a process that takes thought and problem solving

and personally i like the process of high effort art in traditional mediums and that reflects in my digital drawings, i love painting to render texture and light to an image for example, while i do use brushes and other tools overall i think the actual act is soothing and fun

and i think the creative collaboration when working with someone else’s prompts (a process that can be immensely frustrating when one-sided) is also a valuable experience as people can ask questions and negotiate concepts you might not have thought of on your own. the immediacy of output with ai, the way it flattens composition to the most common plagiarised components, it’s fun as a what if or a starting  point but it is a creatively incomplete endeavour specifically because the ai is communicating nothing and the person creating the prompt is almost entirely removed from the creative process. one sided intentionality without the meat of creation

ALSO for contrast i was thinking about the tradition of fractal art/fractal flames dating back to the 80s but more specifically being boosted in popularity alongside the world wide web thanks to one person’s algorithm in 1992. that guy now works in AI generation but back in the 90s he created an open source code that took mathematical iteration and translated it into graphics in common software applications that anyone could use. as a result i saw so many cool abstract almost mandala-like spacey images in the 2000s on deviantart and people are still making them today. it’s an artform that can only be successfully executed thanks to computers, it i complex in the process of execution but thanks to computers the process of creation is quick and seperate from human effort, the output is also very nice to look at. 

Why do i like this form of generative computer art and not so called a.i?  Because the algorithm for fractal art is pure mathematics translated into imagery, while generative a.i/neural networks datasets inherently require an input of other people’s work. a process that requires ethical consideration in ways that mathematical inputs do not. both use data to create images but what do they feed on? how are they applied? does their implementation say anything about their process or output? 

because as far as i see it, technology is neutral and usage is where the good and bad emerge, the process of generative images is a marvel of technology and how we as people love to create. but the way that these tools synthesise what they are given is a process so seperate from the people inputing prompts i really feel like it’s people losing the most fun parts of art (emotion, communication, and participation) and receiving the worst results of commodification of art (plagiarism, formulaic content, aesthetic cowardice, narrow perspectives, exploitation)