Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
AI is faster, it's not more powerful. It can't draw multiple people that look like people and can't draw hands with the correct number of fingers.
I believe most countries historically reliant on mass production would not be happy with the idea of a machine able to depict theoretically anything being available to anyone.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
look at it! look! with your eyes!! it sucks. all of it sucks! it's all bad. the art itself just looks bad because the program doesn't know what the fuck it's doing. That's how I make a value judgment about it.
Dont know how to explain to someone that art made by people is more importsnt than images spat out by an algorithm. Just a fundamental failure to regard art as anything than ooh cool jpg.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Yes youre specifically only thinking about the few artists who survive this. Thats the problem.
Dont know how to explain to someone that art made by people is more importsnt than images spat out by an algorithm. Just a fundamental failure to regard art as anything than ooh cool jpg.
It's kind of like the stance some people have - and maybe it's rude to bring this up because I know that one of the people who would say this is banned from the thread and so can't speak for themselves - that say for example, they were disabled, and now they can finally make art.
And it's like, no, that's not, that's not what it is. You can replicate pictures you see elsewhere. You could always "make art". Art is so many things. If your concern is the ability to create, and you believe you couldn't do it before...you don't like creating.
There's no such thing as "artistic talent". There's just the ability to take pleasure in the period of time between starting something and ending something.
Anyway that's not much to do with the current topic which is a failure to understand the cultural impact of obliterating ground-level positions in an entire industry.
I'd say their definition of art is valid as any other
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not familiar enough with how the technology actually generates its images.
It sounds like you guys are saying that AI Art is literally an elaborate collage of existing works.
Otherwise I'm not sure how it differs from a human who just studies another person's style and copies it to create their own unique works.
Because a human is bringing their own experiences, emotions, and intentions when studying and incorporating another person's style.
An AI understands none of these things, has no interest in them, and the people creating these "tools" are the exact same.
And yes, AI art is literally just an elaborate collage, because it can't be anything other than that. It can only create content by cutting up and recombining materials that have been fed to it, the vast majority of which have been collected either without the artist's knowledge or explicitly against their wishes.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
You're discounting the effects and importance of the thing that is already happening (non-creative people carelessly throwing together some AI art, which is devaluing actual artists' work even if it is inferior) in favor of something that is completely theoretical and which we have no reason to believe will happen (artists will remain the primary drivers of output, rather than being relegated to "editors" who are paid a fraction of their current value to fix the drivel shit out by the AI).
Like you are just so removed from where we're actually at and living in a fantasy land of your own creation, it's baffling.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
2+2 = 4, and a perfect circle is a perfect circle. Art is not entirely objective, but it's not entirely subjective either. Objective issues are problems that can be figured out dispassionately, but subjective issues can't be. Computers can indeed solve many issues with art, but not all of them. Currently.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
My chat program can produce a sentence that is readable and has a passable subject connection to the prompt. Obviously this makes what it does the same as a novelist.
2+2 = 4, and a perfect circle is a perfect circle. Art is not entirely objective, but it's not entirely subjective either. Objective issues are problems that can be figured out dispassionately, but subjective issues can't be. Computers can indeed solve many issues with art, but not all of them. Currently.
There is no problem in art that is going to be solved by a guy with a trust fund and some vc money.
My chat program can produce a sentence that is readable and has a passable subject connection to the prompt. Obviously this makes what it does the same as a novelist.
2+2 = 4, and a perfect circle is a perfect circle. Art is not entirely objective, but it's not entirely subjective either. Objective issues are problems that can be figured out dispassionately, but subjective issues can't be. Computers can indeed solve many issues with art, but not all of them. Currently.
There is no problem in art that is going to be solved by a guy with a trust fund and some vc money.
Unless this person becomes an artist.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
2+2 = 4, and a perfect circle is a perfect circle. Art is not entirely objective, but it's not entirely subjective either. Objective issues are problems that can be figured out dispassionately, but subjective issues can't be. Computers can indeed solve many issues with art, but not all of them. Currently.
The parts that are objective are unrelated to the parts that make things art. Art, as a concept, is inherently subjective. Whether someone can draw a perfect circle has zero to do with their artistic merit. You're doing that thing where you talk like a chat program again.
if i record a copy of star wars onto another vhs tape, what's the difference between that and filming my own movie. they're different products. there's all this artifacting and damage.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and also one of the saddest. The cultural output of a country being greater or more significant because they can do more, faster, is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. it misses the point of art completely.
You are making a value judgment that art produced with the assistance of AI is somehow worse, "sadder", than art drawn by hand. Why would that be the case? AI is a tool. Those countries have artists too, they're just using much more powerful tools than us.
AI is faster, it's not more powerful. It can't draw multiple people that look like people and can't draw hands with the correct number of fingers.
Maybe we're the ones with the wrong number of fingers.
*Rapidly developing AI based body image issues, saving up money for the add 100 extra teeth surgery*
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
Every draft was drawn by the AI. Youre not the artist here, you're the client. You're describing what a client does. You say what you want changed and someone else or something else does itnfor you.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
I can't continue any discussion with you until you define all your terms, because you've made it clear that you're operating on a separate plane of reality from the rest of us.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
Every draft was drawn by the AI. Youre not the artist here, you're the client. You're describing what a client does. You say what you want changed and someone else or something else does itnfor you.
It's really fun to do my best impression of an AI and swap out some words in existing text
"If I spend hours giving notes to a writer to make a script meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that script is something I carefully adjusted to read right to me. But none of it counts as mine because the drafts were written by a writer?"
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Okay then followup
What are you envisioning this artist doing in these weeks or days where they're not working on their art
this is one of those topics where i feel like after every ten posts if a person who has made money as an artist hasn't posted the thread locks until they post. topic that attracts a lot of "here's what i IMAGINE life is like for someone else, based on nothing"
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
If you did this exact same process with a human artist, would you consider yourself the artist of that piece?
No, of course not, because that wouldn't make any sense. It's no different with an AI, except the AI was only able to do it because of all the art they stole and also the AI doesn't have any actual understanding of what you are actually trying to achieve (hence having to futz with it for hours).
This is not a creative process - it's a black box toy built on creative bankruptcy.
also a topic that tends to fixate on "let's imagine and debate some theoretical future use" rather than the tangible today of an algorithm that has been fed artwork by people who not only did not consent, but who in many cases actively and directly nonconsented, an algorithm filled with people who use phrases like "trending on artstation" and "in the style of [artist]" to generate works, who copy the art of a dead woman who said "please don't put my work into an algorithm" and sell it for their financial gain
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Do you know why it can do that in hours and not days or weeks? Because it's directly stealing the work of thousands and thousands of individuals who have spent days or weeks putting in the actual work.
Like jesus christ you really are clueless on all aspects of art beyond "I want pretty picture fast and for free, I want to be respected for the work I didn't do myself, and I don't care who was actually harmed in the process."
edit: dammit this thread got me again, back to casual browsing instead of engaging with someone who, once again, refuses to understand any part of what he's trying to argue for/against.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Okay then followup
What are you envisioning this artist doing in these weeks or days where they're not working on their art
What is your end goal for saving this time
More art? I see no reason for them to stop unless we have hit a complete saturation point of how much art our society needs. Same for every other industry. In which case, I guess we just shorten our work days.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Okay then followup
What are you envisioning this artist doing in these weeks or days where they're not working on their art
What is your end goal for saving this time
More art? I see no reason for them to stop unless we have hit a complete saturation point of how much art our society needs. Same for every other industry. In which case, I guess we just shorten our work days.
At the end of the day, Algorithm art only exists on the back of being fed copious quantities of existing imagery for it to shred and remix.
You aren't making anything, you're stuffing the Lourve into a blender, hitting pure and pouring out the pured remains until you find something that looks like a piece of art.
Seriously, I cannot fucking get past how people want to ignore the art theft part of this! Even creative Commons/free use etc dosen't solve this, because the person who decides to ignore those ethical constraints has a bigger (and thus, because of how algorithmic stuff works at least to my understanding, better) pool of data to draw on for their remixing.
Creativity, art, it's just work. It's long bloody painful frustrating work that often goes nowhere and there's no shortcuts for it, because it's a skill like everything else and you actually have to train it, work at it etc, someone isn't just magically born creative.
Let's say US lawmakers outlaw AI generated art. What about the other countries that are using it to the fullest? Nothing that we produce would be competitive. Our cultural output would be insignificant next to theirs. It would be like if we were writing books by hand while other countries had the printing press. Would we also outlaw the consumption of their work?
I'm going to ask you to think really hard about this analogy you just made.
Can you spot why it's flawed?
Rhetorical question, of course. A book, whether copied by hand or copied by printing press, is still originally written by a human with conscious, deliberate process undertaken in the creation of the work.
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
This is entirely removed from any philosophical debate about how one defines "art."
Algorithmic proponents have taken a liking to acting like all technology throughout human history is somehow comparable and equivalent, but that falls apart under pretty basic scrutiny, as above.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Okay then followup
What are you envisioning this artist doing in these weeks or days where they're not working on their art
What is your end goal for saving this time
More art? I see no reason for them to stop unless we have hit a complete saturation point of how much art our society needs. Same for every other industry. In which case, I guess we just shorten our work days.
again, how many actual artists have you talked to about any of this? I don't mean "tried to convince of my own viewpoint while ignoring anything they say" but actually asking questions and giving any weight or respect to their answers?
this is a rhetorical question, we all know the answer is zero.
"i guess we just shorten our work days" is such a farcical statement that it can only be perceived as genuine delusion about capitalism or insincere mockery
Posts
AI is faster, it's not more powerful. It can't draw multiple people that look like people and can't draw hands with the correct number of fingers.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
look at it! look! with your eyes!! it sucks. all of it sucks! it's all bad. the art itself just looks bad because the program doesn't know what the fuck it's doing. That's how I make a value judgment about it.
Where we disagree is that you are thinking of an AI that replaces an artist wholesale, creativity and all, and I am thinking of an artist who uses AI as a productivity tool to replace the labor of putting pen to paper. It was the artist who had the idea, who carefully refined the result until it fit exactly what they had in mind. Is the result no longer art because the artist did not physically draw it?
Sure, there will be non-creative people who carelessly throw together some AI art and call it a day. The result of that should be recognized as inferior compared to things that are created with more care.
Yes youre specifically only thinking about the few artists who survive this. Thats the problem.
It's kind of like the stance some people have - and maybe it's rude to bring this up because I know that one of the people who would say this is banned from the thread and so can't speak for themselves - that say for example, they were disabled, and now they can finally make art.
And it's like, no, that's not, that's not what it is. You can replicate pictures you see elsewhere. You could always "make art". Art is so many things. If your concern is the ability to create, and you believe you couldn't do it before...you don't like creating.
There's no such thing as "artistic talent". There's just the ability to take pleasure in the period of time between starting something and ending something.
Anyway that's not much to do with the current topic which is a failure to understand the cultural impact of obliterating ground-level positions in an entire industry.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It sounds like you guys are saying that AI Art is literally an elaborate collage of existing works.
Otherwise I'm not sure how it differs from a human who just studies another person's style and copies it to create their own unique works.
Are you a computer algorithm?
Because a human is bringing their own experiences, emotions, and intentions when studying and incorporating another person's style.
An AI understands none of these things, has no interest in them, and the people creating these "tools" are the exact same.
And yes, AI art is literally just an elaborate collage, because it can't be anything other than that. It can only create content by cutting up and recombining materials that have been fed to it, the vast majority of which have been collected either without the artist's knowledge or explicitly against their wishes.
You're discounting the effects and importance of the thing that is already happening (non-creative people carelessly throwing together some AI art, which is devaluing actual artists' work even if it is inferior) in favor of something that is completely theoretical and which we have no reason to believe will happen (artists will remain the primary drivers of output, rather than being relegated to "editors" who are paid a fraction of their current value to fix the drivel shit out by the AI).
Like you are just so removed from where we're actually at and living in a fantasy land of your own creation, it's baffling.
Typing prompts into an algorithm doesn't make someone an artist. You didn't make the image. The algorithm made the image. And the algorithm is built off the creativity and labor of people who actually put pen to paper.
I repeat:
A work deliberately made by a human being is fundamentally different than a work generated unthinkingly by an algorithm, following opaque processes that are inscrutable and unexplainable.
You have some grave misunderstandings about art, artists, the process of creation, and how one finds value in the creative process, if you think that automating this shit "as a productivity tool" makes for better art.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There is no problem in art that is going to be solved by a guy with a trust fund and some vc money.
Unless this person becomes an artist.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The parts that are objective are unrelated to the parts that make things art. Art, as a concept, is inherently subjective. Whether someone can draw a perfect circle has zero to do with their artistic merit. You're doing that thing where you talk like a chat program again.
If I spend hours iterating on something the AI generated to make it meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that image is something I carefully adjusted to look right. But none of it counts because the first draft was drawn by an AI?
Maybe we're the ones with the wrong number of fingers.
*Rapidly developing AI based body image issues, saving up money for the add 100 extra teeth surgery*
Every draft was drawn by the AI. Youre not the artist here, you're the client. You're describing what a client does. You say what you want changed and someone else or something else does itnfor you.
I can't continue any discussion with you until you define all your terms, because you've made it clear that you're operating on a separate plane of reality from the rest of us.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So like... then why start with the AI
Like, give me your best case scenario here right, someone uses an AI to do in minutes what they could do in hours, right
Then spends those hours fucking with the AI to fix its errors
What was gained by starting with the AI instead of doing it from scratch
It's really fun to do my best impression of an AI and swap out some words in existing text
"If I spend hours giving notes to a writer to make a script meet my own standards, is that not a creative process? It wouldn't have been possible without my own human creativity and imagination. Every detail of that script is something I carefully adjusted to read right to me. But none of it counts as mine because the drafts were written by a writer?"
Because what it can do in that time is not the work of hours, but days or weeks.
Okay then followup
What are you envisioning this artist doing in these weeks or days where they're not working on their art
What is your end goal for saving this time
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
If you did this exact same process with a human artist, would you consider yourself the artist of that piece?
No, of course not, because that wouldn't make any sense. It's no different with an AI, except the AI was only able to do it because of all the art they stole and also the AI doesn't have any actual understanding of what you are actually trying to achieve (hence having to futz with it for hours).
This is not a creative process - it's a black box toy built on creative bankruptcy.
Do you know why it can do that in hours and not days or weeks? Because it's directly stealing the work of thousands and thousands of individuals who have spent days or weeks putting in the actual work.
Like jesus christ you really are clueless on all aspects of art beyond "I want pretty picture fast and for free, I want to be respected for the work I didn't do myself, and I don't care who was actually harmed in the process."
edit: dammit this thread got me again, back to casual browsing instead of engaging with someone who, once again, refuses to understand any part of what he's trying to argue for/against.
More art? I see no reason for them to stop unless we have hit a complete saturation point of how much art our society needs. Same for every other industry. In which case, I guess we just shorten our work days.
are you an algorithm
At the end of the day, Algorithm art only exists on the back of being fed copious quantities of existing imagery for it to shred and remix.
You aren't making anything, you're stuffing the Lourve into a blender, hitting pure and pouring out the pured remains until you find something that looks like a piece of art.
Seriously, I cannot fucking get past how people want to ignore the art theft part of this! Even creative Commons/free use etc dosen't solve this, because the person who decides to ignore those ethical constraints has a bigger (and thus, because of how algorithmic stuff works at least to my understanding, better) pool of data to draw on for their remixing.
Creativity, art, it's just work. It's long bloody painful frustrating work that often goes nowhere and there's no shortcuts for it, because it's a skill like everything else and you actually have to train it, work at it etc, someone isn't just magically born creative.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
again, how many actual artists have you talked to about any of this? I don't mean "tried to convince of my own viewpoint while ignoring anything they say" but actually asking questions and giving any weight or respect to their answers?
this is a rhetorical question, we all know the answer is zero.