>>4136715I think the latest instance of good AI art is this video that was making the rounds on Xitter a few days ago (
https://x.com/cartoon_vide0s/status/2104942096927055885). Aside from some blurring and logical inconsistencies, at 1x speed it didn't immediately hit me that this was AI until halfway through (the faces of the children at 0:20 have that classic AI feel, I can't quite describe it. Also, the old lady at 0:33 already had a purse and she got a second one). AI is getting exponentially better at producing interesting pieces of work, and this caught my eye. I wouldn't be surprised if we can't even tell if something is AI after we've already watched a video.
>>4136719>It mixes art from the previous century and grinds it up for the masses to consumeLike I already stated, we operate in the same way. We don't create something out of nothing, we need references, examples, resources in order to construct anything. It's easy for you to sit on your high horse and state "Hmph, I could've thought that" when you already comprehend the piece of art you're supposed to create. Please, I beg you to try and draw something that you've never heard or seen before, I would be surprised to see what you would draw and if it would be similar to what you've already seen throughout your lifetime. And yes, art is to be observed, relished, critiqued, enjoyed, consumed. I understand you are using the phrase "for the masses to consume" in a derogatory, demeaning way, but that's legitimately what art is supposed to be about. You are absorbing visual stimuli, enjoying it avidly, silently trying to comprehend its meaning, the artist's intentions with every liberty he took to portray their inner world. That is the definition of consuming.
>devoid of soulGiven that most people's encounters with AI art resides in the wastelands of mass produced vertical videos from East Asia, I don't blame you for correlating the ugliness of AI art with the tool itself. But let's not forget that for every AI slop art piece that has been created, there are 20 or so human slop art pieces. Stick figures, disfigured faces, wrong proportions, crude doodles, the manmade art landfill is stupendously large. The only reason you don't really think about it is because it sits at the ends of high-school notebooks owned by teenagers, college textbooks of a bored student just trying to pass the time or an office worker drawing on a sticky note waiting for their lunch break, meaning that it goes unseen. Soullessness is not inherent to the tools that are used to create anything, but from the wielder of said tools.
>The execution of an idea is where true art lies in, and typing words into a prompt is a shitty execution.If your idea is bad, it doesn't matter if you have the best animation team on the planet, it will always be bad, full stop. Whereas if you have a good idea but lack the means of properly conveying it, then you can still produce an interesting piece of work. Ideas, messages, emotions, thoughts are the base of every good art piece. The people that can not only conjure up said ideas but convey them the best are those that end up in the history books for the most influential artists of their time. As for the critique regarding prompting, it should be noted that most people don't know how to do it. However, you can still learn to adjust your prompt, making incremental tweaks to the desired result. A touch up here, an artistic liberty there, and all of a sudden it's starting to sound like what an artist does with their own art pieces. Slowly but surely improving upon a concept to create a finished result that looks stunning. For people dedicated to the craft that aren't just making art for money, the more time invested, the better the result will be.
Ghost replies have been enabled on all boards. /meta/ has been added for meta discussion.