Art pieces that use AI in the process have a ‘look.’ One not unlike the Mark of Cain.

It doesn’t matter how much you do yourself. You could draw the whole thing by hand – but once you start using Stable Diffusion or whatever, the program overwhelms the actual art. You invariably end up with generic popslop, and I frankly don’t know why you bothered to do any original work at all.

God, art historians are going to end up hating this decade.

Moe Lane

PS: My books’ cover art is AI-free. I won’t use an artist who uses it.

#commissionearned

3 thoughts on “Art pieces that use AI in the process have a ‘look.’ One not unlike the Mark of Cain.”

  1. Art historians are vehement that a urinal is high art, and that Thomas Kinkade was a hack.

    Their judgement is beyond questionable.

  2. Yeah, I’ve noticed that the AI-generated art has a very “samey” look to it. As for your prognostication of this fad lasting a decade, I’ll take the under on that. Unless the AI gets a lot better, it might not last 3 years.

    On the plus side, ChatGPT seems to now know how many r’s there are in strawberry, so it’s got that going for it.

  3. A random observation I have made:

    You could take all the effort of feeding in prompts to the AI, correcting the image and fine tuning it and apply that instead to drawing lessons and arguably get a better product.

Comments are closed.