Look closer. It’s not just the big details. Look at the window. Look at how the AI just completely flattened out the lighting outside to this vague orange tone that robs the scene of so much of its character.
AI can’t think. It can’t make the kind of intentional choices that a good artist can. And you can’t solve that with prompting, because one, good luck describing that exact pattern of lighting in a prompt, and two, the person prompting isn’t a good enough artist to come up with that exact pattern of lighting, because it would take years of experience to be able to.
The reason you think your photoshops have mimic’d Van Gogh is because you’re not Van Gogh, and no offense intended, but you’re clearly not a good enough artist to understand the difference. I guarantee that anyone who knows what they’re looking for would instantly know the difference between your work and his. Art isn’t just style, it’s a myriad of choices that you can’t recreate with a photoshop filter.
No one claimed it does. It requires prompting from a human.
And you can’t solve that with prompting,
There is absolutely no difference between written commands and pointing a clicking from a menu on the screen. I see it like writing a program. If the code doesn’t do exactly what you want, you need more code. No one today claims that a word processor can’t do the same thing as a typewriter because a typewriter was assembled by hand as compared to a word processor that needed hundreds of thousands of lines of instructions to simulate the same effect.
I guarantee that anyone who knows what they’re looking for would instantly know the difference between your work and his.
I absolutely didn’t mean to imply that it was. I was claiming that using Photoshop with all its artificial filters and brushes to simulate styles is the same as prompting an AI to simulate those same styles.
Art isn’t just style, it’s a myriad of choices that you can’t recreate with a photoshop filter.
And those choices can be written as text or picked from a menu.
The part you’re still not grasping, despite my already having explained it once, is that in order to create this perfect prompt you’re imagining - in order to actually be the person who would make all those choices - you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice. Is there some version of AI art where experienced artists use it as their medium in lieu of pencil or oil paint or digital art? Maybe. But that’s not the point of all this, is it? The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice, but the person who has no training or practice is never going to be able to create that perfect prompt that you somehow imagine exists.
(All of which is putting aside that when you move a brush the paint goes where you want and is the colour you want, whereas a prompt will always be filtered through the random distortion field of a stastical association model, but we don’t even need to get into that)
You are misreading what I have written. I even explicitly said “No one is saying that.” In response to your earlier claim.
“you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice”
Yes. Exactly.
The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice,
That’s not the argument I made! You are way into strawman territory.
I claim that AI can be art because it is a tool that requires human intent. The type of effort is irrelevant. Everyone against AI art dismisses the effort of writing careful exacting instructions to achieve a result. Movie directors are considered artists despite not sewing the costumes, painting the sets, or writing the words. They only prompt others into achieving their vision.
Look closer. It’s not just the big details. Look at the window. Look at how the AI just completely flattened out the lighting outside to this vague orange tone that robs the scene of so much of its character.
AI can’t think. It can’t make the kind of intentional choices that a good artist can. And you can’t solve that with prompting, because one, good luck describing that exact pattern of lighting in a prompt, and two, the person prompting isn’t a good enough artist to come up with that exact pattern of lighting, because it would take years of experience to be able to.
The reason you think your photoshops have mimic’d Van Gogh is because you’re not Van Gogh, and no offense intended, but you’re clearly not a good enough artist to understand the difference. I guarantee that anyone who knows what they’re looking for would instantly know the difference between your work and his. Art isn’t just style, it’s a myriad of choices that you can’t recreate with a photoshop filter.
No one claimed it does. It requires prompting from a human.
There is absolutely no difference between written commands and pointing a clicking from a menu on the screen. I see it like writing a program. If the code doesn’t do exactly what you want, you need more code. No one today claims that a word processor can’t do the same thing as a typewriter because a typewriter was assembled by hand as compared to a word processor that needed hundreds of thousands of lines of instructions to simulate the same effect.
I absolutely didn’t mean to imply that it was. I was claiming that using Photoshop with all its artificial filters and brushes to simulate styles is the same as prompting an AI to simulate those same styles.
And those choices can be written as text or picked from a menu.
The part you’re still not grasping, despite my already having explained it once, is that in order to create this perfect prompt you’re imagining - in order to actually be the person who would make all those choices - you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice. Is there some version of AI art where experienced artists use it as their medium in lieu of pencil or oil paint or digital art? Maybe. But that’s not the point of all this, is it? The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice, but the person who has no training or practice is never going to be able to create that perfect prompt that you somehow imagine exists.
(All of which is putting aside that when you move a brush the paint goes where you want and is the colour you want, whereas a prompt will always be filtered through the random distortion field of a stastical association model, but we don’t even need to get into that)
You are misreading what I have written. I even explicitly said “No one is saying that.” In response to your earlier claim.
Yes. Exactly.
That’s not the argument I made! You are way into strawman territory.
I claim that AI can be art because it is a tool that requires human intent. The type of effort is irrelevant. Everyone against AI art dismisses the effort of writing careful exacting instructions to achieve a result. Movie directors are considered artists despite not sewing the costumes, painting the sets, or writing the words. They only prompt others into achieving their vision.