Banning AI art on PP

Parkstone Photography said

I am really confused by this term AI generated work. It potentially could be read and misinterpreted as though somebody can't even use digital software to enhance an image. Then what would be the point in having a RAW image and be able to work with that in a editing suite? As I the photographer did not create the editing suite aren't I relying on AI related software?

ALL of the pieces of digital art that I have created as well have been made using editing suites, but haven't relied on AI as I would feel ashamed of presenting that work.

Would it also mean that my artwork would be banned from the site in future?

What is the definition and boundaries of AI and more importantly where does someone draw that fine line?

The way I see AI defined as is that it is a brain working for you, to create something you never thought of to begin with instead of using your own intelligence.

Edited by Parkstone Photography

Edited by Parkstone Photography

It’s dead simple. It doesn’t matter what tools you use, what digital wash you apply, as long as YOU did it. There are AI assisted tools in Photoshop these days but using them still requires your own visual judgement. Typing “make me a sunset with a tree in the foreground” requires absolutely nothing from you. Except the ability to type a basic instruction. 

HorrifyMeUK said

Unfocussed Mike said

HorrifyMeUK said

Jerome Razoir said

Let’s face it, modern art has been making millions out of suckers by removing the crafts and skills that artists once had. Removing the effort to manage the craft hasn’t concentrated the mind to a better or more inspired semiotic - it’s given us garbage like the unmade bed, the jar of piss, tins of shit, used tampons nailed to bits of wood, a banana sellotaped to a wall, a pile of bricks, and other such bullshit art. AI art has absolutely nowhere good it can go. It’s just going to deepen an already wretched abyss in the art world.

Modern art and AI art are two entirely different trend lines.

Yeah, modern art gave us a banana taped to a wall. It also gave us Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Ben Nicholson, Antony Gormley and David Hockney.

AI art isn't on the same turf; it is at this point the business of generating graphics.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

I’m sure you can see my point, removing the skill or craft results in shit art. I know there are still awesome artists around.

To be fair, though, even a fair amount of technical skill can result in absolutely shit art. For example: Renoir*. ;-)

The thing about AI art is always going to be context, just as it is with modern art. 

There are contexts where generative art -- a machine producing art within a designer's carefully tuned set of parameters -- is incredibly beautiful. (Particularly if that generative property is rendered by a beautiful machine).

The problem with Midjourney and the like is the complete absence of a creative context. 

(Even modern art can at the very least creatively abuse the context: the banana taped to the wall is an abuse of context)

I believe over time we will see artists figuring out how to use Midjourney and the like to achieve great things. But I would hope those great things are not just a single image produced from a prompt.

For example I would love to see a series of images where a photographer creates an image a traditional way -- studio lighting, model, props, set design -- then feeds that image to an AI, and then attempts to physically recreate its reinterpretation of an image, then feeds _that_ image to the same AI, and repeats. I'd love to see people using body paints to make people look like the Craiyon (DALL-E Mini) representation of a scene (though I think Craiyon might be the nightmarish code doodlings of RobertoSegate ;-)

I think there's loads of potential for using an AI-warped version of a scene as an element in another scene, etc. etc.

AI as the partner of a creative artist or photographer has loads of potential. (I think we'll see it used in prop creation in indie films very soon, which might help move us on from the morass of found-footage films)

Our problem on purpleport -- both PP's problem and the community's problem -- is people using AI image generators as a way to generate a flood of images that the user passes off as paintings or photographs or as a fake model portfolio in such a way and in such volume as to render this site unusable (just with Recent Images and Popular Images, let alone FPIs or competitions).

* it's been months since I've made this joke, people. Months.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

indemnity said

Look at this another way non AI images will be easy to spot, badly lit, orange skin, crap composure, wonky, dirty studio floors, blurred skin, crap scattered around the room, knickers on the radiator, IG filters, who wants to lose all that character. 😉

Here is an image created entirely in Blender by Blitter.

I reckon, if you can pull off wabi-sabi style photography in a free 3D software, it won't take A.I. long. All it needs is reference material.

HorrifyMeUK All I can say is that I hope that these set of rules that are more clearly defined.



Tricks of Six said

indemnity said

Look at this another way non AI images will be easy to spot, badly lit, orange skin, crap composure, wonky, dirty studio floors, blurred skin, crap scattered around the room, knickers on the radiator, IG filters, who wants to lose all that character. 😉

Here is an image created entirely in Blender by Blitter.

I reckon, if you can pull off wabi-sabi style photography in a free 3D software, it won't take A.I. long. All it needs is reference material.

Goodness me that could be mistaken for a port selfie. Cool.

Danny Molyneux For me it's about defining it for everyone. Some of the "old school" don't like or appreciate any form of digital art...

I get it, and understand, but will others.... Only time will tell now.

Gareth Oakey Photography said

indemnity You need to get up to date. One of those images recently won a PP competition and was generated with a single sentance.

Fully aware, they must have spelt the sentence correctly to win the competition.

Theimagebear said

If you create images with no model or there is one but you choose to keep their identity private (a growing thing) then thats not what here is about.

You mean if I have a model who is not on purpleport and won't tell you who they are?

I have plenty of work on here that is demonstrative of what I can do as a photographer, that features three people who enjoy working with me but haven't ever wanted to join.

I'm never going to feel obligated to identify them. 

Do you feel those images shouldn't be there?

They are (hopefully good-ish) examples of my work with amateur models.

Whereas uploading a Midjourney image of a person who does not exist would not be. It's a very clear line between the two.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

Our problem on purpleport -- both PP's problem and the community's problem -- is people using AI image generators as a way to generate a flood of images that the user passes off as paintings or photographs or as a fake model portfolio in such a way and in such volume as to render this site unusable (just with Recent Images and Popular Images, let alone FPIs or competitions).

I just read this back and clearly it should say "would be" rather than "is". It obviously hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it does not.

Parkstone Photography said

Danny Molyneux For me it's about defining it for everyone. Some of the "old school" don't like or appreciate any form of digital art...

They can be safely ignored. Have you done any videos/timelapses of your process?

Gareth Oakey Photography said

I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...??   etc.  

Can I put context to part of your post. Albert Cheney Johnson who was the official photographer to the Ziegfeld Follies from 1915 until the early 1930s used to touch up his negatives by painting on them. Same is true of many of the Hollywood photographers like George Hurrell. Dodging and burning of negatives has happened for 120 years so the use of things like the clone tool, or smart healing replicate what was done manually without radically changing the original photograph. 
AI and telling a computer what you want is really not the same because there is next to no artist involvement so in my book at least when I’m using Lightroom or Photoshop I’m making the mouse or pen strokes that modify the image and in my case I use it sparingly. 

Unfocussed Mike No... I procrastinate too much and am easily distracted. I may do, one day....

Isn’t it rather like using a camera on anything other than “M”? Quite a bit of skill producing AI, like modern cameras? :-)

Parkstone Photography it has been well defined already. Also it has been explained on this thread, if you can show examples of the process of making your artwork or photography which may well use digital tools in the making process you are fine. However, if you typed in a phrase or set of words on a digital software program and have no clear before photos or images outlining your making process ( if in fact suspected) than it will be deleted.

If you are a true artist than these examples are simple to provide. If you are a search artist inputting words into a search box than nil point.

Edited by Wondrous

This is an interesting snippet to read and affects the copyright of images used in this AI process.

https://www.aopawards.com/ai-data-mining-and-what-it-means-for-you/