How did you get started drawing / painting?

[Forest Cat]

Some people genuinely do see shoes as being art, though.

I know a couple of people who are like, really into that. Like, big shoe collections and they've gotta know the styles and yada yada yada. It's all about design and aesthetics and more details than I care to know about.

Goes for all sorts of products, not just shoes. Even for things you might not expect.




This is where things get kinda wonky though, I think.

Technically the first Toy Story was made by a machine. Humans had to DIRECT that machine, using 3D modeling software, but... technically you could say the very same thing about AI creations. Yet the methods and tools are wildly different to the point where the comparison makes no sense, in terms of practical functionality.

And even without AI, there's all sorts of screwball situations where the question pops up.

There's this, for instance:

View attachment 94094

I spent hours making this accursed thing. It's a 3D render, and there's no AI, so was it made by a machine? Yes? No? But it's also a fractal object... it outright cant be made without a machine, it's literally made of math, and it dives into infinity, as fractals do. But there's no AI here, none whatsoever. There's just me and a really convoluted disaster of a program. A 3D rendering software that works nothing like traditional 3D modelling.

So.... what, then? Who made it? Me, or the app? What is it? Art, or not art?

We havent even gotten into AI with this image, because there is no AI present, and the question is already getting weird. More of a headache than I want to deal with, that's for sure.

It's one of those things where the answer is likely to just be very, very subjective. An endless argument, likely.

Personally though I do think paint and pencils are more interesting, even if I like making fractals. But that's just me, some people are going to be REALLY into the AI stuff.

I guess people can call anything art. I'll bet somewhere there is a guy who captures dog farts in jars and call it art. I don't think that makes it art though.

For me personally, AI or computer programs can't make art. Art is something people make. And sometimes nature makes it too. But not machines or programs.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

For me personally, AI or computer programs can't make art. Art is something people make..

If you was shown human made paintings and AI made paintings, Could you spot the difference?

Because if you cant spot the difference between them you are basically saying that you cant know what is art by yourself and you need some label that tells you if it was AI or human made.

https://www.abc.net.au/canberra/programs/drive/ai-art-wins-prize-jason-allen/101420736
Many artists got surprised to see AI art got winner in an art competition.

 

[Shevek]

I guess people can call anything art. I'll bet somewhere there is a guy who captures dog farts in jars and call it art. I don't think that makes it art though.

For me personally, AI or computer programs can't make art. Art is something people make. And sometimes nature makes it too. But not machines or programs.

Very often, art is what the art dealers say it is. Their art is persuasion. I know an abstract sculptor who has learned to never say what he sees in a piece. It sells a lot easier if the customer thinks their interpretation is the only one. He was astonished the first time a restaurant/gallery sold one of his pieces for about 10 X more than he'd have asked. Later, he just did nice landscaping on an almost raw rural lot, and told his realtor to ask a huge premium. Initially skeptical, he was soon delighted with the commission.

 

[Misery]

I guess people can call anything art. I'll bet somewhere there is a guy who captures dog farts in jars and call it art. I don't think that makes it art though.

For me personally, AI or computer programs can't make art. Art is something people make. And sometimes nature makes it too. But not machines or programs.

By your logic, people that draw on tablets and whatnot arent making art either, because "well there's a program making it". Despite that they're literally using a pen-type device to do it and doing exactly the same things they'd do with paper, just not on paper. But you're only gonna know that if told. Even I could, within about 2 minutes, make something that absolutely looks like, say, watercolor or acrylic. But digitally. And if I wanna get REALLY snarky about it, I could print that onto a bloody canvas later and take a photo of it and then challenge someone to figure out what it is. Naturally if I actually did that challenge I'd also make 2 actual watercolor/whatever paintings to place next to it in the same photo, and good bloody luck figuring out which is the digital one, because they'd all be in my style.

If you was shown human made paintings and AI made paintings, Could you spot the difference?

Because if you cant spot the difference between them you are basically saying that you cant know what is art by yourself and you need some label that tells you if it was AI or human made.

This gives me an idea.

Let's do an experiment, and anyone can join in. I'm very curious as to what might happen here.

Here's the question: what is the nature of this image?

Is it a drawing? Is it a 3D render? Is it a fractal? Is it an AI thing? Is it something that encompasses none of those?

What is it?

Anyone can answer, this question isnt just for one person. I'm curious as to how close anyone might get to the answer here, merely from looking at it... no explanation or specific label given beforehand.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

Is it a drawing? Is it a 3D render? Is it a fractal? Is it an AI thing? Is it something that encompasses none of those?

Nice, lets see. It has fractal properties on top of something. I would say fractal was the last step.

It has a simetry stuff that I would say its a caleidoscope filter. I would say that is the medium step.

The first step seems to be a geometrical drawing, with different colours. I would say you did that part.

I dont see any need for AI in this one.

 

[tkcartoonist]

I guess people can call anything art. I'll bet somewhere there is a guy who captures dog farts in jars and call it art. I don't think that makes it art though.

For me personally, AI or computer programs can't make art. Art is something people make. And sometimes nature makes it too. But not machines or programs.

Look up a guy named Andres Serrano sometime. His most well-known works are the covers for Metallica's Load albums. On that note, look up Chris Burden for another artist I can't stand.

As for drawing: I've been doing it for as long as I can remember. I started by mimicking the styles of other cartoonists (Bill Watterson, Jim Davis and his crew, the people who did the Archie Sonic comics in the 90s, etc). It really started coming to form when I was in college and started becoming looser. Lately, I combine drawing with digital collage.

 

[Shevek]

This debate is a branch of "is an art print art?" It has been around for centuries, and remains unresolved, except in the minds that dismiss the opposition.

 

[Misery]

Nice, lets see. It has fractal properties on top of something. I would say fractal was the last step.

It has a simetry stuff that I would say its a caleidoscope filter. I would say that is the medium step.

The first step seems to be a geometrical drawing, with different colours. I would say you did that part.

I dont see any need for AI in this one.

A good analysis. You got quite close here.

It is this:

Three individual mandelas, each drawn separately by hand while sections were mirrored at the same time, then stitched together in Kaleider (an app specializing in kaleidoscopic images, and one of my most frequently used art apps, it combines well with fractals). A kaleidoscopic effect (actually more than one, I think) was then applied and the result was mapped onto a sort of pseudo 3D tunnel map thing to create the inward twisting.

There is actually no fractal aspect in this! No infinite recursion or defining math formulas involved, the effect merely ends when it reaches the center of the image.

I think my point with this, when it comes to the topic at hand, is that a great many things can go into any one image... sometimes a careful analysis can figure it out, sometimes it can only get close, and other times, not so much. When it comes to digital art, who knows what kind of effort was put into the image at hand? 'Tis silly to make assumptions.

I should point out, to anyone pondering this topic, that I can actually do these things with my physical art. Just because it's on paper doesnt mean I cant use it digitally while making it absolutely LOOK digitally done... without AI. But I'm not doing any of those in this topic (I dont have those files here, or I might show them).


How about one more just for fun? I'll make this harder:

If anyone manages to figure out what that actually is, I'll be quite impressed indeed.

This debate is a branch of "is an art print art?" It has been around for centuries, and remains unresolved, except in the minds that dismiss the opposition.

Generally, yes.

Personally I prefer to just let others figure out what they like in art and what they dont, though I tend to bristle a bit when someone gets all snarky about it. There's little need to be mean after all.

I can be a bit wobbly in terms of what I think of art in general. Like, digital art of any sort? Sure, I guess, but some things seem lazy to me. Like if someone takes an already existing image, smears it and changes the hue, what does that count as? Doesnt seem like much to me, but what do I know? Maybe there's meaning behind it that I dont see, out of context. It's the same with, say, those funky statue-ish things where someone takes a bunch of random metal objects and just welds them together randomly. I'm not sure what I consider that to be. But someone else may think it's quite nice, and I aint gonna tell them that it isnt art, even if I cant really understand it myself.

 

[Forest Cat]

This debate is a branch of "is an art print art?" It has been around for centuries, and remains unresolved, except in the minds that dismiss the opposition.

An art print is a copy of a piece of art, isn't it? I have a Monet on my livingroom wall, above the couch. It looks nice but it's not the original painting. So it's just a copy of a piece of art. I need to save up a few tens of millions of dollars before I can buy the real thing.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

How about one more just for fun? I'll make this harder:

The central image has a lot of elements of an eye. In the center there are reflections like they would be in the center of an eye pupil, but they stop at the iris. Then those red marks somewhat spaced seems at the very position of eyelashes. And the images at the sides of the central one are quite similar to lateral retina images, probably made as a reflection of the central image.

Just guessing.

 

[Misery]

The central image has a lot of elements of an eye. In the center there are reflections like they would be in the center of an eye pupil, but they stop at the iris. Then those red marks somewhat spaced seems at the very position of eyelashes. And the images at the sides of the central one are quite similar to lateral retina images, probably made as a reflection of the central image.

Just guessing.

Well, I moreso meant what it's made of, but in terms of what the final image is supposed to be, uhhh....

okay that part I've no idea. I mostly just Did Stuff until I got something that looked neat, which is how I usually approach these things. It's hard to truly shape any of these with any accuracy. Well, it's hard when I do it, anyway.

 

[Crossbreed]

Dogs are more attached to humans than to robots.

They might even be used to distinguish real people from simulated ones...

 

[Luca]

@Misery I decided to try your "Deep Dream Generator" thingy, just for fun... even though I'm not totally sold on the idea of AI art either...
(For anyone else, I'm not looking for a debate, and like I said I am in no way knowledgeable enough about modern technology and computer programs to debate this properly. I just want to share this with Sophie.)

I asked it to re-create a photo of me and my best friend from my birthday this year... it is one of my favorite photos of all time, and my favorite photo of he and I together.
It took about 10 or 12 tries, and some of the initial results were horrifying, but it got smarter the more I gave it text prompts and the more I told it what NOT to do.

I'm actually quite impressed with the results... it looks exactly like him, and not entirely like me (I could not figure out why it kept giving me curly hair), but I really like it and I'm going to put it on my wall in my new house, like you did with the painting of your stepmom and grandpa.
There were some details I didn't like too much so I went into Photoshop myself and re-drew some things, but overall I actually really like it, even if it isn't technically something I made myself and some people can't consider it "art." But I do think it is beautiful.
Just thought this was a special thing that I wanted to share with you, Sophie. And thank you for suggesting it. It isn't my ideal way of creating things and I probably won't use it often but it was fun.

 

[Crossbreed]

...it looks exactly like him, and not entirely like me (I could not figure out why it kept giving me curly hair),...

Are you going to post a photo for comparison?

 

[Luca]

Are you going to post a photo for comparison?

I don't want to post the actual photo because I don't like posting real pictures of my friends and family on here.
There are actual photos of me on the forums though, here is one for reference:

Spoiler: Off topic

 

[Crossbreed]

It got the freckles right.

 

[Misery]

It took about 10 or 12 tries, and some of the initial results were horrifying

Oh, yeah, haha, that's the part of this whole thing nobody ever seems to mention: The hilarious and/or horrifying mistakes that happen along the way.

Like, that story I told about the photo with my grandpa, I later tried to do a similar one with a photo of my grandma, just so my stepmother could have one of each (though my grandma is still around, it just seemed nice to do), but the lighting in the photos of her were very different. Applying the specific things that made the previous photo work, well..

When I tried it, it didnt work out so well, and my father saw it, he said "you turned her into a goblin, that's probably not gonna do well on canvas"

Seriously it was horrible, haha. We both got a good laugh out of it.

In all honesty this is part of why I do any of this, because that aspect just makes it more fun. Well, fun for me anyway.

But it looks like your image turned out really well! I'm glad you got something you like out of it.

so I went into Photoshop myself and re-drew some things

Yeah, generally this is how I do most things.

I dont usually post any completed AI-related art, since the "process" isnt as interesting (I'd rather post my fractals or drawings/paintings since they take a whole lot of work to make), but when I DO show something, chances are I spent a good while changing and tweaking things.

 

[Luca]

When I tried it, it didnt work out so well, and my father saw it, he said "you turned her into a goblin, that's probably not gonna do well on canvas"

Seriously it was horrible, haha. We both got a good laugh out of it.

"Turned her into a goblin"

Yeah, the first few attempts came up with some Eldritch abominations with multiple faces and Picasso-esque eyes and noses. Kind of unsettling lol