The Impact of Handcrafted Art Compared to AI Art

Without the artist, AI lacks soul. Here's what I mean by that: A big part about what makes art, music, literature, etc intriguing to humans, is the human behind it. Rarely is it ever only about the "art," itself. For example: Those AI Drake songs that went viral? 🎵 They seemingly disappeared already, without Drake himself promoting them, playing them on tour, etc. Or take a trip to an art museum: 9/10 when we are discussing a work of fine art, we are placing emphasis on the artists' story: their upbringing, background, etc, what led them to being able to create their amazing works of art & invent new styles. Despite AI works looking beautiful on the surface, without the artist attached to them, what's left, is pretty soulless. Thus, in an AI-dominated world, your process will become even more important than it is today, in order for your work to stand out against AI. This isn't to say master-AI-prompters don't exist— ie. those who spend hours refining an image until it is just right (it's just a new type of 'process'). But, the majority of "AI" images and art that are generated, are done so in haste, with little artistic input, say, or experience. The fact that a human spent a lifetime devoted to learning a skill, is what makes art and music interesting to humans, it's not necessarily just how great something looks or sounds. It's about the questions the art provokes, and the mysterious wonder around how a human (just like you or me), is able to create such beautiful works. Art transcends aesthetics, it inspires. And AI art has no story. If you're an artist leveraging AI, ask yourself: "What can I do to make this uniquely, mine?" _____ P.S. The attached photo in this post is a physical piece of collage art of mine (size 3ft x 3ft) which I leveraged MidJourney to create all the imagery for. It was an experiment around injecting my own artistic sensibility into the equation, and having more "control" over the final composition. #aiart #artificialintelligence #creativity

The point about "music in the style of the last decade's hits" particularly caught my eye from a revenue-focused angle in this article. The old ways of artist royalties, licensing fees, and even the marketing strategies to make a 'hit' are all put to the test when AI can generate something nearly identical in style and substance but without a 'human' touch. For years, marketers have been trying to decode what makes a hit song, a viral campaign, or a must-see movie. The algorithms could theoretically cut that chase short. We could see a deluge of 'perfectly algorithmic' hits that capture the essence of a decade's musical trends. Would this market saturation lead to higher revenues because of more content, or would it devalue the 'original' songs and saturate the market to the point where each 'hit' becomes a drop in an ocean of content? The differentiation between 'true' artistry and algorithmic imitation becomes a financial question too. We’re on the brink of technology's capabilities intersecting with human art in a way that could both amplify and diminish traditional revenue streams in the creative sectors. This article really gets to the heart of it. I love how they talk about Taylor Swift. For instance, if an AI creates a hit song "in the style of Taylor Swift," who profits? The developer of the AI? The end-user who requested it? Taylor Swift? And how do these economic considerations alter the cultural value we place on human-created art? To the question "Is AI a tool or does it steal?" As pointed out in the latest LinkedIn News, I think AI could be viewed as an extension of a human's creative process, just as a paintbrush or a musical instrument is a tool used to express creativity. In that sense, it is not "stealing," but enabling humans to reach new heights of creativity. AI as a Thief: On the flip side, AI could potentially mimic an artist's style so closely that it becomes difficult to distinguish between the original artist's work and the AI-generated work, thereby "stealing" the unique aspects that make the artist's work valuable. What's your take here? Can and should the creative industry establish a revenue-sharing model that not only accommodates but fairly compensates human artists when their 'style' becomes a template for AI-generated works? https://lnkd.in/dCYAZC_x #ai #data #revenue

I did a mini Linkedin experiment (https://lnkd.in/gc8gTUmr) and asked people to guess which design I created, versus which designs were AI-generated on Ideogram. 📌 TL;DR: 88 people responded and 49% guessed right. Several people (26%) believed that I created option 6. I hypothesize that this is due to the scripted typeface feeling more human and organic. Many participants referenced AI-generated images as having a blurry look, wonkiness, and visual inconsistencies. I agree! AI-generated images have a distinct style (I haven’t yet been able to land on a term that captures the tech-faux vibe). I think this will change over time, and what we can create will become more diverse. Those who assigned an AI-generated design as best referenced:  ✤ Sophisticated ✤ Metaphorical (referencing Option 3 specifically) ✤ Fancy (drop shadow, 3D, etc) ✤ Unique Those who assigned my design as the best referenced:  ✤ Elegant/tasteful ✤ Follows typography rules  ✤ Conceptual/intentional  ✤ Clean Roughly 1/3rd of participants voted the same for both (human-made and best), regardless of which option they voted for. This was interesting to me! When it comes to AI-generated images or art, is something perceived to be human-made also perceived to be better (at least for now)? Thank you to all who participated! 💫 #midjourney #ideogram #ai #artificialintelligence #generativeai #generativeart

The recent NYT article titled “AI Garbage is Polluting our Culture” by Erik Hoel has convinced me that the role of the artist is more important now than ever before in the age of rapid AI advancement. The article sheds light on the confluence of AI-generated music on Spotify, fake AI models with hundreds of thousands of followers on Instagram, and full-fledged AI-created workbooks accompanying best-sellers on Amazon; synthetically created “junk” is diluting our content consumption experiences on the internet. We are all “paddling through the same sludge streaming into our cultural ocean,” Hoel eloquently puts it. But as grim as this sounds, I am actually more hopeful for a future of entertainment in this landscape as it reaffirms the role of humans in the creative process. In this new paradigm, it will take the deft touch of human artists to harness the powers of AI to enable their creative process while still maintaining their singular voice and vision. Only humans have the innate ability to connect deeply with human emotions and experiences to craft artistic works that resonate with others. This is something AI will never be able to replicate. You either believe that or you don’t, and I choose to believe it. The key question that arrises is; how do you distinguish between outputs from artists who are earnestly and authentically experimenting with these new tools, and from farmers polluting our culture by generating hordes of “content” to further their own interests? Regardless, I remain hopeful, optimistic and excited to see the leaders that emerge in the arts who chose to take the “issue” of AI head-on and create wholly new modes of authentically human, AI-powered creative expression. https://lnkd.in/gn7YwnQv