Using AI to create "Art".

[tbcass]

While this is about creating music with AI it is equally relevant to creating visual "art". It shows how easily it can be done.

 

[ishwanu]

I think you forgot to include something.

 

[Leigh A]

While this is about creating music with AI it is equally relevant to creating visual "art". It shows how easily it can be done.

The definition of "Art" is conclusively human creativity, that's why works of art are generally associated with the human artists name.

If it's IA created, it's not art, but at best a deception that's derived to be falsely considered as art.

Of course, those who advocate that human's should be replaced with IA Robots, may have a different opinion.

 

[tbcass]

I think you forgot to include something.

When I include the YouTube link it gets deleted for being "off topic". Too bad because it gives a great insight into how AI works. Search YouTube for "Rick Beato I'm Sorry...This New Artist Completely Sucks" where he uses AI to create music.

 

[ROUSSEL_Photographer]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Personally i boycott business using AI images and hate seeing AI fake images in Photography groups on facebook or elsewhere

 

[Hike Pics]

I think you forgot to include something.

When I include the YouTube link it gets deleted for being "off topic". Too bad because it gives a great insight into how AI works. Search YouTube for "Rick Beato I'm Sorry...This New Artist Completely Sucks" where he uses AI to create music.

 

[Carey Brown]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Personally i boycott business using AI images and hate seeing AI fake images in Photography groups on facebook or elsewhere

Long term we're going to need a way to remunerate those humans that create original content because we as a people need A.I. to work, information is critical to our survival, but we'll have to work with content creators, not just steal from them. Until then, AI remains a shady business.

 

[Ephemeris]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Very simple response. A false over generalisation and misunderstanding.

Personally i boycott business using AI images and hate seeing AI fake images in Photography groups on facebook or elsewhere

 

[Ozzie SD]

It is actually quite concerning.

If the quality was extremely bad, it would be another discussion. But it's not. Quality is actually quite good!

I used to make music in the past (as a hobby). Besides expensive equipment it requires certain skills to get a decent result. Not only you need to come up with a creative idea, you should also be able to compose it, then mix and finalize it (including processes like equalizing, compressing, adding the right amount of reverb and so on). It would take you days or weeks to create something. And when it was finished you were happy, satisfied and proud.

And now in 2025 you just ... type a sentence and the computer creates something ... that actually sounds good, and probably much better than most of us (including amateurs like I once was) could create.

What does it mean for music? It means that you can score a 'hit' without touching an instrument. If you instruct AI and feed it with useful 'prompts' you could end up with a catchy tune. How bizar is that. Someone who never touched an instrument could 'make' a song and earn lots of money with it.

Where does this leave the real musicians? They can be easily replaced now. I have seen videos where a guy with not the best voice sings something and records it. Then a software program will replace his voice with the voice of a professional singer. And it sounds incredibly good. Not only that, you have maybe like 100 singers in the software package, male and female, to choose from. All have a different style. So this means that nowadays you don't have to be able to sing. There is an arsenal of professional singers in your computer and you control them.

For photographers, what does it imply? Probably commercial photographers will get less work. You need a picture of a dog on top of a car eating Brand X dog food? In the past you needed to hire a photographer. Now you simply ask AI to make the picture.

I think this development is quite concerning.

Ever tried chatgpt.com? If not, try it and ask it some questions. I am looking for a new car and when I need to know something I ask chatgpt. And it comes up with really good answers. Better answers than salesmen come up with. Kids use AI for their school assignments. They do not have to look up information anymore, they don't have to go search for relevant articles and read them, they don't need to talk to other people. The only thing they need to do is ask chatgpt a question.

Where this will bring us and what will the impact be? I can't tell. I am not sure though, it's a good thing. To get your diploma in the past, you had to investigate things for months, talk to people, read books, search additional information, type pages of text. Today in 2025: "Hey chatgpt, write me an article about ....".

 

[Bill Ferris]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Very simple response. A false over generalisation and misunderstanding.

Please elucidate. Not a troll, I genuinely don't know much about the subject.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

 

[tbcass]

its very simple ; AI work by stealing others intellectual property without permission nor compensation then offering services such as get 100 pro looking photos based on a few selfies for ten $ or create your menu photos using AI, ... reducing photographers (low) income.

Very simple response. A false over generalisation and misunderstanding.

AI uses other artists work available on the internet through machine learning to create it's results. As such it is a type of plagiarism. I have no skills as a writer. When I would write papers in college I would steal from numerous other sources, reword them and combine them into one which made the fact they were plagiarized nearly impossible to detect.

 

[tbcass]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

How about plagiarism? AI uses other people's work to create the final result.

 

[jrkliny]

Two important topics:

Is AI stealing work?

Are AI created images to be considered art?

A few years ago there was a lot of concern that AI was merely lifting images and other information from the internet. It seems those times have changed. AI is no longer just finding and copying from the internet. It has become way more advanced and can create new content.

I have friends who are well into the digital arts. One of them no longer even uses their camera anymore but relies on old images and often internet downloads that are greatly altered and composited. They complain that AI is taking over their world. From my perspective it seems that much of what they do is so dependent on software that the software designer should get credit. It only takes a click with Topaz to change a straight photo into something that appears to be a pencil stetch or an oil painting. You can tell I am out of date with digital tools. Topaz is old hat and there are tons of other software effects and filters available. As a "straight" photographer, I cannot help but think it serves them right. AI is just one more software trick.

For me, fine art photographs (or my paintings) are about communicating artistic intent, goals, style, and expressing emotions, ideas, and individual perspective. If and when AI can do that or mimic that, I will not be threatened. Perhaps instead I will learn and be inspired the same as if looking at work from other photographers and artists.

 

[CameraCarl]

I would steal from numerous other sources ... made the fact they were plagiarized nearly impossible to detect.

Are you proud of this?

 

[Bill Ferris]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

What is an appropriate name for something enjoyable to look at or listen to or enjoy in some way, which if it had been created by a human could be regarded as art, but which in actuality was created by a machine?

It's a digital image. Beyond that, it's difficult to say. Most labels imply a significant human contribution or role in the image-making process. Providing a prompt isn't that.

Not trying to "create" an argument here, it just seems like there must be another name.

It's an important discussion/debate to have, especially in communities of artists, such as photographers. The DPReview community should strive to take a leading role in the public discussion. Get all points of view on the table and push them all in an effort to find those that are most rigorously defendable.

 

[jrkliny]

Whatever product results from an AI tool, it isn't art. Art is a human creation. Inputting a prompt and waiting for the AI to do the work doesn't make one an artist. It makes one a patron or sponsor. And since the AI isn't human, the product isn't art.

Using AI can be much more involved than a single prompt. Often the user makes different prompts and requests specific changes for AI generated images. Eventually the human settles on the final product that reflects their chosen content. Is that art?

Or a photographer takes a raw image file into Photoshop and uses sliders to make a bunch of enhancements. That might include using auto adjusts, or hitting image with the haze filter, or bumping up saturation, or pulling details out of the shadows. Maybe also some cloning and removing distractions with the healing brush. Is the final product art?

How much work does the artist need to make? Do they need to scale a mountain for that special image or can they just send up a drone and go click?

Is it art, if the maker sees a nice sunset and goes click with their cellphone? Is it art if they capture a double rainbow above the Grand Canyon. Is it art if there is no rainbow but they add it with Photoshop?

--
Jim, aka camperjim
http://www.specialplacesphoto.com

 

[Glen Barrington]

Art is one person reaching out and attempting to communicate with someone else. It's a bit of a risk. The artist is expoing him/her self a bit. They are open to ridicule, censure and humiliation.

AI "Art" is a computer algorithm (a complex one to be sure). That tries to figure out what the majority of people "Like" and tries to producte something 'likable' within the boundaries of what the person making the request has offered up.

Certainly an artist can use AI. But if there is nothing of the Artist in the work, then it ain't art.

Art is done by people.

 

[tbcass]

For me, fine art photographs (or my paintings) are about communicating artistic intent, goals, style, and expressing emotions, ideas, and individual perspective. If and when AI can do that or mimic that, I will not be threatened. Perhaps instead I will learn and be inspired the same as if looking at work from other photographers and artists.

Unless AI computers reach the point where they are self aware and can think creatively and independently they will never be able to create art. Mimicking is not creativity.