Man-Lizard from “In the Walls of Eryx” by H.P.L. by duo
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
Description
AI aided, AI face generation aided, deepfake aided, production, postwork and rendered in Photoshop.
Copyright © 2021 by Luca Oleastri - Rotwang Studio
THE USE OF AI IN ARTISTIC PRODUCTION
There seems to be a cultural debate going on all over the web right now concerning the use of AI in artistic production, and the whole issue seems reminiscent of John Ruskin's critique of James Abbott McNeill Whistler's Nocturnes, a diatribe that can basically be summarized as follows:
Ruskin: "Is two days' work what you ask two hundred guineas for?"
Whistler: "No. I am asking for the knowledge I have acquired in my life's work."
Some of the points being raised in this debate coincide with some of my own ideas that are being coagulated, and I myself have been using AI in my work for a few weeks now: ultimately it comes down to who is a good director and who is a bad director.
A good "AI artist," as Stanley Kubrick might be, might try 100 times to get an image that is good for him, while a bad "AI artist" will just post 100 images without examining any of them for quality; it is only artistic judgment that counts.
I'm for human action in art, but I don't see any contradiction here: this kind of creation falls within the realm of art, and the generation of images according to directions from the artist, does not invalidate any of the traditional arts, although I understand how some people may feel threatened by redundancy.
About Jackson Pollack it was said, "My child could do that too!" but of course children don't really do Pollack's paintings, and the false perception of easy construction belies all the thought, reworking and discarded compositions that lead to the final published work.
After all, the artist, whatever technique he or she uses, has always been exclusively the one who chooses what to put and what to take away in his or her work, what to do or not to do, according to his or her own artistic vision, and is not content with what "passes the convent."
This is in fact what underlies Marcel Duchamp's "redy made art."
Everyone today is constantly making pictures but few are art.
Man Ray did not paint because he was a photographer, but his photo "Le Violon d'Ingres" from 1924 is undoubtedly a work of art, and it was sold at auction by Christie's for $12.4 million.
For several decades already, photography has not only had artistic value but also economic value in the art market, yet also a great photographer theoretically is basically just a camera technician and produces his art by pushing just a button... 😉
And about certain "artistic automatisms" but of great artistic value, in this debate let's avoid getting into the topic of music produced in the last 100 years, starting from Luigi Russolo (a musician of the italian futurist artistic movement, who as early as 1913 was using music samples with the gramophone) onwards... 😉
Comments (8)
uncollared
Very interesting character. Nice work
Tracesl
cool, excellent character
Saby55
Masterful done!!!!👏👍🙋♂️
jdwtrxk
Very nice. No need to justify using Ai - let the bloviators babble on about it for lack of anything better to squawk about. The art looks great and that's all that matters. if using computers in some fashion or another is such an affront to the arts, why aren't we restricted to brush, pan, and clay?
duo
As those who follow me on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/innovariart) may have noticed that a few weeks ago I began experimenting with using AI in my digital illustrations. Some people (a few people actually), however, complain to me saying: "You use AI and then market illustrations made by AI? In that way everyone is capable!" Of course this is a false impression, because in fact not everyone can get the same results that I get using the visual material that AI produces according to a specific initial idea. 😉
As you can also see from my official website (https://www.rotwangstudio.com), some of my latest illustrations are "AI AIDED" (assisted by AI) but they are NEVER the "raw" images generated by AI, otherwise there would be no chance for them to come out that way, and for the most part they would be abstract images, sometimes even interesting but totally random, and not at all controllable by me or plannable according to a precise initial idea. They are in fact based on visual material partially produced by AI (and it is certainly no secret) guided by me and at my direction, and they use elements of AI-generated images, but also artistic elements made from scratch by me with other software and applications, and there is still a considerable amount of "manual" work made of combinations, cutouts, blending between different images, additions, subtractions, retouching, color correction, effects and composition made by me in Photoshop spending many hours. This and my technical, cultural and artistic know-how is why you might buy (and pay me) these kind of MY illustrations (and NOT "made" by the AI) 😉 After all, no one ever complained about painter Andy Warhol because he was getting paid (at great expense) to blatantly reuse Campbell's ads mediated by his artistic sensibilities, so why complain about the same approach as me? 🙂 Mine is pop-art, too! And since it is commercial, it can't get any more pop-art than that! 👍
If the use of technology to artistically interpret reality were not art, then artistic photography would not exist and great artists such as Man Ray or Robert Capa who used photography as a medium would just be photography technicians who artistically cheated by using a technical trick. But of course, as has been universally established for a century, this is not the case.... After all you can paint on a rock only with natural earth colors using only your fingers. But perhaps for some, still bound exclusively to prehistoric art, using artificial colors and brushes on a canvas is already cheating... 😂 Of course, AI has only been present in the last few weeks in my decades-long profession as a digital illustrator, and it's not the main medium that I use, but since I discovered it very recently, I do not disdain using it if it is useful - and it is useful. The important thing is the end result and eventual "customer satisfaction", since I am not a painter who paints for an artistic whim, but a commercial artist illustrating commercial products. 👍 I've recently discovered AI art applications, they excite me a lot, and in the last couple of weeks I've been experimenting extensively with their creative possibilities.... it really is a new kind of "artistic medium" (something more than Photoshop or 3D programs) that also expands creativity a lot...😉
A_Sunbeam
Outstanding creation!
bob4artist
Nice diatribe on art. Really like the images you have been creating. The discussion can be presented as: which is more important, the finished image or how you produced?
duo
👍
lizard01
Purely addressing the images and not the means of their creation. Your latest posts are next level awesome.
miwi
Agree : Very nice. No need to justify using Ai - let the bloviators babble on about it for lack of anything better to squawk about. The art looks great and that's all that matters. if using computers in some fashion or another is such an affront to the arts, why aren't we restricted to brush, pan, and clay?