I agree with this!

Franz, you are a wonderful person, my friend.

Right on!!!! 👍👍👍

Same problem at DeviantArt. Only you get the choice to tick a box saying you don't want your work to be available to AI over there. Perhaps they should do the same on here. I don't like the idea of my art being used in this way if it was. Or even perhaps, a separate gallery for AI.

I find these AI images at this flood horrible, not to mention an insult to all those who spend hours to design scenes, render and yes even if I do not like it - postwork with very good techniques but do it manually to make the images even better ...

On artstation you can tag images NoAI here there are no tags.

a gallery would not be possible here because if you go to NEW you see everything again ... I think a separate portal would be better than on a primarily render site !

The powers-that-be here at Renderosity are looking at a lot of different issues and options. You might want to visit this forum thread and communicate any concerns, suggestions, or ideas you may have.

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2976344/a-couple-questions

Fantastic ... i like the Idea with the Settings in the Profil

Hi, I'm also not a friend of it. In my eyes, the postwork is what has little to do with the actual idea. Of course you can make the lights better, but for me that's the challenge without doing it. And it works! Of course, a lot has to deal with the rendering and the engine. But that's just my opinion :)

Greets Stormrider75

100 % with you...stop AI now ! like you I never comment on AI pictures.

Da gebe ich dir recht. Auch wenn manch generierte Ergebnisse recht nett anzuschauen sind, fehlt einfach der Gestaltungswille eines Künstlers, der hinter dem Werk steht. Schließlich lässt man nur nach gewissen Vorgaben etwas entstehen, hat aber aktiv keinen Anteil am Gestaltungsprozess selbst.

I agree!

It seems, I'll have to post the same text all over again: Well, this discussion doesn’t seem to be too controversial to me. As an Illustrator I see the danger that the pictures generated by the artificial „intelligence“ brings to my profession. On the other hand I have (over several years) experienced a growing tendency of the customers to steer us (artist, designers, illustrators) to follow their will as if we were machines. No matter how questionable, wrong or simply stupid the demands were. Even the most untalented, unimaginative persons discovered the art-director in themselves. For those people working with AI would be just the right thing instead of driving designers to the edge of madness. (There is a video on YouTube called „Designing the Stop-sign“. It is very funny - if you are not a designer!) About the question if AI-creations are art: there are a lot of techniques to make art and there have always been a lot of ways to disdain one or the other forms of art. Is it art, when someone drills a hole into the ground and sticks a brass rod into it? The artwork isn’t even visible. The beholder sees only a little yellow circle. Is it art, when someone punches holes into paint cans and runs with them over a canvas? Is it art, when someone takes a light gathering device and holds it in front of something that others have grow or built. Or is it art, when I buy some figures, clothing and props to arrange a scene and hit render? It is easy to depreciate artworks if you describe them in such ways. And at last, it does not seam so easy to me as described in some of the comments. I have tried it some times and I have never got a result of it, that I was willing to post somewhere (like, for example, Gill Brooks). What I got out of it were interesting compositions and lighting in the pictures. It depends, on what you see in it, what you make of it. Use it as to spark your imagination. I for one are happy to have seen a lot of pictures that would not exist if if was not for the AI - and the people who know how to use it.

Thank you for the detailed text ... I'll take up "There are many techniques to make art, and there have always been many ways to despise one form of art or another" ... well that's exactly the point, it's not a technique, if an artist uses a thick brush, applies the paint with a certain pressure and hand movement, then that's technique ... in the digital world it is creating a scene, arranging and posing ... with an AI image you choose a style as a base, you enter keywords and the algo looks for images and combines them - that's not art ... I'm an IT guy, I come from a programming background, and I did robotics and automation engineering in the 90s ... I have created programs in which you have painted a conveyor and my software has made it a program control ... did I program the conveyor ? NO, my program has created the code from prefabricated modules ...

I don't believe photography is art. You are simply replicating and existing and real subject. Using fancy lighting does not change that you are still taking a picture of a person or flower or landscape. Photography robs from the painter who spent hours or days recreating a scene of workers and hay bails.

I don't believe Poser or DAZ users are artists. They take the work of others, such as modelers and place the figures like dolls in doll houses or nudies by the pool and then take a virtual photograph of the scene, Then the computer does all the work calculating the lighting and reflections while the supposed artist just place their toys and dolls in a pre made scene.

I don't believe painting on a computer screen with a stylus is art. It's not using paint, or charcoal or a real textured brush instead it is all a simulation.

I don't believe montages or collages digital or otherwise are art. The person is taking other people's images and combining them in Photoshop or gluing them on cardboard which takes no talent. So that is not art.

The electric organ should be banned because it will take away organist jobs and jobs to build large pipe organs. It does not matter that most churches cannot afford a pipe organ, an electric organ is not a real organ.

The Mellotron should be banned. It takes away jobs from symphonies and orchestras. A keyboard player playing strings or a flute is not a violinist or flautist.

MIDI, sequencing and sampling should be banned. These things attack the real musician and audio engineer and will be the downfall of the music industry.

Obviously I do not agree with anything I just mentioned. I'm trying to make a point. A tool is a tool. If A.I. helps someone find a way to make some art and inspires them to become more creative then hats off to them. I've already found ways to combine PhotoShop, A.I. Poser and Vue to create artwork. What about Flowscape? I have generated several AI images and then used PhotoShop to crop, select, clone, paint, erase, etc into one image. I think the hard stance against AI will fade as it did with photography, the organ, sampling, the first CGI. There's no such thing as pure art as defined by the tools. Pure art is generated by the will of someone even if it means coming up with creative words and phrases to make the image you desire. What about 3D printers? When food replicators become a real thing, will it put the artsy chef out of business? Probably not.

I find your listing wrong even if it was meant very ironically! Is photography art ... yes why ... because in the photo art exactly by the photographer everything is arranged so that and a work of art ensteht the technique is also here the lighting and posing or put in scene.

Is digital music music of artists ... yes because they compose

are Poser and Daz created images and videos art even if you use the assets of others ... yes because only the one who created the scene sees exactly this scene so and gestalltet ...

is a painter like van gogh an artist or not just because his models wear clothes that others have sewn ...

AI is can not be compared with all what you have listed, it is fundamentally different and does not require any artistic quality in the one who lets him create!

As I said, I don't agree with the points I wrote, which is precisely the point. Those are all paraphrased quotes of naysayers of the past when confronted with new artforms and new tools and concepts to create art. To me AI is just another tool to create art. People using AI to create serious art are composing by developing the right word and phrase combinations to create the image they are desiring to create. In fact one can generate several images and then composite them in Photoshop, much like people making digital montages. There will always be hacks when it comes to art of any type and when any new art creation tools or new forms comes along, but we don't judge these new tools and forms by the hacks, we judge and critique those that are serious in their effort to create. AI can be exactly compared to my points I have made, because writing is, in fact, composing; ask any author, writer, poet, essayist, etc. If you are using your brain and some kind of tool and interface to create art, you are creating or composing. One should learn the ins and outs of new tools, or technology in this case, and see how it could be applied to ones own workflow before dismissing it altogether. And even if digital painting or digital montages or rendering is not your thing, that does not mean those forms should be dismissed as art. I feel too many people see AI as a threat rather than a new frontier. And that is my opinion. I respect the artist and original author here on their opinion, but I'm trying to offer a different perspective to look at AI.

i have read you text and sitemail ...

Hi,

I already understood that and also wrote it that it was partly very ironic from them.

Exactly: quote

You made an argument to each of my quotes, but you ignore what is required and what can be done with AI. From what I've seen, some amateur artists using DAZ, Poser or Vue look pretty darn bad. And why? Because they had no sense of composition, couldn't recognize scale, and didn't realize that their rendering was worse than someone else's. Those who did poorly and recognized these aspects took tutorials and learned the importance of composition, lighting mood, and scale in classes or from other artists.

Yes most of them can't do that and then they take a program that someone else has written and that is based on content of others, enter terms and get a "work of art" - that is and remains no art ...

Art is the indescribable quality of a person to see and express things and to create a work of art for it with craft methods.

Programs like Poser or Daz, Vue etc are tools that you have to master to create a picture, well most of them can't do that because they are a. render in a catastrophic quality b. have no view c. no craftsmanship d. no artistic expression

I have painted at the age of 16-20 ... with brush and paint, I had exhibitions, I painted all styles but developed my own style or thought of other artists to finish.

Of course I looked at and tested the AI generators (nothing else is) ... I judge and give my opinion only about things I have looked at and tested!

Surely it is something else when I render because I use to 99% only the things I have created before ... but these things I have created as tools as a fashion designer creates a dress and the tailor sewed it, the artist let the woman dress so he could paint her. On the chair made by another in the room designed by an architect and built by the craftsman.

As described, I am an IT specialist and have written programs myself that did similar things.

So I don't express my opinion without background and I stick to it - AI pictures are not art.

Have you ever taken a close look at AI images and how many anatomical errors they contain ... just a few days ago I saw a picture here - heads and clothes great, the feet completely crippled....

I want to go back to the photography ... Photography can be used both as art and there it depends on the artist what he creates on the photo as well as a normal craft, so photography is a bad example of why AI as art "today" is still misunderstood

The parallel I see between AI and photography is in its infancy. To get a picture one needed long exposure and if doing a portrait this required the subject to sit still for some time. There's another irony there because most painters required a subject to sit there while they painted the portrait of the subject. Regardless, many painters of the 19th century scoffed at photography especially because the lack of color. The bulky cameras, chemicals for developing and large silvered glass plates. Luckily the public did not see it that way. To me photography was only done by artists in the beginning, it wasn't until much later and cameras became smaller and the average person had access did we see photography being used for more mundane and pedestrian uses. With AI I see artists and artist wannabes using it and I believe it is marketed to people who want to achieve some artistic creation but don't have the skills. In there is the root, I believe, of other artists opposition to AI. It is seen as a shortcut and I will not disagree with that, but for trained artists it can be used as a very useful tool and for non artists it may be a gateway into the artworld and inspire them to learn and even train. So I do not believe it should be condemned at such a high level.

I've been thinking about this for a few days now. I don't think this is the place for an abundance of AI "art". While many may consider AI generated images as art and, I have seen a few that I do like. My problem with it is the lack of creativity and style on the creator's part. Images created by hand and with platforms such as Daz Studio, Poser, and photo shop, have a style and creative characteristic unique to each user. The Ai generated seem to be lacking in that individual flare that makes many of the images posted here enjoyable, fun and, inspiring.

no one said that some look good - but i stay on my opinion ... thats no art

Artstation is doing right !

We’ve updated our Terms of Service to make clear that scraping and reselling or redistributing content is not permitted, and to clarify the prohibition against use of NoAI Content with Generative AI Programs.

We have also committed not to use, or license any third party to use, any ArtStation content for the purpose of training Generative AI Programs.

I agree, I love this site because it allows 3d artists of all levels to show their art work and to gain experience and learn from others. The clue is in the name Render osity. If you want to post photo`s, snapshots, and text prompted AI images there are plenty of other sites you can go to. Come on people lets get back to human creativity and leave the unimaginative and machines to do their own thing elsewhere.

100% agreement! Thanks to you to be part of O-Sity!

I feel that a lot of people are missing the point. Art is created through the imagination of an artist bring their dreams to lift for all to experience in some small way. Artists paint or draw, authors write, musicians play, each allowing others to share their dreams through their preferred media. AI is a wonderful tool allowing people who do not have the raw talent to paint, write, or compose to find an outlet. AI generates some beautiful images, stories, music and is yet just another form of media. I am sure classical painters of the past were very upset when photography came along. The point I am making is that if I want to see snaps of peoples dogs I will go on facebook, if I want to hear music I will turn on the radio, and if I want to see 3D renders I will go to Renderosity. And if i want to see what a computer can generate I will find a site that show me that, and that is not this site.

thats it - not here ... well