HOME | DD

Description

Welcome to my first new post, is this made with AI? Is it hand drawn? Is it photomashed? Is it photoshoped? Is it made with GIMP or Krita? And how much? Who knows. That's the mystery.

I would rather keep my workflow private, but I'm now obligated to answer 'Yes' or' No' to AI tools, and if I don't (by default its No), I get accused of AI anyway.

It's funny that people want to know if something now is made with AI, but before, no one asked if art was made with photoshop.

In my own opinion, I think everything digital is one of the same level of a genre, if the art is created on a computer rather than outside of computer. If anything, all that isn't made without a computer should have it's own label that people can easily be notified about like "physical source."

AI is still a new digital tool, but a digital tool nonetheless. So I understand why people want AI to be labeled. I know more people are starting to appreciate the use of AI, but I also agree that AI should be it's own category, not because of hatred against it, but because it's historically fair. Even with photography, there is a separate category, merit, awards, etc. But as it is today, AI is still mostly feared, and has yet to be understood by US copyrights.

AI has already won awards, so I know that people appreciate the designs; I just think it leaves a bad taste when people find out AI was entered in a non AI competition. As if an AI image was done by a bot and not a human using AI to make an image. So at early times like these, I want to choose to be private about all my work until society begins to see AI as a human tool just like photography.

I'm truly sorry that illustrators feel the most threaten about AI, but no one's out here telling you guys can't use AI yourself to compliment your own workflow or that digital pictures replace physical media. A true artist should never feel threaten, they should embrace a new change with confidence. Nothing in the world can replace what an original artist does with their creativity and skill. There was only 1 Picasso, there was only 1 Dr. Suess, and there is only 1 you that creates your original art pieces. Digital Artists have always been ridiculed because we work with computers, but digital drawing is also an art skill; so is being able to do compositions, 3D modeling, designs, music. I just think society needs to do better to separate each genre in its own expertise.

As a real life artist, that now works in digital media, I strongly believe that it's not the tools that make the artist, but the creative skill in how we use a tool.
Being an artist doesn't mean drawing inside the lines, it means drawing outside the lines, thinking outside the box, writing outside the outlined formats.
The biggest stress I have as an artist is getting others to just be creative, to not think of painting as a traditional form, or poetry as a couplet blueprint.

It's about using your platform, your tools, your wits to be free and expressive in your designs. You don't need to be talented to make art, you just have to be free.

That's why I love seeing new people using AI to make images no ones ever done before. I get amazed at seeing all the different ways people have thought of making a design using AI.

Whether you're a human working on a canvas or a human on a computer, it all goes back to creativity that defines the artist.
To use pigments in order to do realistic paintings. To use cubism to do new perspectives. To use digital composition to make new artworks, even to use AI to fill in the gaps, edit a picture,
or get you started on a composition piece. It all comes down to the novice artist adapting into a skilled designer.

So again, new Art methods NEVER replace older methods, they only introduce a new way to make art.
In the future, people will grow to be more accepting of digital artists, but for now, all we can do is our part, at the best we can, without stepping on any toes or doing anything morally wrong that people can accuse of theft, plagiarism, or just straight shoving AI into non Ai categorys. In return, I hope people will begin to see the genre of AI with a bit more respect, that AI is not this stereotypical hollywood idea of a terminator or breathing entity that takes over the world --no no, that is just movie magic. All that we have to better organize is how to reduce copyright infringements, do ethical training, and avoid artists that want nothing to do with AI.
Especially on open source, only YOU can restrict yourself of using Loras in right methods without deliberately ripping off established IPs for commercial use. Lastly, digital art vs physical art are both means of creating art. The attention in AI gives computers all the credit, but most AI are not images made by bots, they're made by people. So the question should never have been "was AI used?," but "who did this AI piece, and so, provide your prompt as proof." Hopefully, people can be honest with their fans and not need to provide their private workflow, but I doubt many will have to because of some bad apples and fake users.

Description

Welcome to my first new post, is this made with AI? Is it hand drawn? Is it photomashed? Is it photoshoped? Is it made with GIMP or Krita? And how much? Who knows. That's the mystery.

I would rather keep my workflow private, but I'm now obligated to answer 'Yes' or' No' to AI tools, and if I don't (by default its No), I get accused of AI anyway.

It's funny that people want to know if something now is made with AI, but before, no one asked if art was made with photoshop.

In my own opinion, I think everything digital is one of the same level of a genre, if the art is created on a computer rather than outside of computer. If anything, all that isn't made without a computer should have it's own label that people can easily be notified about like "physical source."

AI is still a new digital tool, but a digital tool nonetheless. So I understand why people want AI to be labeled. I know more people are starting to appreciate the use of AI, but I also agree that AI should be it's own category, not because of hatred against it, but because it's historically fair. Even with photography, there is a separate category, merit, awards, etc. But as it is today, AI is still mostly feared, and has yet to be understood by US copyrights.

AI has already won awards, so I know that people appreciate the designs; I just think it leaves a bad taste when people find out AI was entered in a non AI competition. As if an AI image was done by a bot and not a human using AI to make an image. So at early times like these, I want to choose to be private about all my work until society begins to see AI as a human tool just like photography.

I'm truly sorry that illustrators feel the most threaten about AI, but no one's out here telling you guys can't use AI yourself to compliment your own workflow or that digital pictures replace physical media. A true artist should never feel threaten, they should embrace a new change with confidence. Nothing in the world can replace what an original artist does with their creativity and skill. There was only 1 Picasso, there was only 1 Dr. Suess, and there is only 1 you that creates your original art pieces. Digital Artists have always been ridiculed because we work with computers, but digital drawing is also an art skill; so is being able to do compositions, 3D modeling, designs, music. I just think society needs to do better to separate each genre in its own expertise.

As a real life artist, that now works in digital media, I strongly believe that it's not the tools that make the artist, but the creative skill in how we use a tool.
Being an artist doesn't mean drawing inside the lines, it means drawing outside the lines, thinking outside the box, writing outside the outlined formats.
The biggest stress I have as an artist is getting others to just be creative, to not think of painting as a traditional form, or poetry as a couplet blueprint.

It's about using your platform, your tools, your wits to be free and expressive in your designs. You don't need to be talented to make art, you just have to be free.

That's why I love seeing new people using AI to make images no ones ever done before. I get amazed at seeing all the different ways people have thought of making a design using AI.

Whether you're a human working on a canvas or a human on a computer, it all goes back to creativity that defines the artist.
To use pigments in order to do realistic paintings. To use cubism to do new perspectives. To use digital composition to make new artworks, even to use AI to fill in the gaps, edit a picture,
or get you started on a composition piece. It all comes down to the novice artist adapting into a skilled designer.

So again, new Art methods NEVER replace older methods, they only introduce a new way to make art.
In the future, people will grow to be more accepting of digital artists, but for now, all we can do is our part, at the best we can, without stepping on any toes or doing anything morally wrong that people can accuse of theft, plagiarism, or just straight shoving AI into non Ai categorys. In return, I hope people will begin to see the genre of AI with a bit more respect, that AI is not this stereotypical hollywood idea of a terminator or breathing entity that takes over the world --no no, that is just movie magic. All that we have to better organize is how to reduce copyright infringements, do ethical training, and avoid artists that want nothing to do with AI.
Especially on open source, only YOU can restrict yourself of using Loras in right methods without deliberately ripping off established IPs for commercial use. Lastly, digital art vs physical art are both means of creating art. The attention in AI gives computers all the credit, but most AI are not images made by bots, they're made by people. So the question should never have been "was AI used?," but "who did this AI piece, and so, provide your prompt as proof." Hopefully, people can be honest with their fans and not need to provide their private workflow, but I doubt many will have to because of some bad apples and fake users.