Folks are complaining that online spaces for artists – image galleries, forums and the like – are filling up with AI-generated imagery.
A lot of it is bad. Whenever it’s good, that’s more down to the algorithm than the person using the program.
“Hey, I had to get good with prompt design!”
You can learn good prompt design from an expert in five minutes. You can’t learn digital art from an expert in five days. That’s because one is an art form and the other isn’t.
I’m not saying these AI images not creative. But it’s not the end user who’s expressing themselves. No, that’s down to the training images and the algorithm itself. Typing someone’s name into DuckDuckGo doesn’t make you a private investigator.
Even so, plenty of folks are proud of “their” AI creations.
Some even charge for them, which is like paying me to do your DuckDuckGo searches for you. You could just cut out the middleman there.
But why?
Why would anyone be proud of something they commissioned, in a sense, rather than created?
(Nuance check: obviously I’m not talking about artists who take an AI image, and then spent hours and talent making it better. That’s different.)
Well, in yesterday’s email, I talked about having a creative urge but not having a creative outlet.
I talked about how obsessed I became years ago with ambigrams – the first artistic thing where I wasn’t terrible at it. It felt so intoxicating being able to express my creativity, bringing into the world something that only existed in my head before.
Now, sure, plenty of folks are just using AI to mass produce manure and sell it for a quick buck.
But not everyone in this space is making a profit from it – or even trying to break even.
Some do it because of the likes and the kudos and the raw electric thrill of sharing something of yours in the world.
If you have a creative urge but no real outlet for it, then I can see how AI might appeal.
I just hope you’re okay with everyone laughing at you.
Because everyone with a brain and working eyes can see your art is fake. They can tell you pushed a button and didn’t even clean it up in GIMP afterwards. Seeing you pass this off as some modest achievement, worthy of admiration, is pathetic.
The only folks liking and commenting on “your” “art” are pathetic losers. You’re not even king of a dung heap – because there are better AI users than you, you’re more like a duke.
Well done. I hope it was worth it.
Maybe, instead, you should learn how to express your creativity.
See, you don’t have to write well to be a writer. If you write consistently and in an unique style – even a bad style – then you’ll find your audience in time. You don’t have to draw well to be an artist. The most popular webcomics of all time are rarely famous for the beautiful imagery.
xkcd is an obvious example, although folks underestimate the talent needed to convey emotion and personality through only stick figures. Another great example is Basic Instructions – the author took photos of himself and his friends, traced over them and uses the traces as stock imagery for his webcomic.
You don’t need talent.
You need to get to work.
“But how…?”
Some styles of creativity are unstoppable. They’re dynamos, capable of hustling hard and sticking with a project until it’s done.
You have this style inside of you.
You just need to cultivate it.
How?
By reading and doing the simple exercises in Every Creative Way, available here:
You must be logged in to post a comment.