Hacker News Reader

Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

The fine art world, which is typically what people mean by "art", has basically nothing to do with generative AI and probably never will. It's an entirely different set of metrics.

What you're talking about is illustration, which will indeed have a difficult time in the future.

View on HN

art/fine art, will only be at risk when ai learns to physically paint or interact with the world. I think it needs to actually use a paint brush. Pictures of paintings are never the same as seeing them in person. They just can't be captured the same way. Ai is being trained on photographs of these physical paintings.

a lot of art isn't always so much about the technique but the content. ai might make the gap from beginner and crap to pleasing to look at in a technical sense, but that doesn't mean the art it self will be interesting or meaningful.

if you really think art as a whole is at risk of being destroyed by ai you should go to your nearest high quality museum and really think if ai would make that. i know like half the posters are in the bay area lol, go to sf moma this weekend and think about this.

Yes, your opinion seems like the obvious truth to me and I don’t quite understand why this is eluding people.

probably just people commenting on fields they dont have experience with

> art/fine art, will only be at risk when ai learns to physically paint or interact with the world.

So you just need to pair DallE with an axidraw?

it would need to understand shading, layering, strokes etc.. and how utilize them to get pleasant effects.

idk how a computer would deal with the unpredictability of a medium like water color. axidraw looks more like a printer thats using a pencil instead of ink.

skip to 36min in here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OokWxQPU5kw

Some “artists” I know are scraping by on work that could be eaten by generative AI. Even if they don’t self identify as “illustrators”.

We can argue all day about the definition of Artist. My point is that for artists, painters, sculptors, etc. that show their work in galleries and museums, generative AI will have about as much effect as digital art: a little, but not much.

Maybe in the short term. In the longer term, who is going to bother developing these skills? Not everyone “hits a home run” and is successful in galleries and museums, but there have always been fallback options like commercial illustration. If those options are gone, then it’s either 1) be good/lucky enough to succeed in galleries/museums 2) starve or 3) be independently wealthy before becoming an artist.

I mean, the vast majority of artists operating in the gallery system are not moonlighting as commercial artists. It’s an entirely different skill set.

I encourage you to check out the work at museums and galleries in whichever city you live in. It should be immediately obvious that these aren’t really skills that transfer to Photoshop and blog post images.

> The fine art world, which is typically what people mean by "art"

Maybe in your circle, but that's certainly not the case generally.

Art galleries? The art world? These are pretty universal terms and they refer to the system of museums, art fairs, galleries, etc. that have nothing to do with commercial illustrations.

The book illustrator is an artist who works in publishing, the art gallery painter is an artist who participates in the "fine art" world.

I've never heard these terms used like you are using them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_world

See also: Art Forum. ArtNews. MoMa. The Met. Etc.

I didn’t invent the term.

"Art world" is a term connected to "fine art" not "art" or "artists". That's where we disagree.

>Maybe in your circle, but that's certainly not the case generally.

Great, now that's solved, let's agree on a definition of 'punk' next

Reply on news.ycombinator.com