There are many popular AI art models that have garnered attention in recent years. One of these is Midjourney, an AI model developed by artist and researcher Mario Klingemann. Midjourney is a neural network that has been trained on a dataset of millions of images and can generate surreal, dreamlike artwork. Another popular AI art model is DALL-E, developed by OpenAI. DALL-E is a deep learning model that can generate images from text descriptions, allowing users to input a written prompt and have the model generate a corresponding image. Stable Diffusion is another popular AI art model, developed by artist and researcher Joel Simon. Stable Diffusion is a generative model that can create abstract, organic-looking patterns and shapes, and has been used to create a variety of artwork including paintings, sculptures, and digital prints. These popular AI art models demonstrate the incredible creative potential of AI and the many different ways it can be used to create art.
AI art has been a topic of debate in the art world for some time now. On one hand, some argue that the use of machine learning algorithms to generate artwork lacks the human touch and creativity that is essential to art. On the other hand, others believe that AI art can be considered a valid form of art, with some even going as far as to argue that it represents the future of art. So, what’s the truth? Can AI art be considered art, or is it simply a gimmick?
First, let’s define what we mean by “AI art.” AI art refers to artwork that is generated or created using artificial intelligence algorithms. This can include everything from paintings and drawings to sculptures and even music. Some AI art is created using pre-existing models, while others are created using custom models built by the artist.
One argument against AI art being considered art is that it lacks the human touch and creativity that is essential to art. After all, if a machine is doing all the work, where is the room for human expression? This argument is understandable, but I believe it oversimplifies the role of the artist in the creation of AI art. When an artist uses a custom model to create AI art, they are playing a crucial role in shaping the final product. They are choosing the parameters and training data that the AI uses to generate the artwork, which means they are influencing the final result in a very real way. In this sense, the artist is still very much present in the creative process, even if they are not physically creating the artwork themselves.
Another reason I believe AI art can be considered art is the difficulty of prompts to create something that doesn’t feel like it’s in the uncanny valley. As someone who has spent time using AI to write code, I can attest to the fact that it can be a challenging and time-consuming process to get the prompts just right in order to achieve the desired results. This level of effort and skill required to create something that feels “real” to the viewer demonstrates the artist’s creativity and artistry.
In conclusion, while there may be valid arguments against AI art being considered “real” art, I believe that the custom model creation and the difficulty of prompts to create something that doesn’t feel artificial are two factors that make AI art worthy of being considered art. AI art may be a relatively new phenomenon, but it has the potential to be a powerful and transformative force in the art world, and I believe it deserves to be recognized as such.
Check back soon for our article on the case against AI art.
Source NFT Culture