the idea that i have full control bc of ctrl + z is laughable to me, the argument ignores that i'm limited by my live time just a few years ago i couldn't draw a straight line on my tablet. if i went for perfection or anything near it i wouldn't have produced a single image yet. now i can produce a straight line but perfection is as out of reach as it has ever been and as it ever will be. because my ambitions get bigger just as my skill does. i will never be able to ctrl+z myself into a perfect image because for that i would need to be a perfect artist. but being a perfect is impossible. and as a result of that i can always improve. and because i can always improve i will always set ambitious goals for myself. right now it is to improve at posing. and just like the example before i can't ctrl+z myself into a perfect or near perfect pose because if i do that i will get burned out on the image from hours of ctrl+z. as a result i eventually have to settle for a flawed pose full of mistakes and work with that. and it will be the same story once i want to get better at rendering and when i want to learn to draw cool, detailed perspective backgrounds and when i want to learn storytelling and all of the things i will want to improve at again and again. you can't ctrl+z into a perfect image because you will die before you ever produce anything beyond "fine". if anything i produce looks perfect to someone then they're not fully appreciating my art. no matter how good i may be. so that's my opinion. would love too hear how others feel about this.
Okay so my problem with your whole thing is that you say that artists need to live with limitations and that everything is too perfect because of digital. But the problem is that ai art doesnt have those limitations and you dont to get to make mistakes or decisions. You arent making anything. All it is a search engine for knockoff plagiarized art. You might change the prompt, but thats just being descriptive. Youre just asking for iterations, and edits.
That's not how AI works. It doesn't retain any copies of any original pieces, it's just trained to recognize and imitate certain patterns. If you mesh it together with multiple pieces and references from multiple artists, then you'll create pieces that not even the original artists would be able to recognize as their own.
@Eisenbison you completely missed the point . I was referring to the "artist's" contribution to the piece, or lack thereof. As far as "bootleg plagiarized art" goes, it "trains" on stolen art and uses those images to create something that imitates the original pieces, yet it lacks any actual understanding of the images it is stealing from or the images it is creating. And you say it doesn't hold copies of the original images, yet it can spit out exact copies of those images. Just because potted meat is unrecognizable as something resembling meat doesn't change the fact that it's an amalgamation of pork, chicken, and beef. After being processed beyond recognition, it loses all the soul and substance of what it used to be, and turned into something that barely passes as human food. That's all ai image generation is. Cheap, mass produced slop that can't hold a candle to anything made by a human.
Sam Hamper once again being an absolute boss who's opinions aren't blindfolded by emotions and the presupposition that AI art is bad, while making valuable comparisons between what's going on now and other relevant events in art history.
Yes, I was mad about the title too! I've been so caught up in the collective outrage about AI coming in and getting shoved down everybody's throats... but being mad about it isn't going to change the fact that, indeed, it is here to stay. So many people are embracing it, both making it and viewing it, and getting worked up won't do a lick of good in stopping it. Perhaps being content in our own skills as non-AI artists is the only way to approach things. As photography and different mediums/movements in art have ebbed and flowed, painting never really went away despite being put on the back burner by some. If anything, it's another tool in the kit, another mode of self-expression. Thank you, Sam. <3
After the last year of AI art I constantly see underdeveloped art, its not getting better, these people have no taste and there is a limit as to how much information you can put in a prompt. As an artist i'm not afraid of this crap anymore, the vast majority of people now see it as the lowest form of art, adopted by scammers, fraudsters and low effort no imagination tech bro's. "Art is dead Bro!" Nope, the only thing that's dead is your brain.
so youre one of those avangarde snob who says people just dont understand their deep exquisite taste. Im sure you like found objects too. A prompter is a client who asks for a product, and no amount of coping will convince me. what a cyberpunk dystopia we are geting into...
I was listening this video thinking that maybe we have a different view on art, but when you mentioned Dali, everything was clear. That guy was a clown. Stealing art, got in the disguise of an artist and getting applauded by fascists. Its not a reference and Im not interested in what you are talking about anymore. Fuck AI
1:43 "With every element of progress, something is lost." I think if more artists acknowledged this, there wouldn't be such outcry against AI. As you said, they've done this to themselves. They made art easier, and incentivized this ease to the point that now they don't even need to make a single brush stroke for fantastic art. Easier art forms always result in resentment from those who refuse to acknowledge their legitimacy due to the struggle they went through, and would rather pull up the ladder of progress behind them to make others struggle as they did.
I really like this Sam. I'm getting so bored of 'the romantic artist' argument Vs AI, and having to point out that new tech has always warped and changed 'the art world', either directly or indirectly. Like you, I'm an early adopter but not to create just more perfect 'fantasy' art which seems to populate most online AI art sites/pages. I love the surreal dream-like images i can coax out of it. Yeah, there are concerns about AI in broader culture but in the creative spheres, it's going to have knock effects that, as you say, we just can't imagine yet. I don't want it to 'get 'better' in some respects, In fact, I reckon its time to start the campaign for real AI haha :)
USA/Philadelphia art school closing June 2024 - 1950s thru the '70s, PCA (Uarts) was relatively inexpensive combined with the graphic arts industry in Philadelphia, a graduate could work at their craft or support it. The decades since has students "mortgaging" an enormous debt with a dwindling art/craft industry employment, replaced by computer technology and the internet.
Sam Hamper Thank you! Thank you kindly my dear Brother. For doing justice to the need for Art Education. You see, your course of study Engineering is well appreciated in the society today. As an artist one could gladiy say what I' m about to say now. The art in Engineering is not an end in itself, per say , that means that an engineer, study Engineering, but there is an element of art in Engineering, and so there is art in almost all the courses, and this is a good standpoint to teach art in that field or whatever course of study. Thank you for sharing ,new friends btw.
This really resonated with me and put into words thing I've had in the back of my mind for a long time. Very nice video, you have a great presence on camera. Thank you for making it.
I was an art tutor in the 80s I was a working artist as well but I had no qualifications. The art school bosted a 85% success rate but then in the early 90s the art school sacked all tutors that didn’t have big degrees. Soon after the art school boasted a 3% success rate and still do.
Well put! Your argument about how artistry and creativity pervade many other professions also resonates personally. I have always thought that my fine arts degree was a great preparation for what ended up as a career in academia. I can imagine you might have similarly developed (creative) skills in your time as an engineer that you are finding valuable as an artist.
Interesting video! I listened to it while doing some yard work outside, haha. I agree that most *competent* people in engineering/art/programming/etc fields are all artistic and creative people. Natural sciences and illustration are particularly well-suited to each other - as an example, talented artisans had to work precisely to make accurate reproductions of plants for reference/study (Harvard University's "Glass Flowers" Gallery or the Field Museum's "Plants of the World" Exhibit). Photographs are great, but nothing beats having an accurate copy you can hold in your hand. Also, keep in mind that not everyone is intelligent enough to study STEM. Both my parents are engineers, yet I failed algebra twice and I couldn't pursue the STEM career I wanted because of either my lack of intelligence, inability to study, or a bad math foundation. It took many years for me to work past my math failures and focus instead on what I was actually good at - which ended up being design and illustration, and it led to a (so far) reasonably successful career. I used my interest in history and science to help me paint more accurately and to give myself a non-art creative outlet, rather than giving up on my interests completely because I couldn't be a geologist or ebola virologist (or whatever) without solid math or chemistry skills. Perhaps I misinterpreted some of your words (I didn't take written notes, haha) but I think you oversimplified the "fine arts" discipline quite a bit here - there's definitely a segment of fine arts that's focused on individualism, being elite, being "creative" in a snobby, weird way... but that wasn't my experience in college at all! Graphic design (at least at my particular public university) was a heavily collaborative major - we were in small classes and got to know each other, we all critiqued each other's work, we learned to utilize all sorts of old/new technology to solve problems, and we even got to collaborate with different disciplines (like, film students) on bigger projects that none of us could do alone. The goal was always to be a member of a team, or to otherwise solve problems for a client and be economically viable within the harsh realities of capitalism. Most working artists I know aren't that uptight about working for "the man" - they teach, do freelance work, sell products on their online store, are employed within a team of people, etc. They just want to work in a field they love and be compensated fairly for it. Pro-AI spheres in particular like to spread the myth of the "elite" artist around, and it's kind of annoying to push back on. On another note - I'm not sure how school is in the UK, but I occasionally substitute teach in the US - I've noticed a post-COVID rise of students who lack a passion for learning, have behavioral problems (act out, refuse to do work), and can't concentrate on anything that isn't on a computer screen. Children aren't given the opportunity to be bored and entertain themselves anymore with internet being so accessible; every waking moment is spent trying to disassociate and go back on Tik Tok to pass the 7-hour school day. Worst of all, classes aren't separated by ability, so smart students are bored and slowest students are left behind. Parents don't pay attention or discipline their kids. Textbooks were done away with, so readings can only be done on distraction-filled laptops. Art, music, or sports classes are currently the best way for us to give students some mental stimulation other than dry, by-the-test learning. I have a feeling that (because most teachers are forced to teach very specific approved material given to them by the state), that if dedicated creative classes are cut, learning will become entirely rote and we'll have a lot of uncreative young people who can't program, engineer, science, or medicine their way out of a novel situation.
I relate. My family is full of educators. I've had a close view of changes in education for the last 60 years. I also took college level architecture classes, back when we learned primarily by drafting. I have a technical certificate in woodworking at a college level. I am also a passionate artist. I could summon dozens of personnel stories that back up Sam's ideas. Today I create art our of curiosity. History, nature, and craftsmanship are fundamental influences in what I do. Not money. I have a woodshop full of unsold paintings. In 2008 I closed my woodshop because bankers really used their creativity to ruin the economy. My goals at the time were to make it so I could keep working even with a growing disability. Just before Covid struck I decided to dedicate 4 years of my life studying art. I did not want to die with out seeing if I could be a "real" artist. I have spent thousands "playing" artist. I discovered an unexpected benefit. I know art has been a marvelous pain killer. I believe it has helped me avoid opioid addiction and multiple surgeries. I'm still in great pain, but I know that when I am in that creative zone I'm pain free. I know remaining active has greatly benefited. I know my curiosity has kept me young.
What beautiful story. Thanks so much for sharing. I hope it continues to help you as ultimately you are right -that’s what art does best. I wish you the very best of health ❤️
Very thorough and interesting video. I agree with you we should incorporate arts much more in STEM and vice versa, and recognize many art departments are broken. But I never get this distaste for Romanticism by so many artists today. I think the concepts of Romanticism and "selling out" have kind of been hijacked, and maybe you are responding to the hijacked version, not the core of each. You don’t define “selling out”, so I may be misunderstanding your point, but to me "selling out" means something like “throwing away your true values, interests and beliefs for a temporary financial reward.” By that definition, at least, it seems like just as big problem today as ever. Van Gogh having a patron - just like Thoreau not really "living in the woods" etc. - is a valid critique, but doesn't really argue why “selling out” and the individual artist as concepts are invalid - let alone damaging. Van Gogh was certainly a Romanticized figure, but not technically part of the Romantic movement, and probably not the best example of Romanticism. It seems a better example is Shelley’s Frankenstein - a brilliant problematization of scientific / technological hubris that only gets more relevant by the day. Frankenstein would never, ever grow out of the values of modern STEM. AI is almost literally the Frankenstein monster in digital form. Certain works simply must come from an independent-minded rejection or at least critique of Enlightenment progress - grounded in something like a sacred respect for nature, dreams, human emotion and human intution. I predict these ideals will only get more relevant and powerful in the future (whether it's associated with 19th century Romanticism or not). At least in an ideal system, public funding would allow more people to follow their true beliefs, rather than compromised ones, and create uncompromising works. I totally agree that this hasn’t been happening enough in practice, but I think the business mindset is already pretty well represented - if not overrepresented in universities- and what is lacking is really a more public, civic and communitarian mindset. Yes there are exciting parts of the tech world - especially around games and immersive entertainment (AR/VR) - and these should be celebrated rather than roundly rejected by artists and art departments. But what about the nearly endless list of tech companies - Uber, WeWork, even Amazon - that never need to make a single dollar of profit, all because they put growth and monopolization first, while successfully courting venture capitalists, working out complex financial schemes like "global work" sweatshops training their AI models, etc.? The myth of the individual entrepreneur seems much more pernicious and deleterious than the myth of the Romantic, individualist artist.
This is wonderful reply. Thank you so much, some really great points. I agree with you. I feel the reluctance for ‘artistic’ or romantic minded people to enter STEM is largely because of what you state in your last paragraph - this idea that it’s too profit and growth minded a sector. Artists feel these industries have little thought for what a cohesive and fairer community needs… I would argue that this drives more artists away from the field, when it’s exactly what it (and they) need. These two communities have ideological blind spots and would benefit from being better integrated at the level of school education. Our future technologists would be more sensitive to how their careers must benefit the souls of their audience and our future artists learn to foster realistic expectations regarding civic engagement from the funding they receive. I recognise my argument is quite focused on money, however I am talking about tax payers paying these things and in tough times it’s clear that the ‘value’ of the arts is having a tough job explaining its benefit - Of which you articulated really well. So Thanks again! A great read.
No, I'm getting off the ride early. Any argument favoring what has happened in the UK, and the US relative to cutting spending on the arts, is in effect an argument FOR the neoliberal economic policies that have led to historic inequality. Sam seems to be very entrenched in such ideology ultimately. Seriously, the 1% doesn't need your help steamrolling societies and instituting economic polices that primarily benefit the super wealthy, while meting out austerity to any expenditures that benefit the masses. Nice try Sam.
The cuts to arts just keep coming no matter who’s in power. I’m trying to actively approach how to stop cuts by incorporating them more into every subject. What’s your solution? I get a lot of comments that accusing me of being entrenched in an ideology, when they are written like yours I do hope you can see the irony here…
I think an artist is always an artist whether they paint with water colours orbuilding with ones and zeros. Before picking up a paint brush I would look at some of my process workflows and they were a thing of beauty. Simple, sleek, efficient, they were works of art. The only difference is now that I tap more into my spiritual/emotional feminine side a little bit more, whereas before I was just tapping into my logical side. Regardless of which one of my works you look at, you will see my style and creativity at play.
Yes that is an interesting point about tapping into a feminine side, I would say that I also do this more when painting for myself which I do less when I was studying engineering. Although both were equally creative I think this is a key difference perhaps 🤔
Love this. The same could be said for Liberal Arts education. Liberal arts education is dying and that isn't a bad thing as long as it is integrated into every other form of education. A liberal arts foundation should be required for every STEM student. The next Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, should be forced to read and discuss Shakespeare, Milton, and Maya Angelou, before they are allowed to run the world with their technology.
beautifully presented. You really have a way with words.This one really got me thinking about the way art/creativity has shaped my life throughout the years. You're a beautiful man.🤭
Have you been watching a lot of MKBHD, Señor Hamper? I'm getting a similar vibe. Anyway, solid arguments. 👏👏 I think this also strengthens the case for more creative collaboration between academic programs and for art educators to consider a more generalist approach, until we can - as you've suggested - dissolve the art program and allow it to permeate STEM.
Art 10 years ago made me discover that there's more than just "eat, factory and sleep" and made me decide it was worth enough to not think about taking my life any longer. Now it's being attacked left and right from people who only see the profits out of it, deeming it "useless" the moment they see no money out of it and calling anybody practising it "non workers". It not about the damn money here. The value stands in keeping people mentally healthy. Automatising it completely kills the point of that and renders into just another product entirely focused on profits.
That was a great video. Very though-provoking. I think you're absolutely right. We already know that a lot of kids learn better if they have fun and I think both gamifying / sportifying as well as artifying school subjects could lead to highly more engaged students. We all had that one teacher who just had his own special way of teaching a very dry subject matter and just make it more interesting solely by the approach he used to teach it. Unfortunatelly the school system is slow to adapt and I think that needs to change.
What art needs is a serious copy right like musicians have on their songs if ya are making a living out of it. What Ai can do is verify art if it's original or a copy and if the people that made it say is theirs or a study, is not that difficult to just post a short showing your worked file or painting.
think the reason why ai will not replace human art is not because it couldn't but because humans ENJOY making art! there will be some type of movement in order to keep promoting human creativity. It'd be very dumb to let a robot do what you like to do. Ai is for what you DO NOT like to do. Like if AI could reproduce for us are we going to give up sex?
You really dont understand what you're talking about. The issue is over copyright, consent, and the art dump. Ai is drowning out actually artist while not crediting them for learning off of them or get compensation. At least when an artist puts out a art learn book to other people they are getting payed for their knowledge ai is stealing it.
I don’t paint. But now I feel like I want to. I recently found a box of Crayola’s “Coulours of the World” on sale in the half-off bargain bin at my local grocery store. Something about a box full of nothing but possibe skin tones intrigued me…so I bought a full box of the other 64 colors to go with it, and I found a skein of expensive watercolour paper in the donation bin at the food pantry I work at, so I’m thinking of getting a nice black ink pen and seeing what happens. I’m a musician mostly, but we’ll see.
totally agree - confusion over 'what is real' only comes from being 'extremely online' or from naivety about how 'real' most media has been anyway. Touching grass is a simple rmeedy. That said we also live in economically challenging times - and - placing myself around the level2.5 out of 7 of AI riskiness I am claiming a piece of the AI pie. Yes I have been putting thought towards how to monetize it. But i'm not averse to the ethical and philosophical questions. I'm essentially trying to use AI as a tool to remix and re-imagine public domain content in certain ways that simply would not have been possible before.
Bullshit! From caves and cavemen, Art is part of human nature and without AI, Art will live forever as far away as humans exist in the universe or anywhere else.
AI is able to generate digital mess. There is no esthetics to it. One major problem is that AI don't have any notion of design. So, after a year at trying to create something satisfying, I decide to quit.
When I heard "Art is dead" I laughed, because human's have innately made art for time immemorial. We believe art means it must be valued by others. It has lost it's purpose, you are right. The irony is that if you are making art for money, you aren't making art you are making a product. Your creation is preceded by what you assume other people want and it's so impersonal that it's not "real art" any longer. That is not completely purposeless, but people think they want to make art as their job because they enjoy making art. They are mad that AI is taking that opportunity away from them, and the reality is that people that make art for money tend to eventually dread their job as much as they would any other job. There are real ethical implications with AI, and that's a conversation to be had, but it's not the entire conversation. What we resist persists, and AI has been unleashed. Art is never going to die, and I think people need to ask themselves why they make art at all. For self-expression or for validation? I realize what I am saying is angering, but personally when I learned that I don't need my future to play out in a specific way to find happiness and meaning in my life I felt free. If you believe being an artists that sustains themselves on their art is the only route to happiness, you will never be happy.
