Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Digital crap!
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Good luck trying to run along those tracks!!
Posted
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in digital discussions, because I've fallen out of my pram a couple of times here on the forum. But never say never. I'm an admirer of genuine digital art...that produced by artists. Ai can readily imitate digital art, so I feel sorry for it's real practitioners. As a lover of cartoon and caricature art I've seen lots of ai produced guff. I say 'guff', but some of it is quite good. At the moment I kid myself I can spot it, but it will get better. Ai 'art' relies on what it has purloined from real art, so left on its own ai art will eventually become a sterile arena of lifeless junk. An app has no concept of whether it's done a good or bad job. It's these human traits that give art it's creativity. If ai ever fully takes over art, that's the day creativity dies.
Ai can work wonders in some areas...medicine for example. But if it's developers had an ounce of humanity it should never be allowed near the creative arts. They don't, it has. Mammon rules supreme.
Posted
There is much wrong with that image, but ultimately, behind it, there must be a human being who thought it was, somehow, an image worth sharing. Like Lew, I can appreciate digital art produced by artists, but just as there as poor artists in every other media, there are bound to be poor would-be artists who use AI.
Posted
I sure we have seen a similar image before and discussed it , but I can’t recall when . A to digital art I’m take it or leave it , f it’s a subject as much as I am with conventional paintings like and is well done I will comment on it . There are a couple of digital artist on the gallery Skylar to mention one , who produces some really good images, if it’s something I particularly like I say so. There are some what I degas awful images on the gallery and not always digital , lm in agreement with Tony in that there are bad conventional artists and therefore it follow thst there should be bad digital artists.
I do believe that if a posting I made on the gallery we should be told if it’s digitally produced or enhanced digitally, to enable us to made a informed decision about it .
I dread the day we start accepting AI imagine as paintings , even if it’s directed by a person it’s not created by their hand .
Posted
It's not just poor artistry though - you sure don't need AI to produce that.... The image up above might have been produced in all sorts of combinations of ways and for various motives. I took it, from Peter's original comment, that this was a piece pretending to be what it is not - that is, an honest painting, rather than an item that it was acknowledged had been produced wholly or in part digitally. The signs of it being the latter are all there; in many ways it's too good to be bad..... i.e. (and that's a phrase you might not often encounter) it's clever enough to be convincing at first sight, and has been created to mislead. If it's honest - well then I have no moral problem with it, whatever I might think of its technical accomplishment.
It's not digital art that angers me, but things in general pretending to be that which they're not. But I should have gone to Etsy to search this out rather than assume that Peter was right that it is a computer-generated image put together in an AI program and claiming to be painted with conventional media. Which isn't to say he's NOT right: just that I didn't check for myself. So mea culpa there, but with reservations - because I still hate AI.
Posted
I’m y simplistic world oil paintings are pained using oils .watercolour using watercolour , all done by a person using brushes etc. Digital I’d achieve electronically, by a person using various electronic techniques to produce an image than an e programmed to look like any of the conventional mediums it it’s not an actual oil or watercolour painting and never will be . I know that this might cause some offence to digital artists but I’m not knocking what you do , appreciate your skill and creativity.
Posted
You are right Tessa, most digital apps have an ‘oil painting’ setting that attempts to replicate an oil painting. But they are still digital. I came across a site the other day that offered this service for family photos, the prints were made on canvas boards…but they are still digital reproductions. At least that site wasn’t attempting to fool anyone.
Posted
It offended me because it was called 'Flying Scotsman' and I know exactly what that loco looks like. It doesn't have two plumes of smoke, one of them not adjacent to a chimney, for a start. As for the tracks, don't get me started.
I found it because I've got two real paintings of Flying Scotsman in my Etsy shop and I was curious to see what else there might be and what people were charging for their work. My pictures took around 15 hours each to paint and I'm damned if I'm going to flog them for £25!
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2