One of the questions that arises in my mind is how we can make generative AI art an actual meaningful creative tool that does our bidding, instead of doing its own thing. The ‘slot machine’ effect is very widespread in generative AI tools, and very rarely do you get anything out that resembles the image you had in your mind as you were going in.
I believe generative AI art tools can be an ally for artists, helping us improve workflows, find new ideas and speed up creativity. The generic nature of AI art can work in our favour, as text prompts alone really can’t replace the imagination of artists. This gets to the very heart of what AI means for creativity, and how we manage its use.
Considering the way these systems are trained, it’s no wonder the results of text prompts alone are artistically poor. All of the data is basically condensed into a thick soup of visual data, linked to metadata that explains what the data depicted. Trying to give that data an interesting form through a text prompt alone, is inferior to what you can do with a brushstroke, a few coloured splotches of paint or a detailed sketch or digital painting. Even a quick 3D model says more than a hundred prompts.
I believe that we, as creatives, can steer this generative power in a much more interesting direction by utilising all our existing skills and applying a layer of generative AI where it makes sense for us. By taking a 3D scene 90% of the way, for instance, we can focus much more on storytelling, image composition, aesthetics, and design instead of spending ages in the time-sink that is the last 10% of an art piece or production.
Do you let the generative process define the folds in the clothing of a character based on a brushstroke or two with your tablet? Or do you let a few 3D gestures define the hairstyle of a sidekick in your game with a swing of your 6 DoF VR controller while the AI takes care of the individual strands of hair?
I would much rather see passionate creatives help shape the creative tools of the future, with generative AI art in the picture, than leave it to prompt-jockeys (sorry about the pun) or corporate money people. I hope my work in this field can help inspire others to help with that.
AI art can be generic if you rely on prompts, Martin is looking at new ways to make generative AI art more creative. (Image credit: Martin Nebelong)
Of course, my belief that AI art tools can help and not hinder creativity is set against the heated debate around generative AI’s impact on artists, particularly about the aspect of the training data and the issues around how many systems were trained on data from the internet without regard for copyright and without consent.
Daily design news, reviews, how-tos and more, as picked by the editors.
Systems like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, and Sora were all trained on data that was read into the datasets from all available sources. Some argue that it’s direct theft, while others argue that the systems are learning by watching the content, just like we are when we get inspired, read a book, watch a movie, read a news article, or listen to a podcast and form opinions about the world through doing so.
Everyone from acclaimed artist Sacha Jafri to D&D illustrator Greg Rutkowski, whose name has become a style in many AI art systems, have spoken out about the issues with AI. There are also ongoing legal struggles around this very topic, lead by artists like Kelly McKernan whose name has become a prompt, losing her work. The outcome of these is yet to be seen.
Regardless of the outcome of that struggle, generative AI is here to stay. Systems like Adobe’s Firefly are trained on legally sound data (for the most part, outside of the occasional Midjourney or Stable DiffusionAI-generated image that snuck its way into the Adobe Stock library). While in the future AI art tools could be better legislated against and controlled, to protect copyrights, the actual technology is’t leaving us. The challenge, to myself and others, is to find better ways to make AI work for us, not against us.
LONDON (AP) — With a few daubs of a paintbrush, the Brontë sisters have got their dots back.
More than eight decades after it was installed, a memorial to the three 19th-century sibling novelists in London’s Westminster Abbey was amended Thursday to restore the diaereses – the two dots over the e in their surname.
The dots — which indicate that the name is pronounced “brontay” rather than “bront” — were omitted when the stone tablet commemorating Charlotte, Emily and Anne was erected in the abbey’s Poets’ Corner in October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II.
They were restored after Brontë historian Sharon Wright, editor of the Brontë Society Gazette, raised the issue with Dean of Westminster David Hoyle. The abbey asked its stonemason to tap in the dots and its conservator to paint them.
“There’s no paper record for anyone complaining about this or mentioning this, so I just wanted to put it right, really,” Wright said. “These three Yorkshire women deserve their place here, but they also deserve to have their name spelled correctly.”
It’s believed the writers’ Irish father Patrick changed the spelling of his surname from Brunty or Prunty when he went to university in England.
Raised on the wild Yorkshire moors, all three sisters died before they were 40, leaving enduring novels including Charlotte’s “Jane Eyre,” Emily’s “Wuthering Heights” and Anne’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.”
Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Society, welcomed the restoration.
“As the Brontës and their work are loved and respected all over the world, it’s entirely appropriate that their name is spelled correctly on their memorial,” she said.
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Vancouver Island art community, a local art dealer has been charged with one count of fraud over $5,000. Calvin Lucyshyn, the former operator of the now-closed Winchester Galleries in Oak Bay, faces the charge after police seized hundreds of artworks, valued in the tens of millions of dollars, from various storage sites in the Greater Victoria area.
Alleged Fraud Scheme
Police allege that Lucyshyn had been taking valuable art from members of the public under the guise of appraising or consigning the pieces for sale, only to cut off all communication with the owners. This investigation began in April 2022, when police received a complaint from an individual who had provided four paintings to Lucyshyn, including three works by renowned British Columbia artist Emily Carr, and had not received any updates on their sale.
Further investigation by the Saanich Police Department revealed that this was not an isolated incident. Detectives found other alleged victims who had similar experiences with Winchester Galleries, leading police to execute search warrants at three separate storage locations across Greater Victoria.
Massive Seizure of Artworks
In what has become one of the largest art fraud investigations in recent Canadian history, authorities seized approximately 1,100 pieces of art, including more than 600 pieces from a storage site in Saanich, over 300 in Langford, and more than 100 in Oak Bay. Some of the more valuable pieces, according to police, were estimated to be worth $85,000 each.
Lucyshyn was arrested on April 21, 2022, but was later released from custody. In May 2024, a fraud charge was formally laid against him.
Artwork Returned, but Some Remain Unclaimed
In a statement released on Monday, the Saanich Police Department confirmed that 1,050 of the seized artworks have been returned to their rightful owners. However, several pieces remain unclaimed, and police continue their efforts to track down the owners of these works.
Court Proceedings Ongoing
The criminal charge against Lucyshyn has not yet been tested in court, and he has publicly stated his intention to defend himself against any pending allegations. His next court appearance is scheduled for September 10, 2024.
Impact on the Local Art Community
The news of Lucyshyn’s alleged fraud has deeply affected Vancouver Island’s art community, particularly collectors, galleries, and artists who may have been impacted by the gallery’s operations. With high-value pieces from artists like Emily Carr involved, the case underscores the vulnerabilities that can exist in art transactions.
For many art collectors, the investigation has raised concerns about the potential for fraud in the art world, particularly when it comes to dealing with private galleries and dealers. The seizure of such a vast collection of artworks has also led to questions about the management and oversight of valuable art pieces, as well as the importance of transparency and trust in the industry.
As the case continues to unfold in court, it will likely serve as a cautionary tale for collectors and galleries alike, highlighting the need for due diligence in the sale and appraisal of high-value artworks.
While much of the seized artwork has been returned, the full scale of the alleged fraud is still being unraveled. Lucyshyn’s upcoming court appearances will be closely watched, not only by the legal community but also by the wider art world, as it navigates the fallout from one of Canada’s most significant art fraud cases in recent memory.
Art collectors and individuals who believe they may have been affected by this case are encouraged to contact the Saanich Police Department to inquire about any unclaimed pieces. Additionally, the case serves as a reminder for anyone involved in high-value art transactions to work with reputable dealers and to keep thorough documentation of all transactions.
As with any investment, whether in art or other ventures, it is crucial to be cautious and informed. Art fraud can devastate personal collections and finances, but by taking steps to verify authenticity, provenance, and the reputation of dealers, collectors can help safeguard their valuable pieces.
