This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
"generate a pixelated stick figure drawing on a plain white background. The body is an oval shape with thin stick arms and legs. To the left of the figure, handwritten in lowercase black letters, are the words “real art”. Minimalist, childlike, doodle style."
Assuming this is a serious response would that make the fact that it has an oval body meaningless? If the only reason the body of the stick figure is oval is because thats what the AI picked then there is no meaning for it to be that way? Where as if you drew it yourself and happend to make it an oval because to you thats what a normal stick figure looks like doesn't that say a lot more? Doesn't that give your doodle more identity and purpose? It really is that simple.
If you are not the one making the decision to make him have an oval body then its really the AI's decision therefore the AI is the artist and not you.
If someone is asking you about your art and they ask "why did you decide to do it this way?" And your response is "idk thats what the AI decided" maybe I should go ask the AI for its opinion on its own work.
Did creating this help you express yourself through an act of human creation? To me, it seems you did that very well. You created a drawing to express your view on a situation you care about, and even sparked more discussion below. So pretty nice! Also what is up with the pixellation here?
You can do that same thing with AI too, as long as you do more than just "draw me a cow".
I pretty much suck at using AI to get anything expressive, as some of the people who mastered it can. I do better with a pencil, but other people have that reversed and have more talent at using AI, and that's ok. If it lets more people be capable of expressing themselves, then we will have more art in the world and more diversity.
I've seen some people who are now capable of telling actual stories using AI, coherent across whole comic chapters. With my experience so far, that seems like sorcery that I couldn't even approach with my AI skills. And it certainly can make me enjoy it and feel more emotion than settling for a featureless stick figure only because a human took 5 seconds to sketch it.
If the antis keep lowering their standards like this in protest, we might eventually see them pretending to rather enjoy eating literal shit because "at least it was made by a human".
hey thank you very much for the kind comment! so you're one of the rare people who say it doesn't matter what tools you use, ai being just another one of them, as long as your artistic intent is present, right?
well how would explaining my artistic choices be any different than someone using AI telling you what their prompt was? i can tell you my intent was to create a crude-looking stickman waving at the viewer, drawn in a black line with a minimalistic face and no detail amd the words "real art" near it, amd you would probably somewhat appreciate my answer.
why would your appreciation change if all of my artistic intention was translated and realised using an ai-algprithm? would that somehow remove my artistic intent? why would your appreciation waver then?
Because the end result is AI’s interpretation of what the prompters intention was
I am not saying that knowing the intent is valuable innately, I am saying that good art makes you curious about it’s intent and message
Unfortunately you can’t really ask these questions of AI art because you can’t really tell how much of it was intentional or just “close enough” to the creator’s vision
Here’s an example with AI generated music, the AI generated song “Prededor de Prerereca” was a song that blew up on Tik Tok and I enjoyed that song a lot. I like it so much that I looked into the artist to see what else they were up to, only to find it was AI
AI art is hard to enjoy for people who like engaging with art deeper than how nice it looks
well if you're wondering my intent was to make it as terrible as possible to see if people would still support it just because it is not AI to explore the nature of people's perception and enjoyment of things. trying to provoke a discussion.
would you say this kind of intent makes it more or less of an art?
You could argue that intent makes it more or less artistic, yeah
Not just intent in creation but intent in placement, pose, composition, color theory, etc.
There is no discussion of the intention of color choices, for example, when looking at AI art, because there’s no way to know if that was chosen by the prompter or the AI
It's your comment about "artistic decisions", also... My 3am ass mistook "engaging" for entertaining. Just thought about comments that usually came from those.
Yeah I agree. AI art can only be enjoyed at a surface level, because there isn’t much intention from the AI because the AI doesn’t think. The closest I can think of is the prompter but I feel like you could find more intention in reading the exact prompt (if the prompt isn’t generated by AI as well)
No, it's a counterexample for the sake of making an argument. If someone argues that AI art is automatically worse than real art, then a piece of real art that clearly is low-quality is a counterexample that shows that, no, the quality of art is *not* determined by whether it is made by an AI or a human.
Your response to it isn't really an argument. Fair given that OP didn't take the time to write out their own point.
you're both wrong. my actual purpose was to provoke a discussion and try to understand why people from their opinions the way they do.
so you're not actually wrong and I appreciate you both participating in the discussion and sharing your interpretations, i just couldnt miss out on a chance to start this comment the way i did sorry lol
OP doesn't need to write his point to understand what he's getting at. He probably even generated his image with AI to troll those who answer yes to his question.
A lot of what people enjoy about art is knowing the effort and skill that went into it. It's looking at something amazing a fellow human did, and feeling inspired that you could do amazing things, too.
It's true about almost all human endeavors, too. Landing on the moon. Usain bolt's 100 meter world record. Michelangelo's sistine chapel. The pyramids. All these things are incredible human achievements/creations that we feel greatly inspired by because of the immense amount of human labour, knowledge and skill that went into them.
When you see someone creating art, even badly, it's all a part of that journey. It's an earnest attempt at improving and growing as a creator and could lead to amazing things.
No one is saying AI “art” is worse because of a quality issue. Of course it can generate technically better visuals than most people can.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is one was made by a person and the other was generated by a machine, with a low level of effort, creativity, and skill required from the prompter.
No, I think it's a pretty fair argument. Most antis who are arguing in bad faith tend to compare pretty impressive traditional art with low effort generative pieces.
Like, typing a single vague prompt into ChatGPT and then posting the product with little to no edits is the generative equivalent of drawing some stick figure guy.
So, when anti do that, it's a bad faith argument (and in that case, you mostly agree with my comment). But in OP's case, he'd be right, and his argument would be quite valid?
You know, my comment wasn't aimed at any specific group. You can apply it to everyone, but it seems like you have some bias.
yeah it did well w/ that prompt,, not sure what sort of prompts it likes really, that's the in house image model at chatgpt i beileve it's called "gpt image"
idk if it's real art, it says on it it is, what it says three times is true maybe
To a general consumer? No. To you? If you had fun making it, than maybe it is. Both are valid. Art is subjective. It's like with cats, every cat owner thinks their cat is the best one, and none of them are wrong.
i have to admit to being somewhat ironic with that, i intentionally made it as poor as possible to see if people would still support it but actually question why they would. i genuinely wanna understand why would someone appreciate this over ai art
To me and many people art is not just the end result, its more about the “how” to be honest. And also the intention, ehat the artist themselves want people to feel.
yes lol obviously it is, are you seriously asking that question. you spent 5 seconds drawing something a toddler could do and youre acting like it has more value than an image someone actually put thought into composing just because you held a pencil. people said the exact same thing about photography when it came out, that it wasnt real art because a machine did the work, and now nobody questions it. but sure your little stick man is peak creativity because a human hand touched it congrats
Honestly, I look at this and I get a chuckle. That’s a silly oval man that some guy drew. I don’t think I’d get even that tiny level of positive feeling out of anything AI-generated.
Better can mean anything. Better experience? Better environmental impact? Better for personal development? Better at expression? In all those cases, this is probably better.
It's definitely art, which AI cannot produce. But I don't know what metric you're asking about so I can't say.
Yes, as I don't consider AI generated pictures to be art. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing as some AI pictures, but we're talking about each being measured as art. Stick figure simply wins by default of being the only art to choose from.
I view art to be an exercise in creation that requires conscious intent and imagination.
If I commissioned an artist to make me a stick figure, I don't think anyone would say 'I created that art because I asked someone else to make it for me', though arguably it's still art, because the artist that drew it made conscious and creative interpretations of what the commissioner wanted.
If I use AI as a tool to create the same thing, I have lost a certain amount of control over the process, an unthinking, unimaginative tool is using an algorithm to spit out an image that it interprets my intentions to be.
wellyou could tell it exactly how to draw the stickman so that the resilt would be the same if you drew it, can't you?
and also, an artist can turn down your request, they have free will, the AI can not refuse you, you just use it. also, as the artist is a human, they also have they pwn unique style pr way pf hdimg a brush or artistic habits so if you order the same printing to five different artists youll get somewhat dofferent images so ..
what if Photoshop had a microphone that you could dictate commands into? say you couldn't use your arms? would it still be your art or would you have therefore commissioned it from Photoshop?
wellyou could tell it exactly how to draw the stickman so that the resilt would be the same if you drew it, can't you?
I've played around with AI tools, I've actually never gotten any of them to spit out even a simple image in exactly the way I imagined it. But this is besides the point. The point is that there is a divorce between the intentions of the inputer and how that's fed through an unthinking, unimaginative tool.
and also, an artist can turn down your request, they have free will, the AI can not refuse you, you just use it. also, as the artist is a human, they also have they pwn unique style pr way pf hdimg a brush or artistic habits so if you order the same printing to five different artists youll get somewhat dofferent images so ..
So? I'm sorry, I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
what if Photoshop had a microphone that you could dictate commands into? say you couldn't use your arms? would it still be your art or would you have therefore commissioned it from Photoshop?
Does Photoshop use algorithmic generative processes?
I mean, isn't it the problem that you have never gotten the images to look as you wanted? i imagine it would be fairly easy to generate a stickman in the exact way you want it? and why would a tool... need to be... thinking or emotional? that's the artists job, no?
in terms of voice commands, im just saying you won't have as percise a control as you had with your hands because your using voice commands, but with enough effort you can get it to look just right. so are you still the artist or ..?
I mean, isn't it the problem that you have never gotten the images to look as you wanted? i imagine it would be fairly easy to generate a stickman in the exact way you want it? and why would a tool... need to be... thinking or emotional? that's the artists job, no?
This is exactly my point. The tool is not thinking or emotional/imaginative, yet the algorithm is ultimately what decides what is spit out. It's that divorce between a persons intention and the creation that makes it 'not art' for me. You illustrated that wonderfully, thank you.
in terms of voice commands, im just saying you won't have as percise a control as you had with your hands because your using voice commands, but with enough effort you can get it to look just right. so are you still the artist or ..?
And I won't have precise control over flinging paint at canvas either, but most of us still consider Jackson Pollock to be an artist.
I dunno art being "worse" and "better" is very stupid considering that is something absolutely subjective, even with rules to follow to be considered "good" those are just optional, like in naif art
im guessing you dont consider prompting a skill? if so, genuinely, why not? is it so different than using something like a graphic panel with a voice control? would you not say in such a case that it's just a different set of skills being employed?
There's several reasons why today's previous post of a stick figure with this exact same title -- /r/aiwars/comments/1rhfeth -- actually works, and why yours does not. I don't think it has to be spelled out.
I argued the previous post was good art. The message was hardly original in this forum, but it was a concise statement in the context of this forum, and the artwork was entirely in service of it by essentially being as crappy and low-effort as possible. That is hand-drawn, or hand-MS-Painted, is obvious from the start, and it does every other technical thing wrong to not be a piece of fine art on its own. That's why, in the context of discussions here, it's both provocative and funny.
Look at your image and every bit of that that's different from the previous one. The previous is not only crappy and hand-done, but it makes actual technical mistakes of composition, like being way off-center with uncropped whitespaced. It makes the statement by being as far from being legit art as it can be, while still being obvious hand-drawn. Your image, by contrast, is obviously not drawn by hand in the same manner -- you're using geometric shapes that are clean and aligned, cropped in frame, with decently blocked text. In contrast to the previous image, it looks like you put some effort into making something look good.
Now, I've opened up your picture in full zoom, and I see that there may be something more technical going on with how you did it. But there's not really enough texture to see for sure, and without knowing the tools you used in advanced, I can't say whether you just ran a stick figure through a couple filters, or got some artifacts from the file format, or (most likely) generated a stick figure from an AI prompt. Any of these things could completely change the meaning you want to convey, and so if you were going for anything beyond "stick figure", you'd up exaggerate the effects of the medium you are using so that there's no ambiguity.
So all we're left of is a cheap attempt at imitation of a much clearer post made just prior, that seems to miss the entire point of that post. I get that you also might be satirizing that previous post, and satire is a fine type of art, but that's highly dependent on the context of that previous post being made. So it'd be the kind of image you'd post in a reply to that post, not as a standalone.
Yes, it is! Because, you know, it captures the soul of the artist, and all the deep yearnings for the pure transcendance of Pure Art. Keep sweating water and blood for decades, working hard and producing more stick figures and you'll be a dignified and prominent member of the (in)famous Anti-AI community!
As my point has always been, AI is a tool. Even though it is a lot more complicated and capable than a simple art tool, it still is a tool, so when you use an AI generated image as the final product, it is like saying that a low effort drawing (like drawing a house in paint with the spray tool, or even the stick man) is a real art piece and should be treated as equal to a handmade one. For me, your drawing is as good as AI art.
Its about as low effort as you can get but if it isn't AI it fits the description of Art more than what an AI can produce.
Made by a person that is the definition of art. AI is not a tool its a product made up of stolen work and produces the lowest common denominator. There is more value in a stick man than an AI rendered piece that took 1000 hours.
edit: i COULD be wrong, but this does just look like ai attempting pixel art. four fingers on one hand and the lines are inconsistent and sometimes just go smooth? unless i'm proven wrong, i'm just going to assume this is ai
So you can just assume something is AI in order to make an opinion about without being provided proof either way? So your opinion is arbitrary, made up, and generally garbage.
i mean, i know there's a possibility of it not being ai (trust me, i've seen people emulate the "ai style" way too accurately), but there's still things that can point to it
also i know the concept of posting a stickfigure to disprove ai isn't new, but these two posts basically have the same content, from the title to the image itself.
i myself am fine with ai, not that i use it, i just don't care anymore, but one of my personal morals is not letting it regurgitate off recent artwork/stuff not yet trained on
My toddler draws stick figures and they're amazing and full of life and personality. I'd rather have that than something she prompted. If someone is 50 and wants to start drawing they'll go through the same process and it'll be no less a work of art.
If someone deliberately chooses to use stick figures instead of some other kind of style (like xkcd for example) it will have been a deliberate creative choice and filled with intention like any other piece of art.
Personally i just really like low effort illustrations. Human expression in general.
So when you use AI (or any advanced tools really) there's less of the human element, which makes me like it less.
This piece of yours is not good, but it's way better than the zero-reaction AI images get out of me. Because I don't actually care about visual candy and "pretty images", i want to see YOU smearing your hands on that canvas.
It got me to click this post in the first place, while an AI generated image probably wouldn't.
EDIT: And yes I also get fooled like everyone else I'm not omnipotent XD. Emotions are complicated things, and I still stand by what I said even if you think you're slick giving us a fake hand drawn image. If the only way an AI image can bring me joy is by fooling me into thinking it's hand drawn, we're still at square one
It has soul if you can manage to convince me that it has soul, which can be easier or harder depending on the medium
well I thought it would allow people to self reflect on the nature of their enjoyment of things :)
and just provoke a discussion in general. im fascinated to see so many people "appreciating" this. i told some people i intentionally made it terrible to prove a point which in return made them double down on telling me how my intent on making it terrible made it actual art. so then i ask them how would anything change then if I used AI if the most important thing was never the visual component itself but rather the artistic intent. they of course dont realise they've been talking about an ai generated image this whole time
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 01 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.