Entropy & Chaos

Art for the Eschaton

[entropieogchaos]

Been making alot of noise music lately. Got a feature in Ranger magazine with my latest album, Strategies for Mutation. Give it a listen here!

I recorded this album entirely in one take with no overdubs directly to stereo cassette, using very rare TDK MA type IV tape with my beloved Nakamichi DR-3.

[entropieogchaos]

Frodo stole all the crypto.

[entropieogchaos]

Murder Mayhem Suicide

We're not talking enough about the ONE thing all these mass murderers seem to have in common. No matter their background, ethnicity, gender, etc... they are ALL suicidal.

Maybe what we need to start talking about is why so many people in our society have become violently suicidal.

[entropieogchaos]

"Weltschmerz" ©2023, Digital Photo

[entropieogchaos]

"Grocery Store Art" Digital Photo, ©2023, MC

[entropieogchaos]

The fact that you're getting so offended by being called out for blindly using and promoting a function which has exploited real people is honestly humorous. We get you can't make art without something else doing it for you, but seriously. Touch grass.

The honestly humorous thing is how even a lazy scroll through my blog proves every word of your lame comment laughably false.

Pathetic bullies such as yourself continue being a cancer here, and that's a shame for all the folks who want this to be a safe space to express themselves. Too bad you can't keep your childish toxic behavior on Twitter where it belongs. It's a real shame that worthless shitheads, such as yourself, can't mind their own business and fuck off. Oh well, life sucks, I know...

Though I take heart in the knowledge that my life surely doesn't suck nearly as much as yours, since you can't find anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon than harass people anonymously online. You must have an endless soundtrack of sad violins following you wherever you go.

[entropieogchaos]

ai art is based off of real art. real, stolen art. it masks a great deal of human labor and claims 'whoo! it's magic!' and y'all are falling for it. my only consolation is it will be hit your field of work soon enough and leave you starving too. have fun!

Well, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what my "field of work" is or how I earn a living. LOL

Only reason I'm even replying to this one is hopefully I can leave it up here as like, I dunno, a warning sign to other people who want to come at me parroting these tired and useless arguments, to please stop wasting your time with the whole "it's stolen art!" line. It should be obvious by now that I don't give a shit. It's the weakest lazy argument anyone could make about this.

[entropieogchaos]

"80% of Men Don't Know" ©2023, MC

I'm fascinated by these bizarro images that have been showing up in adverts the past few years. At first I thought it was just really bad illustrations and weirdly abused stock photos, but now I suspect it all must be AI images.

And that's great! I can't think of a more fitting way to use such technology.

[randomyounglady]

People talk about AI art as if it will take all of the creative opportunity from humans, but that just isn't the case. If disclosed as AI generated from the start, it can create a very interesting niche separate from regular art just by the weird choices I've seen some of the models make. It's art from a perspective that isn't human, thus showing us what a model can understand without fundamental human biases.

I agree that passing it off as your own human work is not cool, but why would you when looking at these pieces from the standpoint that a computer generated them is significantly more interesting? It doesn't think like us, breathe like us, and thus, it comes at it from a perspective no human can fathom. That's why ai art, not to mention ai literature and other possible creative pursuits, shouldn't be fighting for the human market it currently is. It should be its own thing, emphasized as what it is, and thus expanding the market for the benefit of creatives and coders alike.

[entropieogchaos]

i completely agree that AI generated art should be considered it's own niche genre. It is capable of an aesthetic completely different from what people make. This is why I dislike the pursuit of "perfection" by many people using AI. The glitches and weirdness are crucial to its unique and compelling aesthetic, IMO. It can be the foundation of a new 21st century surrealism.

[entropieogchaos]

Lounge at the Voxel, waiting for the show to start.

Went out and visited a real live art show last weekend in Baltimore. Got in to an extremely limited performance (only 20 tickets!) of "Luminiferous Aether" by Jeff Carey. Also heard a cool new piece by Martin Schmidt of Matmos fame - he was there hanging with everyone too. Voxel is a great venue! Felt good to get out of town and be around some exciting art again. Nice to live near some hip happenings.

[entropieogchaos]

“Seriously, get the fuck over it and make some fucking art”

just thought this was funny bc ur so right lol

👍

[entropieogchaos]

All of the points you make in your essay-like answer, however much use they hold, really aren't helped by tagging that post as # all artists steal. Appreciating that people have put work into making ai art generators is one thing, and a completely fair point, but when it comes at the expense of artists? Artists who don't steal, y'know? Ai developers could've used stock images, or worked alongside artists who fully agree for their stuff to be used (an example of this not happening was when Deviant Art opted everyone in for their stuff to be used in AI art, instead of letting people choose from the get go), and that would be perfectly fine! I'd be way more comfortable using an ai like that. Sadly, that isn't quite what happened (yet!). Maybe, one day, we'll get an ai trained to only use art that artists are ok with using, instead of just using anything on the net.

Also, about ai artists putting a lot of work into their stuff (I'll try not to go on too much). Say, a coder takes four months (basing this from looking it up) to create an ai art program to generate images. That's a lot of effort and time put into this project, that I can agree with. But, assuming the programme doesn't have some sort of crippling bug, you could hypothetically create near to or unlimited images from it, at a fast rate. Compare that to a human artist, who in their lifetime would never be able to make nearly as close as many images as the ai, and perhaps it is apparent why this is being seen as an issue. Not to mention that ai is getting more human like all the time.

I shouldn't bother answering, but I'm a masochist, so here goes .... They DID train with stock images. And public domain images. And images from artists without permission. They used any and everything they could get their hands on. And all artists DO steal. If you learned how to draw or paint by looking at other people's drawings and paintings, do you pay them a royalty check for that? Nope! Why is it so different when a person directs a machine to do the same thing? And how would it not be the same thing? A photo is "stealing" (we call it "taking a photo" for good reason). A person drawing a tree they saw in real life is "stealing." All this emphasis on the ownership of intellectual property is frankly boring and lame. And this connection of work and effort to "value" is boring and lame. Using legal instruments like copyright to define whether something is "art" is boring and lame. These are the kind of discussions kids might have when they're first learning about the philosophy of art in a degenerate capitalist society, but I'm way past that point in my life and I've come to the conclusion that none of this shit about stealing or effort or originality matters, but what does matter is people being personally attacked and bullied over something that is so stupidly insignificant. Seriously, get the fuck over it and make some fucking art. The machines aren't stopping you from doing a goddamn thing, they're not stealing food from your mouth or making you homeless, so just ignore it if you don't like it. No artists are suddenly being impoverished because of this - they were impoverished anyway! Living with your parents and making maybe a few hundred $ a month on "commissions" making shitty anime ripoff portraits and unoriginal fan art isn't having a career in art. Sorry, not sorry.

[entropieogchaos]

Hey there! Thought I might share that ai "art" is bad. It steals artwork of humans and uses them without credit. People out there, human artists, are losing money and becoming understandably miffed at this. As someone who draws my own stuff, I'd just like to politely request for you to take a moment to have a think about ai 'art' with this information in mind. Even if you delete this ask, or leave it for an indefinite time in your askbox, it's just something important.

Really wish you had taken the time to read my blog before coming to the inaccurate conclusion that I haven't already considered the many complicated issues surrounding AI Art. Now I'm the one who must ask you: have you considered the fact that humans put real time, effort and creativity into using AI image generators to make art? If this isn't apparent to you, maybe you should spend more time actually learning about the ways serious artists use it. I also invite you to take the time to watch the video I posted a couple days ago. If you do, you will see why I'm not moved in the least when people come at me with the "ai art is stealing" argument.

[entropieogchaos]

This is actually a very good video IMO. I clickbaited on it expecting to be annoyed and pissed off by more Anti-AI Art propaganda, but that's actually not the case here at all. He explains the nuances of the suit against Stable Diffusion with a clear and balanced presentation of the arguments boths sides should be making. He also does a better job of explaining how the technology works than anyone else I've seen so far. And I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion at the end, that he hopes both sides have good lawyers that can explain the technology well enough to the court to wipe away all the misunderstanding and misinformation that comes along with this technology. I also absolutely agree that these lawsuits need to happen so we can hash out the legal framework of these new technologies. I highly recommend giving this a watch if you care about this topic, one way or the other.

I personally think the end results of AI image generators are transformative in the legal sense he lays out here, and I've always felt that way, because I know from personal experience that it is very easy for me to create pieces that are absolutely transformative relative to whatever art was used in it, and much of my work is intended to be parody of the tech industry.

[entropieogchaos]

People who use AI for their “work” are not creators nor are they even remotely artists- 2goldensnitches

Quick, we gotta go tell everyone that Nan Goldin, Andy Warhol and Anish Kapoor aren't actually artists! They've been fooling us this whole time!

[entropieogchaos]

"Wallmonster (Blue+Purpur var.)" Cameraless photo made with 4"x5" litho sheet film, scanned and digitally colorized. ©2021, MC.

I made this by holding a loaded 4x5 film holder against a wall where there was an interesting light pattern hitting it, and then quickly opened and closed the dark slide to "take" the photo. Fun experiment that came out way cooler than expected. I was doing alot of photos of sunlight on my walls at the time.

Really want to print up posters of this series. I'll post more colors occasionally.

[entropieogchaos]

For some reason tumblr doesn't let me comment so I'm replying here ;

While I agree that ai art can have it's uses, at the rate it's growing (and the fact people make them from getting "inspiration" from artist who trained for years to be where they are) AI art will end up replacing artists in design fields. Why get an artist to design a logo or pattern for your new kombucha when you can just give a computer a prompt and get a similar result for free? Who will pay for someone to illustrate their books if this new robot can do it?

I can only give my opinion, and I'll try to give a solid reply that doesn't veer off-topic. Here goes...

Specifically regarding things like brand logos, I personally consider that to be more in the graphic design realm than the art-making realm. You might say apples and oranges, and that's fair. My point is the kinds of things AI can do well, seems like it will have most of its impact on things in graphic design world. Like you mentioned, being able to crank out a logo. But, I think graphic designers will still be getting plenty of work, because the business needs someone with the page design skill to do something with that logo. I don't see AI replacing a graphic designer's job doing the print layout for having a pamphlet or flyers made for a business. Yes, likely elements of the design will feature AI images - but that may well have been done by the graphic designer themself for the sake of saving time! This is the kind of future I see in graphic design world: humans still doing all the menial design and layout work using graphical elements made both by AI and by people. I see alot of parallels to using generic clip art for designs, and I think AI will begin to run into similar problems where the really good looking design styles will start looking very similar to each other, which could very well push a business to hire a person to design their logo, simply because they want something that looks more unique than what the AI can make.

And, again, this is just my opinion, but I personally think that the technology of digital illustration has taken alot of the originality and interestingness out of graphic design art already anyway. I'm pretty bored with seeing the same collection of flat pastel shapes pieced together in a way that looks "fun" and took the designer all of 5 minutes to churn out. I seriously think that vector graphics programs like Illustrator have done more to damage the "human touch" of graphics work than AI ever will, and it has set up this whole situation of samey-ness that makes it so easy for AI to mimic a typical style. I'm honestly hoping that the pressure of competing against AI will push artists and designers to be more original and clever, because I am certain that people are capable of rising above it and putting an AI image to shame, no matter how sophisticated it gets.

Thanks for your comment, i appreciate the opportunity to talk more about why I feel the way I do about this complex topic.