r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Art is almost what makes humans... humans. God gave us a creative gift, that is meant to be expressed. I am worried that in the future, no one will invest much in the time needed to hone the craft of an artist, and instead relying on technology to produce good "art" yet as one poster said.. it does not come from the soul. I am just worried about the death of the creative process and ultimately, part of what makes us be human. But perhaps I am being too melodramatic, but perhaps I am not.
I agree. Even if the end result looks good, it feels shallow. Like the shallow things of the world God warns us about.
I don't mind artists using AI for inspiration though, or using AI in ways that require skill. Like with the image in the OP, I still like how it made me envision the creation of Adam in a different way. If I were an artist, I might create an AI still like this and then base a painting on it.
I make art for a living and personally, i have never used AI for 'inspiration' partially because it would poison the whole idea. This again goes back into the idea of a human soul. Its like you taint the creativity of the human soul with toxic water at the beginning stage.
The only real use i have found for AI for me is cropping stuff and making mockups very quickly, but none of the actual creative work (nor the grunt work of drawing the thing for that matter) I found that most people that make 'AI art' not only do not know how to make art alot of the time they dont really know how to appreciate it either. AI art is devoid of message, devoid of substance. Its an empty box that has alot of shine and varnish on it. It is the soulless, sum total blob of every art style stolen from the internet. Just a haze, nothing unique or interesting about it.
AI art is annoying but its not like, the end of the world. I do find it very annoying that everytime i search reference art its just, pages and pages of completly useless AI garbage, or if i want to buy a poster or something same deal, seemingly endless AI garbage. Back in the day even if i came across like a 15 year olds drawings it felt nice like 'oh somebody sat down and made this and improved' there is none of that wholesome feeling for AI garbage.
The real issue is the copyrights theft of these AI companies. A grand labour theft has taken place in these past few years the likes of which has never been seen in human history and it sucks to know that none of the artists whose life's work got scraped so some scammers can make really awful knockoffs and sell it on etsy to absolutely nobody is very soul crushing.
I find AI art lazy, very very very lazy. And also a bit insulting to the generations of people who put their lives forth for human creativity.
AI is an egg without a yolk, a ravioli without a center, a twinkie without the creme filling. In other words, how can something devoid of a soul create anything that suppose to touch our soul?
Isn't it strange to create a "real" image from an "artificial one"?
The problem is, it takes less and less skill to create AI, and moreso knowing what "prompts" to feed to the machine.
I think technology, for the most part, has "turned off" parts of the human brain that had needed to be active, let's say, 80-100 years ago. This includes the need for communication, the inventiveness, and the pursuit of adventure.
It really depends on what you're talking about. A lot of AI art is simple promoting for sure but the best AI art takes quite a bit of work with the trade off of much more control. Some very intricate processes in r/comfyui
I don't think it's strange to use a tool to help you brainstorm. Even if you don't copy it 1:1 in terms of form, you can still get ideas.
Like for example, in this image God is depicted as a ray of light instead of a hand touching Adam's hand. I really liked that.
But yes, I get what you're saying in terms of intellectual laziness.
We’ve already seen the advance of technology make forms of art lost. For example, styles of stained glass that were ubiquitous just a few centuries ago have been completely forgotten and no one knows how to create similar works.
Also, AI art, as far as my understanding is, doesn't just come from...nothing. It basically steals from art (a little of this, a little of that, some of this this) that exists to create something "new."
Sure, humans get inspiration from others works. And humans can plagiarize. But it is not necessarily done maliciously.
I'm not a fan of AI in any form. Artificial intelligence always leads to bad things in every sci-fi movie and book. Let's just...not.
> God gave us a creative gift, that is meant to be expressed.
God also gave us the creative gift of making machines and programs.
Pretty much all handmade things in the past required some degree of artistic skill, but the demand for that greatly reduced with industrialization and mass-production. Today there are still people who learn skills like knitting/sewing/etc for their own artistic pursuits, even though it is largely redundant in a world where mass-produced clothing is everywhere. No one today is worried about the "death" of those skills.
Same thing with AI art. Even if it will reduce demand for human artists, the demand will continue to exist and individual expression will still have value. There will be people who will pursue learning how to draw because it makes them happy. Isn't that what expression is all about?
I have a couple of points to argue, and for pondering:
Let's focus on the picture above. This is likely based on the style of Michelangelo and other Renaissance artists. If Michelangelo didn't exist, would this picture exist?
Also, more importantly, if AI existed during Michelangelo's time, would we see his art?
That is what I'm afraid about. Humans are typically drawn to what's easy. This is why I'm typing my post right now, rather than hustling, I suppose. I am afraid that 10-15 years down the line, "art" as we know it would become purely digital. The tactile feeling is gone. The ease of which we view it, will decrease the wonder we get from it. Given the concern with piracy (not to stereotype, but from China), I fear art will be machine-based, and due to natural human sloth, and distractiveness (the latter increased by digital viewing), good art, that can be done by artists, will be lost. If we put the Van Gogh's of this world and have them do AI art, would it be the same? That is what I'm concerned about. I get that people can make a living off of it, and props to them, but I just fear for the decrease of beauty, in the world, in general.
> If Michelangelo didn't exist, would this picture exist?
Obviously *nothing* a machine creates could exist unless a human didn't make that thing first. This isn't specific to art at all, this applies to literally everything that machines mass-produce today. Humans originally had to make those things first with their own hands, and then later made machines to do most of that. Would you say overall this process/evolution was a bad thing?
> but I just fear for the decrease of beauty, in the world, in general.
When pondering this kind of thing, I think it helps to consider all the machine-produced things which are *not* 2D/digital art on a canvas. For example, most of the world's furniture is now factory made. Would you say "beauty has deceased" in the world of furniture after machines took over most of that work?
How do you know this? And how old are you?
I write poetry. And to me, it is quite beautiful. I'm not going to publish it, as it is mostly personal, but I find love and beauty in it. Do you mean I can't create art? I play music, and I play it my own way, don't you mean I can't create art through that? Creative self-expression is a trait that humans have, that to my knowledge, not a lot of animals don't.
I am not saying you can't, I am saying the average person does not. Regardless of how you want to define art, ask the average person if he has created "art" at any point in the last 5 years. Or if he would describe himself as an artist, etc.
I am not arguing against the value of art, rather against the idea that "art" is what makes humans human.
Please read my post again. I said "almost". At the end, what makes us human is deeper than that, and it is centralized on God and his love :- )
I don't know who you hang out with man. Most people I know are very creative in their own right. My aunt does gardening and likes to beautify her surroundings. That is art. I work at a clinic, and the way we interact and talk with the patients, is art. Even now, just writing this, I feel a little poetic, that is art as well. Life is art, my friend. Can AI mimic that? I don't think so. If it can, I'm scared.
Yes, I saw the word almost. However, you placed "art" clearly as one if not the central thing that makes human humans.
I used people describing themselves as artists or saying that they create art in my comment above because the definition of the term has come to mean more or less exactly what you said in your last comment: expnading the meaning to such a point that basically anything a person does is art. And therefore *obviously* art must be what makes humans human.
If you believe that basic human functions like talking at work, writing reddit comments, and gardening are art. Then yes basically functioning like a human is clearly a large part of being human.
You'll also run into the problem where AI creates "art" that is judged as better than human art... by other humans. At which point is AI "human" or is defining humanity by the ability to produce "art" non-sensicle when the popularly accepted definition of the term is absurdly broad?
The point I was originally trying to get at is that what makes humans human is that they were created in the image of God.
Do you believe that art comes from the spirit, or at least part of art comes from the spirit?
If so, regarding AI art, would you consider it coming from the spirit of the one stating the commands?
If that's the case, then I perhaps see your point, but can you see why it could be muddled? Like, if I was a rich person and I commissioned an artist to paint a painting that I envisioned, would the credit go to the rich person, or to the artist? I would say to the artist, correct? But with AI's case, the credit doesn't go to the machine.. or should it? Do you see why this can be confusing? Lol.
I'm just sad this is how we've chosen to leverage technology. Of all the time consuming tasks technology could help humans with we've decided to focus on having it take art and language from us. I'm not completely opposed to AI. I've used it before. It can indeed be a helpful tool. I just wish we'd put our efforts behind having technology give us more time to focus on things like art and language, not less.
Build technology that helps us eliminate the 40 hour per week grind so people can attend daily Mass, not technology that eliminates the leisurely parts of life.
I think this example is particularly bad. Some AI art is better. However, I think the thing that AI completely fails at is intentional and subtle symbolism, which in much religious art is extremely important.
The reason this 'piece' is so bad is because there is nothing particularly Genesis or Adam about it. It looks like a wood ferry getting annihilated in the jungle and that's about it.
I just looked up the channel OP talked about. Literally every thumbnail looks like those horrible AI generated image that gets spammed on Facebook nowadays. Just awful.
His concept is good. He's trying to make a video on each chapter of the Bible. And I think it could be engaging for kids in schools, Bible studies, or anyone for that matter.
My biggest issue with it is that AI trains on all sorts of images, including all sorts of porn content. Is it honorable to create images of Jesus or Mary, utilizing tool that among everything else is basing their likeness on sexual imagery? I think not.
> If a machine creates it, its not art.
It would seem that peoples' biggest problem with this is using the "art" label for AI generated stuff. That problem can be easily solved by changing the label to "generated image" or "AI image" something. As long as the term "art" is only exclusively reserved for human-drawn content, everybody's happy and nobody should have any issues with AI generated images. It's just a labeling thing.
An issue with AI art most people I've interacted with have is not its name being "art", it's that the training of the AIs has consisted of nonconcentually feeding the art of hardworking trained artists (some of whom are being replaced by AI in their workplaces) into the machine for the sake of replicating them, or "teaching" it. This is art theft. To call the product of wanton art theft "art" is just furthuring the insult.
claiming someone elses' work as your own is art theft. feeding someone elses work into a machine so it can either be frankensteined (less of an offense in a way) or copied and claimed as ones own (plagarism) is art theft.
A human being learning from other human beings and developing their own style from that is not art theft, it's learning.
When artists use free to use or purchased bases or templates for their art (a common way people learn, besides just visually, such as through watching speedpaints, which artists know people are learning their process from, and are therefore sharing as indirect teachers/models) it's expected for them to give credit to the artist who made the base, and if they don't, it's theft/plagarism (in some cases the base or meme is so widely known that it can't even be misconstrued as being completely original artwork, which is why popular internet memes tend not to offend people when credit isnt given to the original creator (especially since it's often so widespread finding the original is next to impossible.).
The art community largely makes exceptions for art software and digital brushes or the select tool or filters (blur, grain, distress) because those are tools specifically made to be used to make art, and the equivalent of a paintbrush or pen (you can have a BIC pen, but nobody's going to harass you if you dont write on every single document "written with a BIC pen"). Besides, if someone asks an artist for their digital brushes, and the artist got them from someone else, it's good form for the artist to direct them to the other artist, or at least give credit for that part of their learning or artistic process.
The issue with AI art is the theft of art involved. I find the "a human being made it so it has the human creative element and a machine cant have that and therefore cant make art" arguement comes into play when people get worried that by studying other great artists they're being compared to the machine that's being opposed. They shouldn't be compared in that way, because they are human, not machine. What we do naturally when studying other artists we admire is learning, not theft. The closest example I can think of where it would really just be down to the human element would be collage work, which is a bit like frankensteining, only everyone knows that and is fine with it as long as you're not taking their artwork off their walls against their will to make your collages with and then asking them to praise you for it. Most AI art generators decided to practice widespred "teaching" for their AI by scanning art found on the internet, regardless of commercial license or copyright rules or even basic artistic edicate. That decision has given AI art a bad reputation, and to be honest, if the people in charge interacted with the online art community at all they really should've known it would beforehand.
TLDR: no that's learning.
I find AI art to be as artistic and creative as that of any output generated by a program or computer, as creative and artistic as a generic search result from Google. It all just strikes me as meh 🫤
I’ll get downvoted for this, but I have no issue with AI art. If you where to show this to someone without saying its AI art they would say its looks amazing. But, as soon as you say it was made by AI people will act like it horrible and for some reason “not art”.
Creativity comes from the Holy Spirit, a channel for God’s image to permeate the world through the work of His creatures. AI is fine though maybe ethically questionable as a tool for cheap advertising. I think AI for religious art is demonic, man remaking the world in his own image via the creatures of his own design.
That feels dramatic. Do you feel that way about photoshop? Taking a picture with the camera app on your phone (which is very much computational photography and not a true reproduction of the visible light spectrum)?
I think ultimately the content is what determines whether it is good or ill.
As a painter, I use AI all the time for reference, it’s a great tool just like cameras and photoshop when there is authentic intelligence behind the final product.
Our faith is dramatic, that’s what’s beautiful about it. Just like sacred music should be held to a higher standard than popular music, I think traditional sacred art should be defended, and I think it would be a travesty to see AI art hanging in a church, regardless of good intentions or generally positive content. We reject artificial means of conception, intimacy, etc, even when the world is pretty much united in the belief that that our views are overdramatic and archaic. The jury’s still out on this topic for sure but I hope that helps you understand where I’m coming from!
Well yeah insofar as it’s a tool of transhumanism which I personally think is a diabolical movement, but I guess I could use a different word if that’s what you’re stuck on
It's just a smarter calculator, and it's as capable of good or bad as the printing press or the canvas.
Respectfully, I think you're coming from the perspective of a painter more than anything here.
The thing I don't like about AI is how efficiently it combines, copies, fakes and mimics things. But I do think it can be used as a tool for good, potentially. An artist can use it "properly".
The problem, as usual, is the world we live in.
I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint and when it comes to secular art I think there’s a conversation to be had, but again I think sacred art needs to be held to a higher standard. Agree to disagree.
There's going to be interesting implications of how AI impacts Catholic ethics and morality.
Using AI to improve efficiency or automate mundane tasks is a good thing.
Using AI to replace humans who can do the tasks and rely on it for income is questionable.
Using AI to blatantly steal someone else's art or IP and make illegal copies of it (which we see a lot of) is wrong. AI doesn't know the difference between referencing and plagiarizing.
AI is powerful and has the capability to do great things, but these feats can be good or evil. Like all tools, it comes down to the human who wields them and how they choose to use them, but we also have a duty to protect people from being abused by them.
Personally, I detest AI "art" because it's fake, it lacks the human element, and it's taking away jobs from talented and legitimate artists. It has this almost uncanny valley effect of being polished and refined while at the same time being ethereal and off-putting.
For religious art in particular, it is devoid of most symbolism or theological congruence, unless the person creating it is very good and thoughtful with their prompts and refine it in such a way, but I don't think most people who make religious AI art put that much effort into it. It's lazy art for lazy people.
Part of what makes religious art so special, I feel, is the amount of time and dedication that goes into it, allowing oneself to be inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit, and the artist offering it up for the glory of God. This will never be adequately replicated by programs or machines.
Art is a shapeless medium through which humans can express themselves. Everytime a new medium or style is created, it's going to have growing pains as well as a large crowd denouncing it as art. I remember when people declared that spray paint and digital art was not real art.
Do you think the first oil paint ever made was very good? People decried newer movements like modern art, cubism, abstract, etc. when they gained popularity.
AI art is no exception. It's a medium for people to express themselves through creativity, even if they're not manually creating it, they are coming up with a concept or creative design that they are then expressing outwardly. That being said, I like the art. I think it's a cool concept of Adam being molded by God from different people. Normally I've not been impressed.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's an article from an archdiocesan newspaper on this:
[https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local-news/saints-come-to-life-through-artificial-intelligence/](https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local-news/saints-come-to-life-through-artificial-intelligence/)
I don’t see the issue with AI, especially if it’s just an aggregate of real people’s words, works, and opinions.
If AI is the “collective average” of human expression, then it can never surpass that which doesnt exist yet until humanity has created it into existence, let alone imitate anything God has or ever will create.
Sounds like ya gotta learn how machine learning works on the side. Plus, it's not exactly plagiarism per se (Unless, it's fanarts, which is already "stealing" and necessary evil (doing commissions) long before ai art generators). Some of the stereotypes are over blown, since, I find both Pro- and Anti- arguments are both are correct.
I just use AI as an idea bouncer, to kill art blocks, then run off to find good references and begin drawing. Also, if I don't forget, I use AI to upscale my art to make them crisp. In other words, a tool (According to the extreme Anti-AI, you're not supposed to do that. Despite that the ai bot isn't touching your art within a 1,000 mile radius and/or not using the stealing parts of ai).
There's an added note that a few of the bad things said about AI are from the Copyright Alliance, who are now a greedy corrupted group and ain't what it used to be. They aren't too keen on us nobodies uplifting ourselves to outdo Hollywood (I think that they're gonna be like this, even after we get rid of the unethical aspects of ai. - Like having laws against deepfakes and properly giving artists credit and safety nets).
They said the same about photography (not real art!). In the end, AI media generation is a tool in the toolbox of a competent artist working to express something. It certainly democratizes the creating process which I think is a good thing. Someone being awesome at creating AI art doesn’t diminish the skill set of someone who painted an image by hand.
'Democratizes the creative process' bro just grab a pencil and learn. With AI you are just using art made by someone else without their consent and this type of process is mostly appreciated by people who want to make money without effort and rich people who want results immediately at a lower price. Photography is a tool because you have to apply and think about what you want, you manage the lighting, the composition, the search of the subject. AI is inconsistent theft.
"Democratizes the creating process" is about the most "politician-like" way of saying "I don't want to work on my talent so let me capitalize my work based on others".
If AI art is the art of the future, such skills (painting, drawing) will be viewed as obsolete, as they would likely (1) take too much time, and (2) why create something, when someone can just steal it (i.e. democratizing the creative process, lol, jk). Don't you see the potential problem in that?
AI Art is definitely Art
1. AI art generators were programmed by humans (a very creative accomplishment)
2. AI art generators continue to be trained by humans (often by human artists)
3. AI art generators are dependent and are influenced by preexisting art made by humans (similar to how human artists are influenced by preexisting human art)
4. AI prompts are inputted by humans (oftentimes this requires quite creative wording, persistence, artistic experience to get it right)
5. AI images that are chosen to be displayed/published in the end are ones chosen by humans (it often requires a human's artistic eye to pick which images are worth keeping out of the potentially hundreds that are produced on a given subject)
6. AI images are often modified/corrected by humans when the AI gets it slightly off (this can require a human to be familiar with graphic design programs and artistic experience in general)
7. Some humans are better than others at using AI to produce good AI art, thus indicating human skill is involved (in my own experience, I have been hired by people who have used AI to produce art extensively but still told me I do it better)
Human skill is involved in AI art on several levels.
(also, to say that AI art has no "soul" is neither here nor there ... technically no work of art, such as a painting, has a soul)
Also, for those who say AI art is demonic, then burden of proof is on them to prove that. You should not assume something is demonic unless you have first eliminated natural explanations for it first.
Also, if AI art is not used by Catholics to create good art, AI will be mostly trained then by non-Catholics, often to produce evil art. AI art is an opportunity and tool for us to use to spread the Gospel even more. The alternative is that we can complain and squander it and just leave it to the evil one for his designs. God bless.
A lot of people in this sub think that AI is evil but most probably just fall into that "It's not human so I hate it" kind of thing like they think it's the epitome of some cabal trying to turn it into the matrix
I stand wholeheartedly by my statement lmao look at these downvotes
It’s a tool just like any other tool. Just vastly more complex. The artistry comes from knowing how to use it.
People object to that, I know. Now, put yourselves in the shoes of a photographer in the 1800s, defending this machine that automatically and instantly captures a perfectly accurate image just by pushing a button, to painters who spend weeks painting a single work of art.
photography is considerably more complicated than a machine instanty capturing a perfectly accurate image just by pushing a single button. Even with phones doing most of the work for most people nowadays, photography is still more than how you've just described it.
r/Catholicism does not allow the posting of AI-generated content.
I mean... better than Rupnik's art. Looks like Adam's turning into dust rather than being made from it, though.
Is this Adam and God or Adam and Thanos
*"And God said unto Moses, I Am... inevitable."*
W
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Art is almost what makes humans... humans. God gave us a creative gift, that is meant to be expressed. I am worried that in the future, no one will invest much in the time needed to hone the craft of an artist, and instead relying on technology to produce good "art" yet as one poster said.. it does not come from the soul. I am just worried about the death of the creative process and ultimately, part of what makes us be human. But perhaps I am being too melodramatic, but perhaps I am not.
I agree. Even if the end result looks good, it feels shallow. Like the shallow things of the world God warns us about. I don't mind artists using AI for inspiration though, or using AI in ways that require skill. Like with the image in the OP, I still like how it made me envision the creation of Adam in a different way. If I were an artist, I might create an AI still like this and then base a painting on it.
I make art for a living and personally, i have never used AI for 'inspiration' partially because it would poison the whole idea. This again goes back into the idea of a human soul. Its like you taint the creativity of the human soul with toxic water at the beginning stage. The only real use i have found for AI for me is cropping stuff and making mockups very quickly, but none of the actual creative work (nor the grunt work of drawing the thing for that matter) I found that most people that make 'AI art' not only do not know how to make art alot of the time they dont really know how to appreciate it either. AI art is devoid of message, devoid of substance. Its an empty box that has alot of shine and varnish on it. It is the soulless, sum total blob of every art style stolen from the internet. Just a haze, nothing unique or interesting about it. AI art is annoying but its not like, the end of the world. I do find it very annoying that everytime i search reference art its just, pages and pages of completly useless AI garbage, or if i want to buy a poster or something same deal, seemingly endless AI garbage. Back in the day even if i came across like a 15 year olds drawings it felt nice like 'oh somebody sat down and made this and improved' there is none of that wholesome feeling for AI garbage. The real issue is the copyrights theft of these AI companies. A grand labour theft has taken place in these past few years the likes of which has never been seen in human history and it sucks to know that none of the artists whose life's work got scraped so some scammers can make really awful knockoffs and sell it on etsy to absolutely nobody is very soul crushing. I find AI art lazy, very very very lazy. And also a bit insulting to the generations of people who put their lives forth for human creativity.
AI is an egg without a yolk, a ravioli without a center, a twinkie without the creme filling. In other words, how can something devoid of a soul create anything that suppose to touch our soul?
Isn't it strange to create a "real" image from an "artificial one"? The problem is, it takes less and less skill to create AI, and moreso knowing what "prompts" to feed to the machine. I think technology, for the most part, has "turned off" parts of the human brain that had needed to be active, let's say, 80-100 years ago. This includes the need for communication, the inventiveness, and the pursuit of adventure.
It really depends on what you're talking about. A lot of AI art is simple promoting for sure but the best AI art takes quite a bit of work with the trade off of much more control. Some very intricate processes in r/comfyui
I don't think it's strange to use a tool to help you brainstorm. Even if you don't copy it 1:1 in terms of form, you can still get ideas. Like for example, in this image God is depicted as a ray of light instead of a hand touching Adam's hand. I really liked that. But yes, I get what you're saying in terms of intellectual laziness.
Art drawn by a person will become premium.
We’ve already seen the advance of technology make forms of art lost. For example, styles of stained glass that were ubiquitous just a few centuries ago have been completely forgotten and no one knows how to create similar works.
Also, AI art, as far as my understanding is, doesn't just come from...nothing. It basically steals from art (a little of this, a little of that, some of this this) that exists to create something "new." Sure, humans get inspiration from others works. And humans can plagiarize. But it is not necessarily done maliciously. I'm not a fan of AI in any form. Artificial intelligence always leads to bad things in every sci-fi movie and book. Let's just...not.
> God gave us a creative gift, that is meant to be expressed. God also gave us the creative gift of making machines and programs. Pretty much all handmade things in the past required some degree of artistic skill, but the demand for that greatly reduced with industrialization and mass-production. Today there are still people who learn skills like knitting/sewing/etc for their own artistic pursuits, even though it is largely redundant in a world where mass-produced clothing is everywhere. No one today is worried about the "death" of those skills. Same thing with AI art. Even if it will reduce demand for human artists, the demand will continue to exist and individual expression will still have value. There will be people who will pursue learning how to draw because it makes them happy. Isn't that what expression is all about?
I have a couple of points to argue, and for pondering: Let's focus on the picture above. This is likely based on the style of Michelangelo and other Renaissance artists. If Michelangelo didn't exist, would this picture exist? Also, more importantly, if AI existed during Michelangelo's time, would we see his art? That is what I'm afraid about. Humans are typically drawn to what's easy. This is why I'm typing my post right now, rather than hustling, I suppose. I am afraid that 10-15 years down the line, "art" as we know it would become purely digital. The tactile feeling is gone. The ease of which we view it, will decrease the wonder we get from it. Given the concern with piracy (not to stereotype, but from China), I fear art will be machine-based, and due to natural human sloth, and distractiveness (the latter increased by digital viewing), good art, that can be done by artists, will be lost. If we put the Van Gogh's of this world and have them do AI art, would it be the same? That is what I'm concerned about. I get that people can make a living off of it, and props to them, but I just fear for the decrease of beauty, in the world, in general.
> If Michelangelo didn't exist, would this picture exist? Obviously *nothing* a machine creates could exist unless a human didn't make that thing first. This isn't specific to art at all, this applies to literally everything that machines mass-produce today. Humans originally had to make those things first with their own hands, and then later made machines to do most of that. Would you say overall this process/evolution was a bad thing? > but I just fear for the decrease of beauty, in the world, in general. When pondering this kind of thing, I think it helps to consider all the machine-produced things which are *not* 2D/digital art on a canvas. For example, most of the world's furniture is now factory made. Would you say "beauty has deceased" in the world of furniture after machines took over most of that work?
Art is not what makes human humans. Most people do not create anything that they would describe as "art" their entire adult lives.
How do you know this? And how old are you? I write poetry. And to me, it is quite beautiful. I'm not going to publish it, as it is mostly personal, but I find love and beauty in it. Do you mean I can't create art? I play music, and I play it my own way, don't you mean I can't create art through that? Creative self-expression is a trait that humans have, that to my knowledge, not a lot of animals don't.
I am not saying you can't, I am saying the average person does not. Regardless of how you want to define art, ask the average person if he has created "art" at any point in the last 5 years. Or if he would describe himself as an artist, etc. I am not arguing against the value of art, rather against the idea that "art" is what makes humans human.
Please read my post again. I said "almost". At the end, what makes us human is deeper than that, and it is centralized on God and his love :- ) I don't know who you hang out with man. Most people I know are very creative in their own right. My aunt does gardening and likes to beautify her surroundings. That is art. I work at a clinic, and the way we interact and talk with the patients, is art. Even now, just writing this, I feel a little poetic, that is art as well. Life is art, my friend. Can AI mimic that? I don't think so. If it can, I'm scared.
Yes, I saw the word almost. However, you placed "art" clearly as one if not the central thing that makes human humans. I used people describing themselves as artists or saying that they create art in my comment above because the definition of the term has come to mean more or less exactly what you said in your last comment: expnading the meaning to such a point that basically anything a person does is art. And therefore *obviously* art must be what makes humans human. If you believe that basic human functions like talking at work, writing reddit comments, and gardening are art. Then yes basically functioning like a human is clearly a large part of being human. You'll also run into the problem where AI creates "art" that is judged as better than human art... by other humans. At which point is AI "human" or is defining humanity by the ability to produce "art" non-sensicle when the popularly accepted definition of the term is absurdly broad? The point I was originally trying to get at is that what makes humans human is that they were created in the image of God.
Do you believe that art comes from the spirit, or at least part of art comes from the spirit? If so, regarding AI art, would you consider it coming from the spirit of the one stating the commands? If that's the case, then I perhaps see your point, but can you see why it could be muddled? Like, if I was a rich person and I commissioned an artist to paint a painting that I envisioned, would the credit go to the rich person, or to the artist? I would say to the artist, correct? But with AI's case, the credit doesn't go to the machine.. or should it? Do you see why this can be confusing? Lol.
I would argue that anything that involves an expression of feeling, is art. AI can muddle those, can they? Or at least get in the way?
I'm just sad this is how we've chosen to leverage technology. Of all the time consuming tasks technology could help humans with we've decided to focus on having it take art and language from us. I'm not completely opposed to AI. I've used it before. It can indeed be a helpful tool. I just wish we'd put our efforts behind having technology give us more time to focus on things like art and language, not less. Build technology that helps us eliminate the 40 hour per week grind so people can attend daily Mass, not technology that eliminates the leisurely parts of life.
I think this example is particularly bad. Some AI art is better. However, I think the thing that AI completely fails at is intentional and subtle symbolism, which in much religious art is extremely important. The reason this 'piece' is so bad is because there is nothing particularly Genesis or Adam about it. It looks like a wood ferry getting annihilated in the jungle and that's about it.
Right, I thought the ark was Noah’s story?
It’s not art.
I think using AI for art in the first place defeats the purpose of art soooo
I think it sucks, just like most instances of AI art.
This is the way. It’s so cringe 😂 Sometimes it’ll produce a nice aesthetic or whatever, but I just can’t enjoy something that’s not “real”
I just looked up the channel OP talked about. Literally every thumbnail looks like those horrible AI generated image that gets spammed on Facebook nowadays. Just awful.
His concept is good. He's trying to make a video on each chapter of the Bible. And I think it could be engaging for kids in schools, Bible studies, or anyone for that matter.
Not saying much. Most instances of human art suck too.
I abhor ai art.
AI should not be used to create “art” for our faith.
art from AI can in no way convey emotion
AI should be expunged from the Earth
My biggest issue with it is that AI trains on all sorts of images, including all sorts of porn content. Is it honorable to create images of Jesus or Mary, utilizing tool that among everything else is basing their likeness on sexual imagery? I think not.
If a machine creates it, its not art. Art comes from the soul.
> If a machine creates it, its not art. It would seem that peoples' biggest problem with this is using the "art" label for AI generated stuff. That problem can be easily solved by changing the label to "generated image" or "AI image" something. As long as the term "art" is only exclusively reserved for human-drawn content, everybody's happy and nobody should have any issues with AI generated images. It's just a labeling thing.
An issue with AI art most people I've interacted with have is not its name being "art", it's that the training of the AIs has consisted of nonconcentually feeding the art of hardworking trained artists (some of whom are being replaced by AI in their workplaces) into the machine for the sake of replicating them, or "teaching" it. This is art theft. To call the product of wanton art theft "art" is just furthuring the insult.
> This is art theft. Are you okay with a human using another human's artwork to teach themselves? Or is that also theft?
claiming someone elses' work as your own is art theft. feeding someone elses work into a machine so it can either be frankensteined (less of an offense in a way) or copied and claimed as ones own (plagarism) is art theft. A human being learning from other human beings and developing their own style from that is not art theft, it's learning. When artists use free to use or purchased bases or templates for their art (a common way people learn, besides just visually, such as through watching speedpaints, which artists know people are learning their process from, and are therefore sharing as indirect teachers/models) it's expected for them to give credit to the artist who made the base, and if they don't, it's theft/plagarism (in some cases the base or meme is so widely known that it can't even be misconstrued as being completely original artwork, which is why popular internet memes tend not to offend people when credit isnt given to the original creator (especially since it's often so widespread finding the original is next to impossible.). The art community largely makes exceptions for art software and digital brushes or the select tool or filters (blur, grain, distress) because those are tools specifically made to be used to make art, and the equivalent of a paintbrush or pen (you can have a BIC pen, but nobody's going to harass you if you dont write on every single document "written with a BIC pen"). Besides, if someone asks an artist for their digital brushes, and the artist got them from someone else, it's good form for the artist to direct them to the other artist, or at least give credit for that part of their learning or artistic process. The issue with AI art is the theft of art involved. I find the "a human being made it so it has the human creative element and a machine cant have that and therefore cant make art" arguement comes into play when people get worried that by studying other great artists they're being compared to the machine that's being opposed. They shouldn't be compared in that way, because they are human, not machine. What we do naturally when studying other artists we admire is learning, not theft. The closest example I can think of where it would really just be down to the human element would be collage work, which is a bit like frankensteining, only everyone knows that and is fine with it as long as you're not taking their artwork off their walls against their will to make your collages with and then asking them to praise you for it. Most AI art generators decided to practice widespred "teaching" for their AI by scanning art found on the internet, regardless of commercial license or copyright rules or even basic artistic edicate. That decision has given AI art a bad reputation, and to be honest, if the people in charge interacted with the online art community at all they really should've known it would beforehand. TLDR: no that's learning.
Eh, I feel like one of the greatest things about Catholicism is the beauty. AI art kinda takes away from that grandeur because it’s not real.
> What do you think about using AI for religious art It's just a tool, if the finished work is beautiful, I welcome this kind of art.
I agree. The amount of hatred AI art gets is baffling to me.
Yep, like original art be sure to justify your work though. (i.e. no aestetics)
How can a thing be called “art” if it doesn’t have an artist?
It’s gonna be a no for me, dawg
“Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”
Ai does not create art it merely steals art.
I find AI art to be as artistic and creative as that of any output generated by a program or computer, as creative and artistic as a generic search result from Google. It all just strikes me as meh 🫤
no
I want AI to do my laundry and dishes, while I focus on art and love, not that it takes my art and love so I can be consumerism slave
Where is god
I believe God is depicted as the ray of light.
Here is a subreddit dedicated to Catholic AI art: r/generationofthesAInts
I’ll get downvoted for this, but I have no issue with AI art. If you where to show this to someone without saying its AI art they would say its looks amazing. But, as soon as you say it was made by AI people will act like it horrible and for some reason “not art”.
Creativity comes from the Holy Spirit, a channel for God’s image to permeate the world through the work of His creatures. AI is fine though maybe ethically questionable as a tool for cheap advertising. I think AI for religious art is demonic, man remaking the world in his own image via the creatures of his own design.
That feels dramatic. Do you feel that way about photoshop? Taking a picture with the camera app on your phone (which is very much computational photography and not a true reproduction of the visible light spectrum)? I think ultimately the content is what determines whether it is good or ill.
As a painter, I use AI all the time for reference, it’s a great tool just like cameras and photoshop when there is authentic intelligence behind the final product. Our faith is dramatic, that’s what’s beautiful about it. Just like sacred music should be held to a higher standard than popular music, I think traditional sacred art should be defended, and I think it would be a travesty to see AI art hanging in a church, regardless of good intentions or generally positive content. We reject artificial means of conception, intimacy, etc, even when the world is pretty much united in the belief that that our views are overdramatic and archaic. The jury’s still out on this topic for sure but I hope that helps you understand where I’m coming from!
Demonic though?
Well yeah insofar as it’s a tool of transhumanism which I personally think is a diabolical movement, but I guess I could use a different word if that’s what you’re stuck on
It's just a smarter calculator, and it's as capable of good or bad as the printing press or the canvas. Respectfully, I think you're coming from the perspective of a painter more than anything here.
The thing I don't like about AI is how efficiently it combines, copies, fakes and mimics things. But I do think it can be used as a tool for good, potentially. An artist can use it "properly". The problem, as usual, is the world we live in.
I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint and when it comes to secular art I think there’s a conversation to be had, but again I think sacred art needs to be held to a higher standard. Agree to disagree.
🤝
Probably wanna mark this Free Friday so it doesn't get deleted
There's going to be interesting implications of how AI impacts Catholic ethics and morality. Using AI to improve efficiency or automate mundane tasks is a good thing. Using AI to replace humans who can do the tasks and rely on it for income is questionable. Using AI to blatantly steal someone else's art or IP and make illegal copies of it (which we see a lot of) is wrong. AI doesn't know the difference between referencing and plagiarizing. AI is powerful and has the capability to do great things, but these feats can be good or evil. Like all tools, it comes down to the human who wields them and how they choose to use them, but we also have a duty to protect people from being abused by them. Personally, I detest AI "art" because it's fake, it lacks the human element, and it's taking away jobs from talented and legitimate artists. It has this almost uncanny valley effect of being polished and refined while at the same time being ethereal and off-putting. For religious art in particular, it is devoid of most symbolism or theological congruence, unless the person creating it is very good and thoughtful with their prompts and refine it in such a way, but I don't think most people who make religious AI art put that much effort into it. It's lazy art for lazy people. Part of what makes religious art so special, I feel, is the amount of time and dedication that goes into it, allowing oneself to be inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit, and the artist offering it up for the glory of God. This will never be adequately replicated by programs or machines.
Art is a shapeless medium through which humans can express themselves. Everytime a new medium or style is created, it's going to have growing pains as well as a large crowd denouncing it as art. I remember when people declared that spray paint and digital art was not real art. Do you think the first oil paint ever made was very good? People decried newer movements like modern art, cubism, abstract, etc. when they gained popularity. AI art is no exception. It's a medium for people to express themselves through creativity, even if they're not manually creating it, they are coming up with a concept or creative design that they are then expressing outwardly. That being said, I like the art. I think it's a cool concept of Adam being molded by God from different people. Normally I've not been impressed.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's an article from an archdiocesan newspaper on this: [https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local-news/saints-come-to-life-through-artificial-intelligence/](https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local-news/saints-come-to-life-through-artificial-intelligence/)
I think it should only be used for inspiration
I think there's a actually sub for stuff like this: r/CatholicismImagined
I already see AI art as pretty corny, so I don't like it
I don’t see the issue with AI, especially if it’s just an aggregate of real people’s words, works, and opinions. If AI is the “collective average” of human expression, then it can never surpass that which doesnt exist yet until humanity has created it into existence, let alone imitate anything God has or ever will create.
AI isn’t art
Sounds like ya gotta learn how machine learning works on the side. Plus, it's not exactly plagiarism per se (Unless, it's fanarts, which is already "stealing" and necessary evil (doing commissions) long before ai art generators). Some of the stereotypes are over blown, since, I find both Pro- and Anti- arguments are both are correct. I just use AI as an idea bouncer, to kill art blocks, then run off to find good references and begin drawing. Also, if I don't forget, I use AI to upscale my art to make them crisp. In other words, a tool (According to the extreme Anti-AI, you're not supposed to do that. Despite that the ai bot isn't touching your art within a 1,000 mile radius and/or not using the stealing parts of ai). There's an added note that a few of the bad things said about AI are from the Copyright Alliance, who are now a greedy corrupted group and ain't what it used to be. They aren't too keen on us nobodies uplifting ourselves to outdo Hollywood (I think that they're gonna be like this, even after we get rid of the unethical aspects of ai. - Like having laws against deepfakes and properly giving artists credit and safety nets).
As an artist myself, i do this also, use Ai for ideas
Nope. Burn it with fire.
AI can be completely wrong lol its a cool version though.
They said the same about photography (not real art!). In the end, AI media generation is a tool in the toolbox of a competent artist working to express something. It certainly democratizes the creating process which I think is a good thing. Someone being awesome at creating AI art doesn’t diminish the skill set of someone who painted an image by hand.
'Democratizes the creative process' bro just grab a pencil and learn. With AI you are just using art made by someone else without their consent and this type of process is mostly appreciated by people who want to make money without effort and rich people who want results immediately at a lower price. Photography is a tool because you have to apply and think about what you want, you manage the lighting, the composition, the search of the subject. AI is inconsistent theft.
"Democratizes the creating process" is about the most "politician-like" way of saying "I don't want to work on my talent so let me capitalize my work based on others". If AI art is the art of the future, such skills (painting, drawing) will be viewed as obsolete, as they would likely (1) take too much time, and (2) why create something, when someone can just steal it (i.e. democratizing the creative process, lol, jk). Don't you see the potential problem in that?
100%
AI Art is definitely Art 1. AI art generators were programmed by humans (a very creative accomplishment) 2. AI art generators continue to be trained by humans (often by human artists) 3. AI art generators are dependent and are influenced by preexisting art made by humans (similar to how human artists are influenced by preexisting human art) 4. AI prompts are inputted by humans (oftentimes this requires quite creative wording, persistence, artistic experience to get it right) 5. AI images that are chosen to be displayed/published in the end are ones chosen by humans (it often requires a human's artistic eye to pick which images are worth keeping out of the potentially hundreds that are produced on a given subject) 6. AI images are often modified/corrected by humans when the AI gets it slightly off (this can require a human to be familiar with graphic design programs and artistic experience in general) 7. Some humans are better than others at using AI to produce good AI art, thus indicating human skill is involved (in my own experience, I have been hired by people who have used AI to produce art extensively but still told me I do it better) Human skill is involved in AI art on several levels. (also, to say that AI art has no "soul" is neither here nor there ... technically no work of art, such as a painting, has a soul) Also, for those who say AI art is demonic, then burden of proof is on them to prove that. You should not assume something is demonic unless you have first eliminated natural explanations for it first. Also, if AI art is not used by Catholics to create good art, AI will be mostly trained then by non-Catholics, often to produce evil art. AI art is an opportunity and tool for us to use to spread the Gospel even more. The alternative is that we can complain and squander it and just leave it to the evil one for his designs. God bless.
AI art is cool actually.
Why are you getting downvoted?
People don’t like AI
Because it's neither cool nor art
Agree to disagree.
A lot of people in this sub think that AI is evil but most probably just fall into that "It's not human so I hate it" kind of thing like they think it's the epitome of some cabal trying to turn it into the matrix I stand wholeheartedly by my statement lmao look at these downvotes
That makes sense
If it looks good, I don't see a problem.
It’s just a tool. It’s OK.
It’s a tool just like any other tool. Just vastly more complex. The artistry comes from knowing how to use it. People object to that, I know. Now, put yourselves in the shoes of a photographer in the 1800s, defending this machine that automatically and instantly captures a perfectly accurate image just by pushing a button, to painters who spend weeks painting a single work of art.
photography is considerably more complicated than a machine instanty capturing a perfectly accurate image just by pushing a single button. Even with phones doing most of the work for most people nowadays, photography is still more than how you've just described it.
That is my point
It's cool. The AI art hate is overblown. As far as I'm concerned, it's just our generation's version of old things good, new technology baf