Kevin, thanks for the work. I appreciate what you're trying to do. Maybe do an ongoing preview of quality comic Kickstarters, focusing on the high points of the releases. I know real comic creators could certainly use more exposure. (Maybe you're already doing that and I'm missing it). Thank you!
More than one year ago i left in post my overall position about AI: that is an excellent solution for low value added tasks... it should not be used where the creativity, what i call 'the human spark', is required... apparently we're doing the other way round: I see more and more useless jobs for humans and artworks generated by AI (iirc the first AI generated painting sold this year at Christies' for more than 1m!)... it is clear that mankind is not that intelligent as mankind itself thinks to be...
Really great article. I’m a professional artist and I’m giving welcome to A.I. tools but, I generally use to produce my own references and if I’m with difficult to draw something. But this is because I’m passionate by the process to create art, and not the end result. After years of working to different clients around the world, I’m starting to produce my own comic book IP, and I,m using some A.I. tools to help me out to visualize a few scenes and speedy up part of the production. You can check my journey here , https://rodluper.substack.com/p/creating-my-ip-journey-journal-01, if you want it.:)
IIhope people digg my comic book when I release campaign too but, is out of my control, meanwhile I can only do my best on the pages.
I am not a NSFW artist myself, but I do know several and know that they put in a lot of hard work to make art that is appealing but also physically makes sense (drawing two bodies interacting with specific parts is difficult!) They deserve respect just the same as all us SFW artists too. Using AI to cheat sexy art is so disrespectful to them, as you said in your article.
This all sounds like the same arguments that artists had about photography well over 150 years ago. Here are just of the things mentioned in years past.
Mechanical Reproduction vs. Creative Expression
Some artists argued that photography was merely a mechanical process of capturing reality, lacking the creative interpretation inherent in traditional art forms. They claimed that photographers simply document what exists, rather than creating something new.
Ease of Creation
Critics pointed out that anyone could take a photograph, unlike the skill required for painting or sculpture. The lack of formal training or apprenticeship needed for photography was seen as diminishing its artistic value.
Mass Production
The ability to easily reproduce photographs was seen as devaluing them compared to unique artworks. This mass production aspect was viewed as incompatible with the exclusivity of fine art.
Emotional Impact
The ability to capture and communicate human experiences was seen as inherently artistic while photography was not artistic at all.
All valid points, and I'm sure there will be an equilibrium found at some point, as in your example. The case in point, however, involved a creator funding a product deceptively using cover art to represent interior sequential art that was completely different/amateurish by comparison.
Because AI art can’t exist without real art and the tech bros took that art without asking - presumably because they knew how valuable the “data” was all along. So valuable, in fact, that they went crying to the UK government about how they can’t afford to operate without free access to copyrighted works - and the government is seriously entertaining the idea of changing copyright laws to accommodate them, rather than do anything as radical as enforce current copyright laws. 30 years I’ve had to endure a lengthy advert at the start of every film I’ve ever watched, telling me how terrible copyright theft is. Turns out it’s absolutely fine if you’re a tech firm and you want to make money for nothing. Who knew?? You want us to get along? Scrap every image generator currently in use - then rebuild them, from the ground up, using work from artists who very deliberately opted-in and got paid for the use of their work. Until that day arrives (spoiler: it won’t), you keep telling us you don’t care that our work was used without permission every time you generate an image and luxuriate in the clicks and likes.
Wow! Push will have to come to shove for crowdfunding sites at some point. Great article. #MakingComics
Kevin, thanks for the work. I appreciate what you're trying to do. Maybe do an ongoing preview of quality comic Kickstarters, focusing on the high points of the releases. I know real comic creators could certainly use more exposure. (Maybe you're already doing that and I'm missing it). Thank you!
I do! Check out thecomicscrowd.substack.com. Depends on the day, but tons of great projects curated from among the daily launches.
Awesome! Thank you!
More than one year ago i left in post my overall position about AI: that is an excellent solution for low value added tasks... it should not be used where the creativity, what i call 'the human spark', is required... apparently we're doing the other way round: I see more and more useless jobs for humans and artworks generated by AI (iirc the first AI generated painting sold this year at Christies' for more than 1m!)... it is clear that mankind is not that intelligent as mankind itself thinks to be...
Hear, hear! Couldn't agree more. As evidenced by this particular project (and others), it's even playing a role in physical attraction...
Really great article. I’m a professional artist and I’m giving welcome to A.I. tools but, I generally use to produce my own references and if I’m with difficult to draw something. But this is because I’m passionate by the process to create art, and not the end result. After years of working to different clients around the world, I’m starting to produce my own comic book IP, and I,m using some A.I. tools to help me out to visualize a few scenes and speedy up part of the production. You can check my journey here , https://rodluper.substack.com/p/creating-my-ip-journey-journal-01, if you want it.:)
IIhope people digg my comic book when I release campaign too but, is out of my control, meanwhile I can only do my best on the pages.
I am not a NSFW artist myself, but I do know several and know that they put in a lot of hard work to make art that is appealing but also physically makes sense (drawing two bodies interacting with specific parts is difficult!) They deserve respect just the same as all us SFW artists too. Using AI to cheat sexy art is so disrespectful to them, as you said in your article.
Exactly! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dang that’s the biggest bait and switch I have seen since people selling game console boxes without the actual console inside.
Perfect analogy!
This all sounds like the same arguments that artists had about photography well over 150 years ago. Here are just of the things mentioned in years past.
Mechanical Reproduction vs. Creative Expression
Some artists argued that photography was merely a mechanical process of capturing reality, lacking the creative interpretation inherent in traditional art forms. They claimed that photographers simply document what exists, rather than creating something new.
Ease of Creation
Critics pointed out that anyone could take a photograph, unlike the skill required for painting or sculpture. The lack of formal training or apprenticeship needed for photography was seen as diminishing its artistic value.
Mass Production
The ability to easily reproduce photographs was seen as devaluing them compared to unique artworks. This mass production aspect was viewed as incompatible with the exclusivity of fine art.
Emotional Impact
The ability to capture and communicate human experiences was seen as inherently artistic while photography was not artistic at all.
Why can't AI art and artists coexist?
All valid points, and I'm sure there will be an equilibrium found at some point, as in your example. The case in point, however, involved a creator funding a product deceptively using cover art to represent interior sequential art that was completely different/amateurish by comparison.
Because AI art can’t exist without real art and the tech bros took that art without asking - presumably because they knew how valuable the “data” was all along. So valuable, in fact, that they went crying to the UK government about how they can’t afford to operate without free access to copyrighted works - and the government is seriously entertaining the idea of changing copyright laws to accommodate them, rather than do anything as radical as enforce current copyright laws. 30 years I’ve had to endure a lengthy advert at the start of every film I’ve ever watched, telling me how terrible copyright theft is. Turns out it’s absolutely fine if you’re a tech firm and you want to make money for nothing. Who knew?? You want us to get along? Scrap every image generator currently in use - then rebuild them, from the ground up, using work from artists who very deliberately opted-in and got paid for the use of their work. Until that day arrives (spoiler: it won’t), you keep telling us you don’t care that our work was used without permission every time you generate an image and luxuriate in the clicks and likes.
No bueno
Let’s gatekeep what people are allowed to willingly pay for. That capitalism at it’s best!