More Midjournehy
Midjourney is going to generate some excellent discussions about what "art" means and whether computer generated art is actually art.
It seems like an easy answer: computer generated art is not art.
There are complications, though. I remember when people started creating art on computers and traditional artists were screaming that it wasn't really art. Now it's just called digital art, and I don't think anyone denies its place. That took a long time to happen, though.
Now we have this new era, which is equal parts brilliant and terrifying, and what does it mean, exactly? Oh, and this:
"H.P. Lovecraft diorama, ultra detailed, volumetric lighting." It took a few iterations, but all in less than ten minutes.
I'm guessing there are multiple ways people will use this tool. Many, like me, will just be thrilled to generate images from their ideas. I'm so happy to be able to do this, because I always regretted that I have no artistic talent. I still have no artistic talent, but this is awesome!
The second category will be people who master this tool and become a kind of artist, using this in a commercial sense. It would be controversial, at first, but if the creator is upfront about the process and presents his work as a new kind of art, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
The third category will be existing artists would could use this tool to generate new ideas or generate images that they could then modify. It seems like it would be a way for artists to greatly increase their productivity, particularly for local artists whose income, to a large degree, depends on output.
One more:
"Little girl in a fairy tale world, background ultra detailed, volumetric lighting."
Wait, I thought of a fourth category: people like me who are now going to get into color theory and technique because they love art but were very intimidated trying to learn the dry basics of theory. Now the basics aren't dry, because I can do cool stuff while I learn.
<< Home