More than 5,600 artists signed an open letter protesting the auction, saying that the works used AI models that are trained on copyrighted work.

A representative for Christie’s shared a statement about the issue. “From the beginning, two things have been true about the art world: one, artists are inspired by what came before them, and two, art can spark debate, discussion, and controversy,” the statement reads. “The discussions around digital art, including art created using AI technology, are not new and in many ways should be expected. Many artists – Pop artists, for example – have been the subject of similar discussions. Having said that, Christie’s, a global company with world-class experts, is uniquely positioned to explore the relatively new and ever-changing space of digital art: the artists, collectors, market and challenges.”

  • Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The best part of artwork is when you can see an artists personality through their art. Because Ai art is just stolen from other people who have poured their energy into their craft, it completely ruins the point.

    It feels cheap. But because of this garbage, it’s also made me appreciate real art so much more.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    More than 5,600 artists signed an open letter protesting the auction, saying that the works used AI models that are trained on copyrighted work.

    All artists are trained on copyrighted work.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah, this is what I don’t get. “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” This is a quote for a reason. Everything is just a remix of something else. Just look at the shit Andy Warhol put out.

      Also, you can’t copyright AI art, so I’m not sure what the point of paying money for AI art is for.

  • sqgl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Reminds me of the way that many DJ’s do little more than press play. The “brand-name” of the “artist” becomes more important than the art.

    If the public’s appreciation of art is dumbed down, then it is logical for art to be dumbed down too.

  • millie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 hours ago

    In what world does it take two people to “make” a piece of malformed AI schlock?

    • pooberbee (they/she)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Herndon and Dryhurst are frequent collaborators, and xhairymutantx is their work. So they didn’t just prompt an LLM to make the image, they trained the model themselves. And they specifically trained the model on pictures of Herndon (who has distinctive red, braided hair).

      I’m personally a really big fan of their work (which I don’t expect everyone to be), but the picture that’s being circulated in articles and apparently sold at auction without context is pretty uninspiring.

  • peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That print does actually look pretty nice, but I hate how inconsistent the two images are. It’d drive me fing crazy to have those prints on my wall when the continuity of design is so clearly lacking.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I see it as a time capsule, capturing a moment in time in the medium’s evolution. I mean, check out the first ever AI-generated image that sold for $432,500 USD back in 2018: