How The Art World Is Changing

in LeoFinance2 years ago

By now, many of us read how NFTs are going to change the art world. There are so many possibilities that go into the equation that it is literally unimaginable to think of the innovation that will come forth over the next few years.

There is, however, something else that is taking place in the art world. It is technologically inclined and stands to upend a lot of what we thought about art and talent.

Let us meet a couple of artists.

This is Alejandro:

Alejandro is a realist visual artist born in Panama in 1974. He painted landscapes during his adolescence and received his formal arts education in Panama, Barcelona and New York City. Since 2001, he has held over 25 exhibitions of his paintings throughout the US and Europe. His work has appeared in numerous publications including Art and Antiques magazine, NY Times Magazine and FlashArt International.

And this is Taylor:

Taylor is a young abstract artist born in Waco, TX and raised in Austin, TX. She studied Visual Effects at the Austin Career College from 2003–2005 and has been working as a freelance illustrator since then. Taylor creates vibrant images using a wide variety of techniques such as oils, acrylics, pastels, and spray paint and her art tackles human identity, experience, society, and the environment. Her work has been displayed in several group gallery shows as well as numerous solo exhibits.

Here is a sample of the artists' work:


So far, everything looks in order.

Why is this even being brought up on a site like Leofinance? Paintings by a couple of artists isn't going to change the art world, is it?

Perhaps this will help to clarify things:

Mirage Gallery was founded on the premise that art can be more than human. Our artists have been trained for decades (in human years) on learning what art means to them and how they want to express themselves.

Each part of each artist has been generated by artificial intelligence. Everything from the profile image of their face, to their biography, and of course their artwork.


This is what is revolutionary.

Neither of these artists exists in person. They are AI renditions, created from scratch. As you can see, "they" were trained for "years" to develop their skills to generate works like this.

So much for the idea that AI could not be creative.

Which brings us to the basis of this article: what impact does this have on the art world?

Art is a very subjective topic. People buy things which move them. The question is will they spend money on works that were not created by humans but, rather, AI "artists"? Will people care how it was created when it is hanging in their living rooms?

For the most part, it is not likely of great concern. After all, people hang prints all the time.

A bigger question is one of value. We know great works of art can go for enormous sums of money. Will people be willing to pay for unique works done by these particular artists?

At the same time, is it possible that an artist like Alejando can get a following and command more for "his" works than other artists?

We also can question is the skills of all AI artists on par? Can there be differences in their abilities? Is it possible for Alejandro to be remarkably better than most, if not all, other AI artists?

Or will they all be the same?

This is actually bringing up deeper questions. When we look at our place on this planet, what does it mean to have humans producing things? Is it really necessary?

In other words, should we treat art any different than we do automobiles? After all, most of the production of vehicles these days are done through automation. Many companies are seeking to automate the majority of their processes. Amazon seeks to essentially become an autonomous shopping organization where there is no human intervention from the point of sale until delivery.

Obviously, Alenjandro can maintain some scarcity with "his" artwork by making each piece unique and only doing a few a year. This would limit what is out there meaning the followers would have to bid up if they wanted them.

Should we fully automate the process? If people are willing to hang the works in their homes and offices, what is the difference if it was done by a human or not? The quality of the work should be what is important. One would think that if an AI artist was properly trained "by the great masters", then the ability to churn out remarkable pieces should be at its disposal.

Naturally, what is already out there will still have value but, in the future, do we need human artists? What is the point of them. In fact, the same could be said for writers and others who create films, books, and plays. If an AI system can be trained on the masterpieces, why not simply allow them to do it all?

These are just some of the questions we are going to have going forward. Do not presume the world will be the same in a decade or two. As this gallery shows, we are already in a completely different era than we were before.

What are your thoughts on where all of this is going?

If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.

gif by @doze


logo by @st8z

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta


Wow AI is going forward quite far to the point it can re-create art. While I have no preference, I think some people like to know who drew the picture and if it is by a real person. I personally would be more interested in why a person drew such a picture because it leads to a better story.

If someone dropped by my office, and I say I bought this painting because it looks nice. It would be fine, but saying something like I liked this painting even though the artist drew it for a different reason would be better to understand people you interact with.

I am not an art lover and I would be curious to hear some technical opinion of the paintings, that is, if they actually manage to understand that it is not something created by man but by a machine.

For the rest it baffles me a little because I have always associated art in general with a personalized product of man, the fruit of his passions.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

... personalized product of man, the fruit of his passions.

That is true but if the AI was trained and learned all it could about the artist it was modelling (or artists) could it create something that was from that same passion?

I dont know the answer to it but if a computer gains access to many details of one's life, couldn't it replicate a lot of that based upon other learning?

Food for thought.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

To me, the value of art is not in the result but in the process. Whether the art is traditional or digital, representative or abstract: so far, there is always a human mind and heart behind it, and this human embues the artwork with a tiny part of themselves, a spark of creation if you will. Without self-awareness, without "soul", AI art will never be more than artistic fast food.

Ask yourself, on the day of your demise, who would you rather have by your side to guide and comfort you: the smartest machine on the planet, or the dumbest human? Exactly!

Ask yourself, on the day of your demise, who would you rather have by your side to guide and comfort you: the smartest machine on the planet, or the dumbest human? Exactly!

I am not sure that is truly the case.

There are many in Japan who are getting emotionally connected to their robotic caretakers. Humans draw emotional attachments in many different places.

For example, most would prefer their animals to other humans as they bonded more with their pets than their family.

So I do not think we can discount the idea that people will not get emotionally attached to an AI that is a central part of their lives.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

O.K., I buy into the pet thing, being a dog owner myself. Interesting point about the Japanese and their pet robots. Happy new year :)

Art is a very subjective topic. People buy things which move them. The question is will they spend money on works that were not created by humans but, rather, AI "artists"? Will people care how it was created when it is hanging in their living rooms?

History has the habit of repeating itself. Let's go back a couple of centuries in time and see how art and artists were appreciated back then. August Rodin for example had been rejected by exhibition organisers for years, disrespected by the society for being bold and presenting the naked human body as it is in reality. They had considered back then that that's not in line with what sculptors should do and had been considered shameful. He had to struggle for years to get recognition along with many others. Painters we highly appreciate today had been living in misery, selling their art for a piece of bread because they had tried to bring something new in the art world. Musicians as well.

A part of the artworks so popular and valuable today (talking about millions here) are not liked by many as artwork but greatly appreciated still as they have great monetary value, due to various reasons. One single painting can worth millions and there's only one of each.

Now with artificial intelligence and digital art, things are different, as you said you can create many edition of the same painting and there's also authenticity concerns as it can be most likely copied (I don't see why not).

AI art creation is still at the beginning, people still have to understand and learn to value digital art but we'll get there. In a good few years you'll see the change in people's mentality and the rise of value. There's a transitional process that can take some time but we're going to get there.

Will one digital painting worth millions? I can't answer that question, time will tell.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

They could have the AI produce only one of each work, NFT it, and then it is unique.

You are right, will this result in people spending large sums of money like they do for historical pieces?

Hard to say at the moment.

Of course, what if the AI generated a number of pieces and then was smashed to bits. Then the artwork would be limited only to what that AI produced during its "lifetime".

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Digital art I think will be the future of art and traditional art will be more and more scarce. It is the next step into evolution and the async art is the culminant point of it so far. Generating art using lines of code, allowing the owner to even change the art attributes and even mint new art out of it - my mind is still trying to understand that. This is a true mindset revolution in art and we should be proud that we are here to witness it. And if we are smart, we can make the most of it.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

You bring up a valid point.

What will be created in the future that can be done by a computer using vectors and other things that a human cant do? Will that suddenly be a new stage in artist development?

We truly do not know what an AI system can create.

It does open up a host of other possibilities.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Anybody wanting their first NFT, I'm giving them away at It's not Hive unfortunately, but it's a great way to dip one's toes I to NFTs.

Bang, I did it again... I just rehived your post!
Week 38 of my contest just can now check the winners of the previous week!

That is pretty crazy. I think a lot of us assume that things created by computers or AI would be cold and lifeless. It is apparent that each of these are very warm and emotive. I wouldn't have guessed that they were created by AI just by looking at them. I guess this really points to the fact that art is subjective and each person views it and absorbs it a different way.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta