MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Opinion on Use of AI Art
Would like to hear your thoughts on the use of AI art in the creation of Custom Magic cards. It's a hot topic in the art community, and since the art community and the Custom MTG community are hand-in-hand, I'm curious to see what people think.
Comments
Just be careful of accidental appendages... I didn't catch this one right away but it's not so bad now is it?
Most ai programs have problems with faces/eyes and fingers.
https://www.Bing.com/create
In most cases, people aren't paying for art, getting paid for the use of someone's art, or really making any significant impact on the art world. Yes, there may be some times when a person may see some neat art on a custom magic card and say, "I want a poster of that image" and then go purchase from the artist, but custom magic cards are neither intended for art promotion nor expected forms of art promotion by the artists.
In the case of ownership, if you're using a program that allows you to create AI art for personal use, this definitely qualifies. Once again, unless you're actually trying to make a profit or market your custom cards, the question of ownership is relatively meaningless. No AI art company is going to say that making some pretend cards just for you and your friends isn't a reasonable, personal use of their software.
Of all the uses of AI generated art, this one seems the most in line with what it's actually good for. It allows for niche and unique art to be generated for a specific card without replacing any sales or purchase that would have gone to a real artist and, above all, it's being used as a supplement to the actual card design. The art (except in the case of alters of real cards) is rarely the actual focus of a custom card, just a nice touch that can look cool or add a little clarity on what's actually going on in the story of the card, but if any of my cards were just blank art, the cards would still be basically just as interesting to me, and I assume to most of us.
I understand that it's hard to find the perfect image, but you don't need to. For the majority of the cards I make, I can never find art that fits my original idea. Instead, I go down an Artstation rabbithole until I find a few interesting pieces. These give me new ideas for my card and can add richness in design and flavor.
There are millions of talented artists out there sharing their work for free online, and all it takes is a few minutes to find some gorgeous pieces of artwork that can not only accurately represent your card, but maybe give you new ideas along the way. I encourage all of you to just take those few extra minutes to create better cards and give these incredibly skilled artists the recognition they deserve.
My other point is that AI is a soulless machine. It's not really creating, and it shows. AI image generators don't produce the same quality of art as human artists do; their composition is muddy or chaotic; they overuse bright or saturated colors, and they can't even draw hands.
I apologize for the lengthiness of this comment, but the gist of it is:
1) AI art is worse than human art.
2) Finding imperfect artworks can open you up to new design spaces.
3) Artists put tons of effort and time into their work and deserve some recognition.
I know, as an artist, it is really hard to deal with technology competing with an already dense market that doesn't seem to even be able to support many of the talented people that should, ideally, be successful in it. I would know, I'm a professional musician, and let me tell you, if you think AI generated art is hurting artists, just think about how much electronically rendered and produced music has taken place of live studio musicians in the past few decades. It's a scary time for artists, but I've come to accept that for some music, mixing some samples is sufficient, but, after decades since you could just make a trombone sample play whatever you want with a few lines of code, I can still get a regular invite to play a set at my local jazz club every Thursday night. Not all technology replacing true art is bad. Sometimes, it's just different, and different isn't always fun, but it's usually okay.
...aaaand you were apologizing for the length of your comment. Oops. I rambled a bit, sorry.
I hear a lot of people arguing that AI image generators using, as I call it, stolen artworks is the same as human artists using those artworks as reference images. This is of course a false equivalence, as AI is incapable of creativity. This means they are, pixel for pixel, stitching together millions or billions of images collected without consent and without payment. In some cases, you can even see the AI's failed attempts to erase artists' signatures and even stock photo watermarks, which I believe resulted in a lawsuit from a stock images company.
Hopefully that clarifies my argument. It was not my intention to make a point and not support it, but this has been much debated by people more intelligent and qualified than I am. Again, sorry for writing so much.
I do wonder if it really does copy pixel for pixel. My understanding of machine learning is that it does not actually directly copy anything. Instead it seems to be about breaking source images down to identify patterns, looking for patterns that are consistent across multiple sources, and then creating an image that isn't a copy of any original work directly, but that does follow similar patterns. I could be wrong, or it could depend on the program, but if that's the case, it may be harder to make the argument that it's copying rather than just creating work "inspired by" other works.
This'll be an interesting concept to follow as it goes through what I'm sure will be many years of legal unwinding before there's a real consensus. I hope, whatever happens, corporations don't loose sight of the fact that without real artists, even the best AI can't really create anything truly original.
Of course I'm not blaming the tech. I'm not even blaming people for using it, especially people like dungeon masters with no money and such. Obviously I'd first encourage you to learn to draw or use photoshop, or as I said before, take a little longer to find a good picture. The people I blame are those who make and profit off of these art theft machines. I strongly encourage people to avoid using AI image generators, but I can't really fault people for wanting cheap, on demand images.
What I do take issue with is the use of the word 'craft' when referencing writing prompts. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning, and if I am I apologize in advance, but to elevate writing a dozen words in a text box to the same level that artists spend literal decades working to achieve is both inaccurate and highly disrespectful. One aspect of AI image generators is that should not be a debate is that they do not 'create' art, and the people that use them are not artists.
Just say it as it is: you're writing a couple or a dozen prompt words in a text box, and slightly changing them if the result is not satisfactory. It's not crafting; writing prompts requires none of the finesse, technical understanding, experience, or raw talent that real artists must possess to create works of art that AI crudely imitates.
I would also argue that writing prompts is not at all comparable to cardsmithing. Creating cards (or at least doing it well) demands not just creativity but a good knowledge of the rules, lore and flavor of the game, as well as knowledge of general concepts such as probability, simple mathematics, and game design and balance. If you need proof of this, look as some terrible cards on the site. We don't just write a few words in the text box and then fiddle with it until it's right, many of us go through long processes involving peer critiques, referencing real cards, playtesting, and much more.
Finally, I have never actually heard a good argument for AI image generators. Sure, I've heard the obligatory "don't be such a luddite, this is progress", and "this is just a tool, like digital art or the camera". For both these arguments, I'd say that
1) Progress is not inherently good. It's only good and worth pursuing if it benefits people. I strongly believe, and I've provided evidence already, that this has a net negative effect on the world of art.
2) This is not a tool, it's a replacement. Digital art and photography are tools. This is more akin to the roboticization and mechanization of factories that removed millions of jobs.
I understand your use of the word 'craft', it is justified here, but be careful with it. Often, 'crafting' is another form of art, used to refer to disciplines such as carving, sculpting, and metalworking. It's basically an umbrella term for any 3D art. All of THese art forms, of course, require lots of skill and experience to be good at.
This brings me to a point about gatekeeping art. Especially for drawing, you don't "learn" per say. You just draw, like I did and still do, and you get better over time. I have been drawing for over 16 years, and I've never taken lessons. The extent of my art education is youtube videos. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have improved significantly since I started (thank god lol) and am proud of my work. Drawing, painting, sculpting, and any other for of art are all so fulfilling and have a very low or non-existent barrier of entry. This is why I suggest people just pick up a pencil and draw. Sure, go ahead and use AI generated images as references or for ideas. Just, for the sake of artists and all of art, please don't pass off the results of only AI work as art.
I must admit I've only used an AI image generator once, before I knew how they worked, so I have no experience with prompt writing. If it really is that difficult and complex, I'm sorry for being harsh. But from what others tell me and from what I've seen online, it's still very low effort. I mean, when I see screenshots of other people's AI prompts, it's just a list of words going "rule of thirds, high contrast, woman, elf, bow, dragon, red, sunset, landscape, forest, dynamic composition, triangular composition, etc..." To me, that's not art, not even knowledge of the concepts of art. It's basically a list of all the stuff you either want to see or heard an artist say once and figured you might as well give it a shot. I'm not trying to invalidate what you do, I'm in no position to do so, but please be respectful of real artists.
Again, don't take this as a bash. Artists can get a little preachy and gatekeepy, but the price of entry is literally the cost of a pencil and a sheet of paper, and I highly recommend you come join us.
I understand that even with practice some people can never achieve the desired skill level in a certain discipline. Hell, I'd love to be able to do all kinds of things, but I will never be able to. However, that's what makes art and so many other wonderful hobbies so special. If everyone can create michelin star winning dishes at the press of a button, it wouldn't be special anymore. All food would taste average. The same goes for art. If the use of AI continues like this, AI users will inevitably outpace real artists and both online communities and the market will be flooded with AI generated images that, while technically impressive, all look the same. Art will stop being special.
It's ok to not be great at something and be able to appreciate people that are. I enjoy listening to Jimi Hendrix play the guitar knowing damn well I'll never be able to play like that even if I tried really hard. But if everyone could play like Hendrix, he wouldn't be special. None of them would be special.