Are we done for?

Maybe if you wanted to paint selfies of vapid teens in the style of van gogh.

File: 1451084898822.jpg (99KB, 1200x1383px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1200x1383px

>>2609331
>IS 2D ART DONE ??!???

Those daily threads are starting to make me think this is shameless advertising

>>2609331

Did that app just give her a fucking tumblr nose?

>>2609331
Just tried that app.
You can see it's a filter, and it looks bad. Does not even get close to replacing art in any way. Will probably end up as a Snapchat/Instagram gimmick.

>>2609331
No.
For the 2394789347th time, shitty filters wont replace art. I can't tell if there are a billion fucking retards doing these treads or just someone shitposting these threads.

>>2609377
it seems to have saturated the photo and she already has a bit of redness in her face, especially her nose.

>>2609489

I think the message here is that AI has a long way to go, considering it is at tumblr level currently

>>2609331

this is pretty cool, don't know if it would replace art but I'd like to see a graphic novel done in this style. I wonder why it hasn't been done before just with photos.

>>2609331
despite all the people trying to underplay it itt, machine learning is creating a paradigm shift in arts at this very same moment.

this is NOT small bussiness like a new fancy filter, but a big shift, like the advent of digital painting. people unable to understand it, and adapt their work to follow suit will be left in the past

>>2609477
Probably various retards that come and go.

File: merc_wip.jpg (314KB, 781x1146px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 781x1146px

>>2609331
traditional art may be dying, but there will always be a niche for the outdated techniques /ic/ holds dear

>>2609331
No.
Art is all about exaggerating an idea.
It seems a little fake too this stuff has been existing for a while.
Nothing is gonna change.

>>2609513

what exactly is the way to adapt to ai? it promises to completely replace an artist in its endgame, as well as virtually every human job, but thats besides the point. What role do you see AI having as an aid and not a gimmick or total replacement for a professional artist?

>>2609331
No but it might come in useful for backgrounds and such when I can't be arsed.

Even from that picture you can tell it's extremely flawed.

File: inceptionism-neural-network-deep-dream-art-56__605.jpg (91KB, 605x357px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 605x357px

>>2609607
You can still get good results, better than any filter.

Portraits/caricatures are already being done like this, just look at stuff like fiverr. They use worse filters and smudge/morph the photo and it looks passable.Traditional portraits will still survive as long as people want originals though.

Basically the grunt work of art is dying, you will still need concept artists, modelers, animators ect;

>>2609357

Wait until 3d scanners get cheaper, smaller and better.

File: 12371040134_9f3a60033c_q.jpg (10KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 150x150px

It can't draw from imagination

when it can start generating porn that actually gives me a boner you've got my attention

>>2609331
>>2609377
fucking kek

>>2609646

It's definitely a really awesome piece of software.

Still, it won't replace artists - most combinations still suck and it can't create so much as mash stuff together (and you need to be selective with what you mash together, too).
Consider, too, that people still admire human photocopiers and the camera has been around for decades.

>>2609682
>yfw after we feed the neural networks a few billion faces and poses it can

>generic kitsch art is done for
ftfy

It looks too realistic thus ugly, so no.

i-i just hope that AI won't find out about loomis

photobashing and digital art has not replaced traditional art.
so no, a fancy computet program that filters an image will not replace peoples desire to see a living human create something.

>>2609715
is not a particular piece of software, everybody's using machine learning and neural algorithms right now: there are several different art related applications already, and we're expecting tons more in the next decade. this shit is just the beginning

> it can't create so much as mash stuff together
and that's precisely what "creative" human beings do.

>>2609976
>and that's precisely what "creative" human beings do.

no. being a good painter/artist relies on having a good mental catalog on 3d forms, memorizing shapes, and then effectively projecting images into a 2d form using your hand.
that process is different than an algorithm putting a filter over something, it requires physical dexterity, strong memory and visual library, and imagination. it's like comparing a conversation between netjester and a real person. there is nothing to compare.

>>2609990
>having a good mental catalog on 3d forms, memorizing shapes, and then effectively projecting images into a 2d form using your hand.
>mash stuff together

>>2609331
It's inevitable robots will take over all occupations, thankfully(?) we're still several good decades away before the common sense of today becomes antiquated

File: MGS4-Guide-Art-MGS2.jpg (286KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 600x450px

>>2609993
that isn't mashing stuff together.
there's a reason why literally everyone would rather look at a drawing then some shitty filter of a photo. even if it happened to look alright which none of these do. I could look at this brush pen art by yoji shinkawa all day but I have zero desire to ever see these bland images you've posted again. because there's an ineffable quality to them that only a person could make.
this artwork is still used to sell modern games too so it's clear digital art hasn't and won't hurt traditional.

File: lol.jpg (142KB, 892x434px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 892x434px

>>2609674
>fiverr
>caricatures
>it looks passable
you can't genuinely be serious.
do you actually think anyone would pay money for this?
>Basically the grunt work of art is dying
basically you need to stop talking out of your ass
everyone interested in art will still have to learn the same fundementals until we get brain chips

>>2610003
>learn how to draw a person
>learn how to draw a gun
>learn how to draw military outfit
>mashed them together
congratulation, you just drew an solder, you are a very creative human being

>>2610011
you make it sound really easy, please share your artwork.

>>2609331
Why do you always start these threads with "we"? It's pretty clear that you are no artist yourself if you think a fucking filter will replace artists.

>>2610013
flash me

give it 5-10 years and its over
AI will win
stay in denial /ic/

>>2610920
i'd give it ~25 years until a program input is something like "make an ilustration including a female and this logo, using the keywords FREEDOM and SEX, and make it appealing to the 15-25 male demographic"

most /ic/ has enough time to make a productive career before becoming deprecated.

File: car4aciture.jpg (88KB, 680x458px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 680x458px

>>2610010

It looks passable to most non-art people who are your customers. Keep in mind to that stuff is just whats capable now, pic related is what will be capable in 5-10 years tie with a click of a button.

>everyone interested in art will still have to learn the same fundementals until we get brain chips

Depends which art your talking about, stuff not easily automated like comics/concept art/fantasy/scifi illustration will be here for a while. But anything where you just do an accurate paintings/drawings of photos will be done by this type of software commercially.

>>2611833

I have my doubts that a program will be able to do the entire design, but definitely will be able to help and make the process much faster. It'll basically be automated photo-bashing, you'll get 80 percent there with remaining 20 needing to be done by a human.

My country is forbidden from reporting posts

Please someone else do it from me. V v tired of this little rat

>>2612158
wat

>>2610010

That one in the bottom right looks basically perfect to me except for the inside of the ear. If you fixed that and told me it was drawn by a skilled human artist, I'd believe you.

>>2611925
O shit - was that run through a filter?

I'm breaking into the editorial industry and this looks like a lot of the generic portraits done for magazines and such.

>>2612158
Kim pls

>>2609646

This looks fucking amazing, but I like to paint and draw and I'll keep doing it.

>>2609331
We were done for the second the camera was discovered famalam

>>2612199

highly doubt that is *just* run through a filter, given especially the linework on the hair.

most likely they start with illustrator's vector photo trace for 3 colours and then tweak it so it looks more hand done.

>>2609497
Mmmh, it has. The Warhammer comics Crown of Destruction is clearly someone taking some Poser or what-have-you models and applying horrifically poor filters to it.
It's absolutely abominable.

Those filters actually look nice, but still...

I guess you could watch Through A Scanner Darkly again, if you like this style so much.