Same prompt. Same reference photo. Different result (with a consistent style).
And the process of re-submitting the prompt and reference image to Midjourney took all of 2 seconds.
(There’s literally a ‘🔄’ button that you can click to resubmit your request).
To harp on my point from yesterday:
AI hyper contracts all of that time, work, learning, trial and error that exists between ‘idea’ and ‘final creation’.
I didn’t have to scout a new location, hire models, monitor the weather, set up any lighting, process any film, or change any lenses in order to experiment further here…
All it took was two clicks. (Spooky, no!?).
It feels like a creative cheat code…
So what’s the difference between building a photographic style manually, and doing it with AI?
(No surprises here) it’s different in almost every way. Every way, except for one.
I could be way off here, but this is how I’m starting to see it….
The process of creating your own art style is different in each situation, but the formula is the same. Here’s what I mean…
The formula:
Personal taste + influences = new art style.
(The stronger your personal taste is, and the more influences you pull from, the more unique your style becomes).
This formula seems to stay the same, regardless of process.
Process vs. Process:
The manual process of running that formula (in the case of photography) might look like this:
Take in a range of influences, while testing different film stocks, digital sensors, formats, compositions, lenses, camera bodies, lighting effects, subject matter, set styling, chemical processing, digital post effects, etc.
Repeat that process over years of trial & error until you have yourself a new photographic style.
The AI process looks like this:
Supply the AI with your own original photos (informing your personal taste), describe the scene you want depicted and list your artistic influences.
Repeat that process with 5-10 mins of trial & error (tweaking prompts and reference images as you go) until you have yourself a new photographic style.
Ok…but where’s the line between influence and plagiarism?
There’s been push back from many artists, that have a very understandable (and justified) problem with AI models that allow individuals/companies mimic their artistic styles almost 1:1.
I’m not here to mimic, but to blend and create anew.
Which is a nice sentiment – but it doesn’t answer the question: where’s the line between influence and plagiarism!?
For me, I’m drawing the line using a simple question:
If [artist(s) you’re using as influences] were to put on an exhibition showing the AI based work you’ve created:
Would everyone be shocked by the new direction of their work and the apparent departure from any previous styles?
Or better yet: if the work didn’t have an artist’s name credited next to it – would viewers be at a loss as to who was responsible for making it?
If yes, you’re good. It has become its own thing.
If no, it’s too close to that artist’s style.
(It ain’t perfect – but it works).
Ok, more tomorrow in Part 4.
