How do you rate AI album covers?
Since this is the only music website where we can rate covers, I'm interested in how all the recent AI-generated covers come into play for everyone. Do you rate them in a vacuum, treating it like any other art? Do you dock points for it being AI? Do you simply refuse to rate it altogether?
Tell me how you generally approach rating AI-created album covers, and feel free to throw in any other thoughts or feelings you have regarding this phenomenon.
If it looks good, I treat it like any other art. If it's clearly sloppy, I would dock points for it. Sadly, much of the world is so fixated on what's real or not, continuing their "zero tolerance" against AI. That I can understand, but if they see anything that looks even slightly AI, or if something real looks so good it's likely to be AI, those people can be so quick as to sh*t on it and anyone associated with it. That's why websites like YouTube and DeviantArt give you the option to clarify that something isn't AI.
I'm the opposite. Most AI album covers, even the good ones, look pretty obvious. So if it's extremely good, then I assume someone painted it either traditionally or digitally. The way I see it, calling something AI without proof is a false accusation, and I'm quite against those, even the small ones. The one thing about AI I'm against is calling yourself and "artist" when the computer's doing to work for you. Since the skill comes through articulation, I'd say that it's better to call these AI artists "articulators."
Hey, if "cray cray" is acceptable...
By this standard, I will rate a cover, even if I think it's AI, and I'll do it fairly. For example, take this cover.
Now since my mom pushed me to try it, I did try out AI fore a while but was largely unsatisfied with the results. Now since the center tentacles look a bit like tentacles I tried to create when experimenting with AI during that phase, I could assume that it's AI. But whether it is or not, I can honestly say that I find this cover thematically assaulting, properly colorized, beautifully detailed and completely eye-grabbing. So I'll be rating this five-stars, but I acknowledge the computer as the artist in the event that this is AI. However, looking it up, I found that this is simply digital art by Giannis Nakos, so in this case, this is an artist and not an articulator.
I'm the opposite. Most AI album covers, even the good ones, look pretty obvious. So if it's extremely good, then I assume someone painted it either traditionally or digitally. The way I see it, calling something AI without proof is a false accusation, and I'm quite against those, even the small ones. The one thing about AI I'm against is calling yourself and "artist" when the computer's doing to work for you. Since the skill comes through articulation, I'd say that it's better to call these AI artists "articulators."
Hey, if "cray cray" is acceptable...
By this standard, I will rate a cover, even if I think it's AI, and I'll do it fairly. For example, take this cover.
Now since my mom pushed me to try it, I did try out AI fore a while but was largely unsatisfied with the results. Now since the center tentacles look a bit like tentacles I tried to create when experimenting with AI during that phase, I could assume that it's AI. But whether it is or not, I can honestly say that I find this cover thematically assaulting, properly colorized, beautifully detailed and completely eye-grabbing. So I'll be rating this five-stars, but I acknowledge the computer as the artist in the event that this is AI. However, looking it up, I found that this is simply digital art by Giannis Nakos, so in this case, this is an artist and not an articulator.
I like the logic here around the “articulator” billing and also your rationale for your liking of that album cover.
I like the logic here around the “articulator” billing and also your rationale for your liking of that album cover.
Thanks.
I guess I thought of it since I myself am a writer, which means I have no right not to recognize articulation as a skill. And since I try to design my own novel covers and avatars, I can't help but understand why the non-AI artists are a bit peeved at these other people being called artists. I mean, I admit that it's totally possible to make amazing art from it (I made one good picture and it was still unfinished), but I'd rather not deal with the legal stuff attached to it.
Initially I was very much against AI generated art and, to a certain extent, still am. Yet I have just been on a bit of a cover rating spree and as far as cover art goes (as opposed to art for art's sake) I am changing my mind a bit. I think I would rather look at a decent AI-generated cover image than a large amount of the, frankly, appallingly low-effort attempts I have been seeing. When a music artist presumably puts so much effort into their art I find it amazing that they are satisfied with the shitty efforts that are promoting their hard work. As such, I guess AI is a cost-effective option for bands who may not have the funds to purchase decent human produced cover art and I would rather see an engaging AI image than a photograph of the inside of someone's shed such as:
For the record, it doesn't cost much at all to purchase legitimate non-AI artwork online. Artists are all competing for the opportunity to advertise their work on an album cover & will virtually give their work away. The Neuropath CD cover only cost the label around $100-$150 USD & the other one we were considering was under $100 USD. I'm assuming that the reason for using AI is to achieve total creative control over the image.
For the record, it doesn't cost much at all to purchase legitimate non-AI artwork online. Artists are all competing for the opportunity to advertise their work on an album cover & will virtually give their work away. The Neuropath CD cover only cost the label around $100-$150 USD & the other one we were considering was under $100 USD. I'm assuming that the reason for using AI is to achieve total creative control over the image.
So, if it is reasonably cheap to buy decent artwork, why do so many bands go with such boring, non-descript efforts, such as the example in my post? Is this an actual aesthetic and if so, what are they trying to illustrate or communicate, because I don't really get it?