One of the ideas I've been puzzling over with the AI Art stuff is the push between "art for art's sake" and "art for commerce/content" and that with the ever increasing need to just mass produce "stuff". Which makes sense - we're currently stuck in this cycle where there are so many delivery mechanisms for "content" that all the old gatekeepers are gone and there are so many platforms desperate for a constant flow of stuff to glue to your eyeballs.
I kind of believe that "AI art" is not art at all and is instead content. It's end result void of meaning. I think there are ways people can apply it to give it meaning - but I think the actual image that gets spit out based on a prompt is meaningless. If It is given some kind of new context or juxtaposition or alteration anything to go beyond the initial thing - then I can it having an ability to become art - but for me it requires some kind of human effort beyond just writing a prompt.
Regarding the finishing of works post-death, I think if the artist passes away unless there were some clear successor laid out previously - the audience is just going to have to accept that it's not finishing. I think an AI Is a bastardization and also hurts the notion of the artist as a unique individual.
I saw James Earl Jones' voice is being copied with an AI model so his voice will be used as Vader into eternity - and I can't help but feel that is some kind of horrifying awful thing. It means that these "content machines" will never turn off, it means they will continue to suck up so many people who may at one point have wanted to make their own thing - now instead they can just constantly iterate on someone else's stories, all within a tiny controlled framework. So instead of them trying to come up with something new - instead we'll be getting movies and television featuring Darth Vader when we're well into our 80s.
With regards to writers and artists especially concerning comics, I think the path you took is the correct one, sitting down and drawing and forcing yourself to get better, I think that makes you make better things (it also works both ways artists forcing themselves to write).
I can totally see AI being helpful for writers trying to make a comic, I think it has limits and I have a feeling it'd actually be hard to use for a full book since I haven't seen it be able to carry over "characters" from one image to the next (although I'm sure that will change), but I would just ask any writer wanting to go this route - to ask a basic question - why are you making this comic? Are you trying to sell it? Or do you just really really want to tell the story? I think that if it's the latter, trying to draw it yourself (as shitty as the drawings may be) will be a much more personally rewarding path.
And if you're just trying to sell it.... well maybe a write a novel instead - it'll be a lot cheaper and you'll likely make the same amount of money! Comics take a lot of time to make, drawing well is hard. I like that there's some level of time/talent/care barrier that still exists - I think that's a good thing. I think that it's good that not everyone can be great at everything without putting in a lot of work. I don't think "democratizing" art is good - I think it turns what is meant to be an expression of our humanity in some way or another into just another cheap mass produced meaningless thing.
But I think like you've said - AI art or not - I'm never putting down my pencils and pens and brushes, drawing has always been a practice that keeps me happy, it's how I work out my problems and fears, it keeps me sane. And typing prompts will never ever replace that for me. I just hope the next generations aren't tempted to never pick up a brush because of the cheap thrill of typing prompts.
I don't particularly feel threatened or excited by AI art (admittedly, I'm not an artist). But AI mimicry is similar to design-by-committee output - executives who test poll every story beat to the Nth degree and take over edits of films or completed prose/script texts and shape them into, essentially, a mimicry of "successful" products. And even general, mainstream audiences generally react negatively toward this kind of output. Even when we can't put into words, or wouldn't even say that we give a toss about creative integrity or individual voices, the response to non-authentic human expression is fairly universal.
And from that standpoint, I think another human taking over and making a work their own is ultimately the best of the bad options in your example here. While the AI can come the closest to aping the departed artist, it WILL be mimicry/aping, not an authentic expression of an ever-evolving human artist. I think most humans would rather take in another human expression than a robotic attempt to mimic. As you say: nothing is ideal in this situation. We'll never get what the original creator intended, outside of maybe the outline of it, if they in fact left a true blue outline behind. But the execution will still be someone or someTHING else's. And if those are the options, the best scenario will be someONE'S. Or so I believe.
Scattered thoughts following...
One of the ideas I've been puzzling over with the AI Art stuff is the push between "art for art's sake" and "art for commerce/content" and that with the ever increasing need to just mass produce "stuff". Which makes sense - we're currently stuck in this cycle where there are so many delivery mechanisms for "content" that all the old gatekeepers are gone and there are so many platforms desperate for a constant flow of stuff to glue to your eyeballs.
I kind of believe that "AI art" is not art at all and is instead content. It's end result void of meaning. I think there are ways people can apply it to give it meaning - but I think the actual image that gets spit out based on a prompt is meaningless. If It is given some kind of new context or juxtaposition or alteration anything to go beyond the initial thing - then I can it having an ability to become art - but for me it requires some kind of human effort beyond just writing a prompt.
Regarding the finishing of works post-death, I think if the artist passes away unless there were some clear successor laid out previously - the audience is just going to have to accept that it's not finishing. I think an AI Is a bastardization and also hurts the notion of the artist as a unique individual.
I saw James Earl Jones' voice is being copied with an AI model so his voice will be used as Vader into eternity - and I can't help but feel that is some kind of horrifying awful thing. It means that these "content machines" will never turn off, it means they will continue to suck up so many people who may at one point have wanted to make their own thing - now instead they can just constantly iterate on someone else's stories, all within a tiny controlled framework. So instead of them trying to come up with something new - instead we'll be getting movies and television featuring Darth Vader when we're well into our 80s.
With regards to writers and artists especially concerning comics, I think the path you took is the correct one, sitting down and drawing and forcing yourself to get better, I think that makes you make better things (it also works both ways artists forcing themselves to write).
I can totally see AI being helpful for writers trying to make a comic, I think it has limits and I have a feeling it'd actually be hard to use for a full book since I haven't seen it be able to carry over "characters" from one image to the next (although I'm sure that will change), but I would just ask any writer wanting to go this route - to ask a basic question - why are you making this comic? Are you trying to sell it? Or do you just really really want to tell the story? I think that if it's the latter, trying to draw it yourself (as shitty as the drawings may be) will be a much more personally rewarding path.
And if you're just trying to sell it.... well maybe a write a novel instead - it'll be a lot cheaper and you'll likely make the same amount of money! Comics take a lot of time to make, drawing well is hard. I like that there's some level of time/talent/care barrier that still exists - I think that's a good thing. I think that it's good that not everyone can be great at everything without putting in a lot of work. I don't think "democratizing" art is good - I think it turns what is meant to be an expression of our humanity in some way or another into just another cheap mass produced meaningless thing.
But I think like you've said - AI art or not - I'm never putting down my pencils and pens and brushes, drawing has always been a practice that keeps me happy, it's how I work out my problems and fears, it keeps me sane. And typing prompts will never ever replace that for me. I just hope the next generations aren't tempted to never pick up a brush because of the cheap thrill of typing prompts.
Also this Dave McKean interview is worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-PaCc96oQM&t=2s
Woof. . . . hope that made sense! (had a long day with a tiny milk eater)
I don't particularly feel threatened or excited by AI art (admittedly, I'm not an artist). But AI mimicry is similar to design-by-committee output - executives who test poll every story beat to the Nth degree and take over edits of films or completed prose/script texts and shape them into, essentially, a mimicry of "successful" products. And even general, mainstream audiences generally react negatively toward this kind of output. Even when we can't put into words, or wouldn't even say that we give a toss about creative integrity or individual voices, the response to non-authentic human expression is fairly universal.
And from that standpoint, I think another human taking over and making a work their own is ultimately the best of the bad options in your example here. While the AI can come the closest to aping the departed artist, it WILL be mimicry/aping, not an authentic expression of an ever-evolving human artist. I think most humans would rather take in another human expression than a robotic attempt to mimic. As you say: nothing is ideal in this situation. We'll never get what the original creator intended, outside of maybe the outline of it, if they in fact left a true blue outline behind. But the execution will still be someone or someTHING else's. And if those are the options, the best scenario will be someONE'S. Or so I believe.