After a column and an interview with musicians, it’s high time for an artist to have their say as part of our special „MetAI – Artificial Intelligence in Metal“. Easier said than done: finding an artist willing to talk proved to be extremely difficult.
Valnoir, who has already created artwork for around 300 bands under the METASTAZIS label, on the other hand, was instantly hooked: He insisted on an English version to be published to make his „highly unpopular opinion widely accessible“. In fact, Valnoir’s stance on the subject is not only likely to anger some of his colleagues, but also surprise some people who thought that the shitstorm against AI art was in the interests of all artists.
[The images used to illustrate this interview are not necessarily AI-edited images. The images of METASTAZIS were selected by the editors with the permission of the artist]
AI is on everyone’s lips – have you personally dealt with the topic, be it in the context of image creation or „privately“?
Of course! I got extremely intrigued as soon as I discovered this technology, say almost two years ago, and tried right away.
„AI art“ is a term that can be discussed philosophically – can there be „art“ without a human artist, can an AI create „art“?
Art can be anything a human being says it’s art. The rest doesn’t matter.
The first AI covers in metal are now here – for example used by Pestilence, Deicide or Hour Of Penance. From an objective point of view: What do you think of the images you’ve seen so far?
Those covers, especially Deicide’s sucked ass. But not necessarily because those were made in AI, but just because 95% of Metal cover are completely uninspired crap, xeroxing ad nauseam „concepts“ that are fundamentally worn out for decades, and don’t convey any substance anymore. I mean, how could anyone who’s not a complete braindead may think that, in 2024, slapping a demon’s head on a cover and call it a day may think that this could be provocative?? And now the whole Metal community is whinning „boohoo they used AI they are killing artists“. What is shocking to me is not the use of AI, it’s that millions of morons would find it a totally acceptable cover if it was handmade. Deicide added laziness to artistic void by creating this cover with (bad and already outdated) AI, sure, but this is not where the main insult lies. And Pestilence chickened out, couple days ago, since they realized that their poor choice backfired could put the album’s sales in jeopardy , and finally went for an even more pathetic, „human made“ decision, adding humiliation and cowardice to laziness and artistic void. Good job guys!!
AI art often seems very arbitrary to me – simple and without any meta-level or „hidden meaning“. But as you have already pointed out, not every „handmade“ cover is a lovingly designed work of art. Will outstanding artists continue to be in demand and irreplaceable, but will AI take over „mass production“?
I disagree. AI can produce overly beautiful and stunning pictures if used right. And this is probably why so many completely replaceable heavy Metal „artists“ are freaking out and start to fear for their lives. Deep down in their heart, they do know that AI manages to generate absolutely breathtaking pictures in the blink of an eye, while they spent their whole career „honestly“ replicating worn out clichés like „a human skull with demon horns for a tee-shirt“ or „a winged demon with a scythe for a cover artwork of an album that speaks about death“.
First, those ideas are not their ideas, it’s reappropriation of reappropriation of reappropriation made by other bands since the 80s. And second, why wouldn’t they be replaced by machines since what they create does not even belong to them? Maybe they should try to represent Evil in a more personal manner than slapping a demon’s head on a cover, if they don’t want to be replaced by AI.
Even Photoshop, or digital image editing in general, are modernizations against which there were initially reservations – and which are now completely normal tools. Will AI end up being a tool that is more powerful in the hands of professionals than in the hands of amateurs?
You ask me those questions as if had a crystal ball or if I was an authority in artificial intelligence. My prognosis has no value whatsoever. What I do know is that AI will be unavoidable and designers will have to deal with it or they will have a hard time, the same way that some boomer „artistic“ nude photographers still refuse photoshop to adjust their work. They will soon be dead and won’t be replaced, nor missed. Sure some know-how will disappear, but some new knowledge will rise.
You know what, I had similar mixed feeling when I visited the art academy of Pyongyang, North Korea, in 2017. I was involved in a cultural exchange program with local artists, and it was my 3rd trip there. A lot of their works were showing incredible academic technical skills that are mostly forgotten in the west. The pieces resulting from those skills were firstly completely void of any personal identity and secondly of course exclusively at the service of the message of the worst monster regime on earth, and its completely dysfunctional, liberticide, homicidal ideology. But who cares! Real art is handmade art!
Can you imagine incorporating AI into your work – or is that a no-go for you that goes against your honour as an artist?
What honor do you speak of? I don’t live in a yakuza movie. I’m a professional art director, conveying messages by using visual language, period. A tool is available that could help me to improve said language, and improve the quality of the message perception? Why on earth wouldn’t I use it? „Oh photoshop is not honorable!! I shall keep on editing my photos in watercolor, or I shall commit Sepuku, sensei!“ So YES, I already use AI here and there to polish some of my pictures.
Example: I use a lot of 3D computer generated images for years now – although for some backwards sour retards in the scene, this is not true art, since true art should only be achieved with watercolor on Canson paper. Anyway, a problem with that 3D technology is that it’s often horribly time consuming (without yielding satisfying results) to get organic results for an realistic patina on some materials. So I sometimes use AI to give more grain to my concrete or polish the leaves of a tree. Surgical strikes on fragments of an image. And that really makes a difference! Go ahead and send me right away the heavy metal artwork honor police, once they will be done honorably hand-drawing the skull of a demon for merch of a band called „Demon Murder“ or „Dark Hell“! By the way: I just checked – there are no bands on the record called „Dark Hell“ or „Demon Murder“. Readers,feel free to steal those genuinely new and creative names for your new band!
One of the artists‘ criticisms of AI Art is that it was trained using images from the Internet – in other words, your works. What do you think about this?
The very same artists boohooing and whining trained themselves their whole life using, collaging, being inspired by pictures they found on google or insta, produced by other artists without asking them their consents. And once in a while you would see one of those sourpiss screaming online and calling out „oh this thief stole my style, it belongs to ME and ME ONLY“. And I find all this circus very embarassing.
My own humble opinion, since you solicitate it, is that art is built on recycling, and reappropriation, especially during this post-modern era where artists are often more DJs than ex-nihilo creators,which is totally fine when it’s well done. And this logic ESPECIALLY applies in heavy Metal, which is overall mostly a self-inspired , self replicating, closed, inbred stale pond in which bands take great pride in „playing Celtic Frost old school BM the way it should be“. Where is the „genuine creativity“ here?
Mit dem Laden des Videos akzeptieren Sie die Datenschutzerklärung von YouTube.
Mehr erfahren
After designing visuals for almost 300 bands, I personally always felt great pride when seeing some of my work’s elements being „stolen“. It means that my work has an impact, so small it may be. And I do believe that theft is the most sincere form of flattery.
And now, the whining because instead of having their images used to train other artists directly, those COULD be (- the arrogance, as if tech companies algorithm actually cared about their demon skulls) used to train models, which would tear their pictures to un recognizable fragments, before recomposing new images that will be 1000 times more beautiful than anything they will manage to achieve in their whole existence. This resistance is not only futile, but also shows a very poor, narrow minded (or simply hypocritical) understanding of creative mechanics, especially in the context of the the XXIst century.
But Rotting Christ using a completely overused Thomas Cole painting for „Pro Xristou“, seen on 10 other covers doesn’t seem to spark any polemics. Because this type of reappropriation is completely acceptable for the same people. And I can’t hear a single voice raised online against this sort of blatant „theft“. Why? You tell me.
Thanks for your time and your answers – the last words are yours:
Do not think I’m not concerned by AI. Of course such a groundbreaking and sudden revolution is intimidating, especially because no one knows how far it will go. As Coco Chanel was saying „Go ahead and steal my ideas, I will have new ones“.
5. März 2024 Moritz Grütz
Dieses Interview wurde per E-Mail geführt.
Zur besseren Lesbarkeit wurden Smilies ersetzt.
Schöne Ergänzung zum Thema, die sich zwar überraschend gegen den Strich gebürstet liest, aber letztlich ja nur den Standpunkt hat, dass ein schlechter Künstler nicht um seine Pfründe weinen darf, weil er mangels Qualität keinen Anspruch darauf hat und der gute es nicht nötig hat. Erinnert mich ein bisschen an eine mexikanische (?) Binsenweisheit: „Wenn du etwas ändern kannst, was regst du dich auf. Wenn du aber etwas nicht ändern kannst… was regst du dich auf!“
Danke für die facettenreiche Betrachtung des Themas