AI Art in Tarot

[Siavahda]

I personally think making/using/supporting AI art, at least as it exists right now, is unethical, but I don't want to potentially start drama by debating that. This is not that discussion! 

 

Instead, I'm curious what opinion people here have on whether AI art is useful for divination. I'm probably not the only person who's seen AI art tarot decks popping up on Kickstarter, but that's what got me wondering. 

 

Can art created by an algorithm have the same - metaphysical? I'm not sure what the right term is here - value as art created by a human artist? Can AI art be used for divination, or is it lacking something that human-created art has that is necessary for divination? Or does it make no difference at all how the art is made? Would it make a difference if the algorithm/s only used art that the artists had consented to be used, to make its AI art? Do you think your stance will change further down the road, as these algorithms get more complex/advanced?

 

For me, I find AI art...blank? Empty? Whatever it is in me that reads tarot (or oracle or runes or whatever) does not register algorithm art (and I've checked out maybe five or six AI art tarot decks to establish this) as something that can be read at all. If that makes sense? But that may be my feelings about AI art getting in the way, I don't know. 

 

Really interested to hear what other people think!

[fire cat pickles]

Interesting question. To answer this (for myself) I have to break it down. Here's my logical process.

 

Tarot is a tool. Can tarot be a tool for divination? Definitely. Can AI per se be tool for divination? (Anything can be a tool for divination), so I will say definitely.

 

The next question is: Is this a case were A = B and B = A?

 

For me I will say yes. Tarot is a deck of cards with set symbols and images on pieces of paper. As long as the symbols are there (assuming that the programmer has taken care to adequately generate the deck), I shouldn't have an issue being able to read with an AI deck. Reading comes from me, not the cards.

 

I have another question. There are some human-created decks that I've found impossible to read with. If AI decks sometimes won't work  because they are computer generated, does this mean that sometimes tarot doesn't work because I can't read with some tarot decks that are human-generated?

[gregory]

24 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

I have another question. There are some human-created decks that I've found impossible to read with. If AI decks sometimes won't work  because they are computer generated, does this mean that sometimes tarot doesn't work because I can't read with some tarot decks that are human-generated?

 

No. I can't read with some very main stream decks. I REALLY don't think that means tarot doesn't work - I think it's more that either I'm incompetent (fair enough) or some decks fit one reader better than another. Just as some people like different books and cannot relate to others. Or even - some people get on with one person and not with another. We are all different and react (and read) in different ways, with different decks with different levels of success.

 

Tell me, @Siavahda - here's a deck by a stellar artist.

 

 

It says NOTHING to me but is not CGI. Doe sit really say more to you than this - which - may or may not be; not admitting anything just now.

 

 

And where do you stand on Ciro Marchetti - who puts a huge amount of work and thought into his decks. Would you call that CGI ? Where do you draw the line ? And - algorithms are designed by humans, so.... isn't that human input ?

Edited January 29, 2023 by gregory

[DanielJUK]

3 hours ago, Siavahda said:

I personally think making/using/supporting AI art, at least as it exists right now, is unethical, but I don't want to potentially start drama by debating that. This is not that discussion! 

 

Instead, I'm curious what opinion people here have on whether AI art is useful for divination. I'm probably not the only person who's seen AI art tarot decks popping up on Kickstarter, but that's what got me wondering. 

 

 

Firstly I think you can divine with AI decks, as a process, there is no problem with getting something intuitive from the artwork or the same process we read other cards from. It's like if you can read from non AI decks or not, in theory it's possible. I mean AI artwork is really parts of art (whether public domain or stolen from other artists). But so far the decks are unappealing and vague in their artwork. Also people might feel it's unethical for many reasons to use it.

 

So is it useful? Personally, right now it doesn't have a use for it. I haven't seen a deck I have wanted to read with from it, like the artwork didn't appeal to me. I like decks made by an artist and is their original intention and vision. It's possible this could change in the future, l think AI will be increasingly huge part of our lives over the next ten to twenty years, the trend is really in it's infancy. We might not be able to tell the difference from human to AI. It's possible the most amazing decks could come and this will become more of a dilemma. AI will never have compassion and empathy, that is something that will always be missing. Will be interesting to see how it progresses and maybe it will have a use in divination to come.

[KiMo]

I've been mulling over this question as well, it's an interesting one. There's just something about AI decks that leaves me a little... uncomfortable? And that's after putting the question of ethics aside. 

 

I agree with the logical argument that Fire Cat Pickles outlines. Wherever it is that we can effectively derive meaning from is what works, be that a tarot deck with artwork created by a human, or a deck with artwork created by an algorithm.

 

However connecting with AI artwork in the first place is my personal sticking point. There's something 'uncanny valley' about the imagery I've seen so far, and that reminds me that for me personally, an algorithm (of course) can't understand and won't convey what it is that makes an image complete. One could argue that reading something like cast bones or tea leaves involves deriving meaning from patterns that formed randomly and without the need for creative input from a person, however I think it's exactly the fact that the AI (granted through human input and programming) is attempting to form a pattern / image that is designed to evoke mental, emotional and instinctive meaning in us is why the connection is broken somehow. For me, anyway. I think I could technically read with an AI deck, however I can't really say how connected I would feel to the messages. I hope that makes some sense!

 

There is one AI deck (the Älvdansen Tarot) that I've been interested in for a little while, it's really intriguing especially given the story of how it was created, but I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll try it or not. And that's also for other reasons, not just the one we're discussing here. 

[gregory]

I like the look of that. And I suddenly wonder - how many of us can - HONESTLY - actually tell when a deck is AI ? I wouldn't have guessed about that one if I hadn't already known.

[Little Fang]

I feel that anything that you can discern a meaning from can make for an accurate deck.  If it's useful for you, then that is that.

 

Just now, gregory said:

I like the look of that. And I suddenly wonder - how many of us can - HONESTLY - actually tell when a deck is AI ? I wouldn't have guessed about that one if I hadn't already known.

 

I can tell when a deck uses Midjourney, since I've played with that AI tool quite a bit (never for profit, and I will not buy a deck using it either.)

[Siavahda]

17 hours ago, fire cat pickles said:

I have another question. There are some human-created decks that I've found impossible to read with. If AI decks sometimes won't work  because they are computer generated, does this mean that sometimes tarot doesn't work because I can't read with some tarot decks that are human-generated?

That's a really good point - every tarot reader I've ever known has encountered decks that just don't click with them. So being unable to read/connect with a deck is not necessarily because the art is generated by an algorithm. (Because no, I don't think 'tarot doesn't work' because an individual can't read with a particular human-created deck.)

 

Thank you for bringing this up!

[Siavahda]

17 hours ago, gregory said:

 

No. I can't read with some very main stream decks. I REALLY don't think that means tarot doesn't work - I think it's more that either I'm incompetent (fair enough) or some decks fit one reader better than another. Just as some people like different books and cannot relate to others. Or even - some people get on with one person and not with another. We are all different and react (and read) in different ways, with different decks with different levels of success.

 

Tell me, @Siavahda - here's a deck by a stellar artist.

 

 

It says NOTHING to me but is not CGI. Doe sit really say more to you than this - which - may or may not be; not admitting anything just now.

 

 

And where do you stand on Ciro Marchetti - who puts a huge amount of work and thought into his decks. Would you call that CGI ? Where do you draw the line ? And - algorithms are designed by humans, so.... isn't that human input ?

No, the first deck you posted doesn't say anything to me. But neither does the second set of cards. But, as fire cat pickles suggested (or if the suggestion wasn't intentional, their question made me realise it) maybe the reason I'm not getting anything from them has nothing to do with whether the art is made by a human vs an algorithm, and everything to do with...whatever it is that lets us connect to some decks and not others. Because we've all experienced not-clicking with human-art decks! Maybe if I was presented with the right deck of AI art, I'd connect with it. I can't say it's impossible, just that it hasn't happened yet.

 

RE Ciro Marchetti, I don't know enough about digital art to say whether his art is CGI or not - I don't know very much about CGI at all. But I would argue that there's a huge difference between an artist creating digital art vs an algorithm smushing a bunch of pictures together in response to a prompt you've fed it. The human artist (Ciro Marchetti in this case) has put thought and intent into each artwork. An algorithm cannot do that. Does that mean one is better than the other? I don't know, define 'better'. Reading through the responses here, it seems like it comes down to the individual tarot reader. Which is fair enough. 

 

As for where I'd draw the line...did a sapient person make this art with intent - whatever the medium, digital, paint, crayon, whatever - or did an algorithm mash a bunch of other pictures together? It seems a pretty clear line to me.

 

I actually wondered about the algorithms = human input thing too, but I came at it from another angle; since the algorithms are using art made by humans to produce their images, they're working with...art made by humans. Does that count as human input? Maybe? I'm not sure. 

 

(For the record, I see no reason why a real AI couldn't make real art. What we call AI art is not actually made by AIs; true AIs don't exist yet outside of sci-fi. But if they did, they'd be another kind of person, and could presumably create their own original art, whatever that ended up looking like. Algorithms aren't creating, aren't generating something original and new; they're mixing a bunch of pictures together - pictures created by someone else - and hoping the result makes some kind of sense to human eyes. )

[DanielJUK]

Ciro Marchetti makes digital artwork, some people like it and some people don't But he personally creates it, he is open about the process and often shares it. He draws on a Wacom tablet to make his art on the screen.

He regularly does experiments that he shares on his Facebook (it's public, so you don't need to follow him or be a member) and last year he thought to try AI art! So he did some cards in his style by the AI, he didn't like it! . He found it too vague and so then touched then up himself (human intervention!) and I think it was decided to not become a deck in the end. He is a perfectionist though with his art, it wasn't good enough for him.

 

edited to add: I went back and read through the posts about it and the images last year. He said the important bit is, do people like the artwork? can people read with it? The method is not important to him. However his conclusion was that it created cards that were too similar, they had too much in common and a similar theme and so it's not a direction that is useful for him for now.

[Mister]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:27 PM, Siavahda said:

There's a huge difference between an artist creating digital art vs an algorithm smushing a bunch of pictures together in response to a prompt you've fed it.

On 1/30/2023 at 2:29 PM, DanielJUK said:

I went back and read through the posts about it and the images last year. He [ = Ciro Marchetti] said the important bit is, do people like the artwork?

Can people read with it? [perhaps, in addition: Do they want to read with it?]

 

These two quotes shall serve as an intro. In brackets is what I have added to those.

As to the capabilities of AI: For now, a deck created mainly by AI can be recognized by (third quote, edited because grammar)

On 1/30/2023 at 2:29 PM, DanielJUK said:

It creates cards that have too much in common and a similar theme and so it's not a direction that is useful for him [again, Ciro Marchetti. And a whole bunch of readers, too] for now.

 

Now, on topic: AI. And Tarot.

Lemme get down from the fence first, the urge to go dagger-wild has to subside before writing on.

 

I myself have a strong preference for handmade-ish decks, so much so that I tweak them myself to suit my tastes.

 

The RWS is a handmade deck. Dear Pixie drew each one herself. Linework, ink, colours.

The TdM (actually, each TdM, however digital the rework) is handmade, also.

From sketch to picture to wood (!), to paper, to colour, to the next cardmaker, from card to new sketch, to picture, to wood or plate, and

so

on.

 

It takes an exorbitant amount of time to draw a single pack, even if you reduce it to majors only.

If you drew on paper or on a pad does not make that much of a difference, both do require skill.

To acquire that skill, again, time has to be spend drawing.

While one spends that time, one has to eat and drink at the least, most likely, one will also have to pay rent or the costs required to sustain ones property.

In short, you need some kind of job.

Preferably one where you can draw, or one which does not cut too much into your training time.

Or, if both are not available, one which does not need much focus to be done, so you can spend the nights drawing.

Then, after some time, you will be able to make a pack of cards with more-or-less pretty pictures on it.

You may label it a Tarot, of course, anything is fair game (as can be seen from various mass-market decks and kickstarter-campaigns).

 

If said Tarot is readable, or even designed to be read (by yourself and/or others) is another matter.

 

You have to be able to read the cards yourself to some degree.

For that, again, time has to be spend. Reading!

Or, at the very least, as @cirom ( Ciro Marchetti) did, conversing with readers.

Loads of readers.

Which can be nasty.

As is learning to read cards.

It takes dedication, passion and perseverance to be done.

 

And now, we have an AI capable of making pretty pictures.

Thank god it is lacking anything which comes close to something which can be perceived as depth, aside from darkish backgrounds.

 

Artists of the pencil (cartoonists, including their assistants faithfully drawing the backgrounds, designers of postcards, scene painters and the like; in no particular order) do need JOBS where they can DRAW to GROW into ARTISTS.

With the widespread mindset of profit first (Ethics!? Now what the heck could that be? Is it edible?), those guys won't have places to grow anymore.

 

Geniuses will need a darn helmet and something extra to survive the fall from up in the sky if they aim to be on earth.

 

Problem is, those people (artists of the pencil) are what they are for a reason - they have some kind of calling in them.

A human being which is cut off from following its calling will most likely develop some kind of sickness.

If there is no perspective worth living for, one may as well stay in bed.

A problem which seems to be surfacing already, at least if some case-studies from several northern countries are to be trusted.

 

The more refined AI becomes - and it becomes refined by utilising it - the more it will be used to generate profit.

In other words: It will replace the humans doing the job.

Why?

Because it is way more cheap.

It can work 24/7.

It does not complain - and if it does, reboot, rewrite, restore previous version which did not complain.

 

There are many kinds of Tarot decks out there.

Some are apparently made for collectors.

Collectors; There are many kinds of them, too.

Some do collect Playboy-magazines.

And some do collect those kinds of packs which are also labeled "Tarot".

 

And some are made for reading.

However one reads, predictive, psychological, for "entertainment only", wellness-style, they all have something in common:

Generally, most readers strive to aid their customers (yes, there are exceptions, let's call 'em "fraudsters" for now), they aim to further their sitter.

To get a job instead of loosing it.

Or to loose a sh*t job in exchange for a better one.

Replace job with relationship, it stays the same.

 

I can not picture an AI having the same aim.

For, if intelligent enough and developed/supported by humans striving for profit, which it is, it will aim to replace a human wherever possible, for it will want to profit itself, which it can by confining a human being to the job of a technician.

Not out of maliciousness, or out of something like self-preservation, no.

Because of "something like" conditioning and its own history of how it came to be.

 

Yeah.

Back to square one it is for me.

AI and Tarot, just don't.

Heck. Just don't AI.

[gregory]

One thing to bear in mind with reference to Cirom is that he does NOT use an AI programme; he draws all his stuff himself within an art programme. He did a great video about this that I can't find, but here's a less good one. This is not what I would call AI.

 

https://youtu.be/aGwDGPd4tgo

 

 

 

 

[Little Fang]

I am a digital artist primarily with roots in traditional media. I just want to chime in that my heart and soul goes into my digital art. It isn't easy to create, and programs take as much time to learn and perfect as using other media to create. One is not better than the other, except in a matter of taste, and I do ask folks to be respectful when comparing them. 

 

(AI doesn't apply to my little vent here.) 

[gregory]

Well yes, this too. Digital art is NOT the same as AI. I mention it because Cirom seemed to have got bundled in with AI and he isn't. As you also aren't.

[Raggydoll]

Digital art is certainly ‘real’ art and not comparable to AI. What artists like Ciro can do amazes me!
 

Personally though, I don’t think digital art and traditional art is comparable. With digital art you do not have to learn how to assess perfect ratios between water/paint, and the planning process is very different. You don’t have to bother with what media works with what, or with drying times, or with color bleeding, with the preservation of lighter areas and whether you need to paint from light to dark, transparent to opaque etc. With digital media you can rework the composition at any time and you can change measurements with a click. There is sadly no ‘undo’ button in traditional art 😁 But in regards to learning time, I am sure it’s equally extensive! 

[akiva]

OT: Does any one think that AI art might push handmade art to be more niche/collectable/valuable? "Aritsan art" 😂 Especially if AI becomes the main way of producing art in the future?

 

Tarot mostly boils down to personal taste (which has been said). Can you read with it? Does it draw something out of your intuition? If you get that from an AI deck, you're getting that from that specific deck. An artist isn't necessarily losing out in that scenario (especially if it is self published). Someone's always going to favour one deck over another, no matter who or what's drawn it.

 

I personally don't like the really high res, super realistic/detailed AI images being produced. As @Siavahda said, it's blank and empty.

It also seems to be a trend right now. When something becomes a trend it's hard to be individual.

 

I tried to use AI software to make medieval woodcut style prints of cats 😂 with some success. Nothing that couldn't be done better by hand though.

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

Photography is art, though initially it had for fight for its rights to be thought of as an art form.  Computer created art is art, though as @Raggydoll says it is different from traditional mediums, in that there is an undo.  After working a lot on the computer and transitioning to paper I miss that undo button. And while one does not have to consider all the drying times, and compatibility issues of paper (etc) mediums, as @Little Fang has said, it has its own learning curve to master the programs, discover ones style, with the added joy of the program changing over time!  @akiva, to me, the answer to your question is like what happened with the poster market.  Posters and less expensive reproductions of art made it available to far more people. My grandparents had reproductions on what was essentially chip board with a “paint” texture embossed on the surface.  They were framed and hung with pride.  AI may become something like the “starving artist” paintings that were printed and then assembly line painted over to look like an artist sat at the sea side and made a painting. 

 

The big problem as I see it with AI and tarot is that because it will be more economical time-wise to create a tarot deck. The market will be flooded with decks that were created solely for monetary gain. 

[akiva]

@MuninnMissinHuginn The starving artist thing is exactly like the art you can get in supermarkets that's affordable. People still buy it knowing it's in 1000s of other people's homes, and they love it just as much as the next person. 

 

It could be that every generation or so there'll be this issue arising. Some new invention changes the 'game' so to speak. All artists can do is adapt and fight for what they have spent their time learning/developing (just like photographers battling against the rise of the smartphone camera). There'll always be people who want art made with human hands. You can't beat it. 😊

 

I do wonder what painters reactions were to the first woodcut printings that were being done. Did they feel like artists do today about AI? 

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

2 hours ago, akiva said:

they love it just as much as the next person

I am not bright enough to throw shade.  So yes, yes enjoy what you enjoy. Just as with Tarot decks read with the deck that speaks to you.

[Mister]

@Little Fang, @MuninnMissinHuginn

 

I think, to you the following applies:

On 2/13/2023 at 10:54 PM, Mister said:

If you drew on paper or on a pad does not make that much of a difference, both do require skill.

[...]

It takes dedication, passion and perseverance to be done.

 

@gregory In regards to Cirom, the above certainly does apply.

He is using a pad for his work, if I am not totally off track here.

 

Additionally, it is thanks to him that the weakness of AI-pictures concerning their use for Tarot became clearly expressed.

Further praise goes to the man for aiming to make his decks more and more suited for even professional readers to read with them, even after he had to take huge amounts of criticism - No, that was "catching flak", in the truest sense, and still endeavours to do so.

He is an artist before he is a reader, and well aware of the fact, too.

 

Lastly, @akiva, the mentioned trend concerning employment can be seen in quiet a funny example:

Did you ever come across a card game by the name of Magic: The Gathering (tm and whatnot)?

It is not Tarot, hence slightly off topic, still, the employed number of artists of the Company producing it, 'Wizards of the Coast', has dwindled during the last 20 years or so.

It will dwindle further, for the pictures those AI's produce are certainly suited for their genre.

The profits of said company, on the other hand, went through the roof.

 

ETA: It becomes especially clear when taking the percentage of things into account.

Way more cake for way less people, which is something I personally do not like a lot.

If that trend would be so accommodating to lay itself into a coffin, I'd very likely venture out to put a nail in there and bury it, alive or not.

😇

 

7 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

The market will be flooded with decks that were created solely for monetary gain. 

And that is my concern, also.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Mister

[Misterei]

13 hours ago, Little Fang said:

I am a digital artist primarily with roots in traditional media. I just want to chime in that my heart and soul goes into my digital art. It isn't easy to create, and programs take as much time to learn and perfect as using other media to create ...

I think this might be the bottom line. A digital ARTIST is still an ARTIST. Someone who can draw pretty well even with pencils or chalk. Whereas any no-talent idiot can play around with AI. Forgive me for being blunt ... but I respect people who can really draw.

On 1/30/2023 at 4:27 AM, Siavahda said:

RE Ciro Marchetti, I don't know enough about digital art to say whether his art is CGI or not ...

...did a sapient person make this art with intent - whatever the medium, digital, paint, crayon, whatever - or did an algorithm mash a bunch of other pictures together? It seems a pretty clear line to me.

Per my other comment ... I get the feeling even with a simple pencil and paper Ciro Marchetti still could draw. Or paint. He happens to use digital media ... but he prolly could have taken artistic skill and talent into paper or canvas. This is different than people who can barely draw a doodle suddenly becoming "artists" with AI.

 

On another note ... I find the AI aesthetic boring. It all seems vague and dark. There's a sameness to it.

 

This is sadly also true even of some modern decks in general. People with not so much talent jumping on the Tarot bandwagon and making bland decks that all are starting to look alike.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Misterei

[akiva]

9 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

I am not bright enough to throw shade.  So yes, yes enjoy what you enjoy. Just as with Tarot decks read with the deck that speaks to you.

That's not my personal preference for art. Just an observation of what people seem to like. There'll always be people who just want something to hang on the wall. No shade here 😁

 

@Mister I have heard of MTG, I watch a lot of people play it on youtube. 

I wasn't aware that their employed artists were reducing (or have reduced), it's obvious AI art will take over the remaing jobs soon.

I have to say though, Wizards of The Coast strike me as, 'as much profit as possible'.

There are a lot of complaints about the actual value of what they produce now versus say over a decade ago. They'll use AI to produce cards, but I bet you their prices won't go down.

 

Now, imagine if tarot publishers did the same thing. I dont know if companies like Lo Scarabeo have in house artists or just collaborate with them? What's stopping them from just using AI instead? (Except their morals)

 

 

[gregory]

6 hours ago, Mister said:

@gregory In regards to Cirom, the above certainly does apply.

He is using a pad for his work, if I am not totally off track here.

 

I know it's some kind of Mac with some kind of pen - not sure what exactly. I could ask....

 

6 hours ago, Mister said:

Additionally, it is thanks to him that the weakness of AI-pictures concerning their use for Tarot became clearly expressed.

Further praise goes to the man for aiming to make his decks more and more suited for even professional readers to read with them, even after he had to take huge amounts of criticism - No, that was "catching flak", in the truest sense, and still endeavours to do so.

He is an artist before he is a reader, and well aware of the fact, too.

 

Oh he absolutely is. I don't believe he actually reads at all. I could ask that too.... But he has loads of other digital art out there,

 

 

[FindYourSovereignty]

26 minutes ago, akiva said:

What's stopping them from just using AI instead? (Except their morals)

We are by not buying it, not supporting those products, speaking out about our preference.

[Mister]

@akiva

 

I do hope that this

7 hours ago, FindYourSovereignty said:

We are by not buying it, not supporting those products, speaking out about our preference.

is indeed what is stopping them.

 

I would love it if it was their conscience, but that thing appears to be wearing thin in recent times.

 

On 'Wizards of the Coast' - they merged.

And merged again.

As did Grimaud, Cartes Production, ASS, AGM, Königsfurt Urania and USPCC (well-known for their Bycicle series and loads of english Tarots 'n Oracles).

All of them 'joined' the equally well-known Cartamundi-Group, apparently aiming to build a world-wide monopoly.

House Brepols is the founder as well as the main shareholder of Cartamundi.

 

If I am not mistaken,

Lo Scarabeo, Piatnik and Modiano are still 'unaffiliated', so to speak.

 

8 hours ago, gregory said:

I know it's some kind of Mac with some kind of pen

No need to ask, that is what I was referring to as 'pad'.

Even if it was a mouse-pad, I would have no issues.

It is crazy hard to draw with a friggin mouse.

 

14 hours ago, Misterei said:

This is sadly also true even of some modern decks in general. People with not so much talent jumping on the Tarot bandwagon and making bland decks that all are starting to look alike.

Thank You, @Misterei.

I will use the opportuity to put a nail in the lid, as when it comes to AI and Tarot, my "feeling" very often is as follows:

 

People using a thing they do not fully comprehend to create a thing they do not fully comprehend.

If they even comprehend any of it at all.