AI Art in Tarot

[Misterei]

14 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

... I happen to think Crowley’s deck is an abomination ...

OK this is a bit off topic ... but why an abomination?

My feelings of disgust around the Pixie LeNormand I can quantify by saying I experienced the deck as dead body parts sewn together a la Frankenstien. I felt that maybe PCS herself might not be thrilled that her work got chopped-up and photo-shopped into something else ... of course I can't claim to speak for a dead artist ... so who knows?

So ... WHAT is is that strikes you as abominable about Thoth?

13 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

I think the heart of the thing needs to be there regardless of the method used.

This is a tricky one. For example "Apple: Designed in California. Manufactured in China." Or in fashion, "Designed in Milan. Manufactured in China".

 

If we take design as the heart of the thing ... I DO think it matters whether or not the thing was assembled in China or USA. In China or Italy. By union workers or child labor.

 

Fashion designers might be lovely people with good hearts creating beautiful things. And yet fast fashion is unspeakably evil. It's horrible for the environment. In the end the clothes are shoddy and ill-fitting. They will never approach the quality of things made even 30 years ago when shoes and clothes were still made in Italy and actually fit. 

 

So I don't know if I can say about Tarot ... as long as the design and aestherics are good .... who cares about the method?

I DO care.

But you may not. People are different.

13 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

The WHY is very important. If it’s approached with love, respect and a desire to create something, that says more than the method used.

I think we may be touching upon the old saying; The ends justify the means.

But do they?

I can cook a delicious pot of Spaghetti sauce with Italian sausage made from factory farmed pigs who lived and died in appalling cruelty. The dish may taste brilliant ... but what about the subtle energy of cruelty and exploitation below the surface sensory experience?

 

13 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

AI is just one more tool at our disposal.

Yes. But I don't know that every tool should always be used for every application. To me there is a subtle energy to Tarot ... such that method DOES matter.

But chacun à son goût.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Misterei said:

So ... WHAT is is that strikes you as abominable about Thoth?

 

It’s one of those things I can’t explain. I’ve just always felt a strong repulsion towards the deck. Perhaps it’s my feelings about Crowley as a person. I just get a vibe from the deck that tells me to stay away from it.
 

 

33 minutes ago, Misterei said:

So I don't know if I can say about Tarot ... as long as the design and aestherics are good .... who cares about the method?

I DO care.

But you may not. People are different.

 

34 minutes ago, Misterei said:

Yes. But I don't know that every tool should always be used for every application. To me there is a subtle energy to Tarot ... such that method DOES matter.

But chacun à son goût.

 

I think intent of the creator is what gives a deck it’s energy more than the method used to create it. The intent of the user also adds to that energy.

I do a majority of my readings using a regular deck of poker cards. Many people do the same. I also like playing a variety of card games. I keep the decks I do readings with separate from the decks I play games with and they have a different “feel” or vibration to them. That is from the intent behind their use and not the way they were made. So, if people can do readings from a regular deck of mass produced poker cards, why not from a deck of AI created images?

[stephanelli]

1 hour ago, Misterei said:

This is a tricky one. For example "Apple: Designed in California. Manufactured in China." Or in fashion, "Designed in Milan. Manufactured in China".

 

If we take design as the heart of the thing ... I DO think it matters whether or not the thing was assembled in China or USA. In China or Italy. By union workers or child labor.

 

Fashion designers might be lovely people with good hearts creating beautiful things. And yet fast fashion is unspeakably evil. It's horrible for the environment. In the end the clothes are shoddy and ill-fitting. They will never approach the quality of things made even 30 years ago when shoes and clothes were still made in Italy and actually fit. 

 

So I don't know if I can say about Tarot ... as long as the design and aestherics are good .... who cares about the method?

I DO care.

But you may not. People are different.

I've been following along with this conversation and this metaphor really spoke to me.

 

I am still on the fence with AI Decks and art personally.

 

Here's my thoughts:

- if the creator is very specific about the sources images used and carefully analyses the output images and tweaks as necessary, then I think it could be an interesting tool for creating decks

- I think the divinatory value of the deck will depend on how well it's creator worked for the point just mentioned.  Most artists will have drafts, doodles, reference images/collages or revisions.  I think this could still be used in AI deck creation

- does this take value away from people creating decks in a tradition fashion?  I think yes, but i appreciate that there will always be traditional artists and people who only buy decks designed in a traditional manner so maybe not

- Will it further saturate an already saturated market? 100% yes here.  There's so much choice in decks nowadays.  This will add to this further because more people will be able to create their own decks now, even those with very little artistic ability.

 

I never tried to read an AI image, but divination can be done through all means so I don't see why it couldn't be done if you like that sort of thing.

[Misterei]

2 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

It’s one of those things I can’t explain. I’ve just always felt a strong repulsion towards the deck. Perhaps it’s my feelings about Crowley as a person. I just get a vibe from the deck that tells me to stay away from it.

This is my point. To explain it.

It's very easy to say I like this or don't like that. Sacred art is on a different level.

I do understand what you're saying though. I felt a terrible repulsion to the Sola Busca deck. But this deck literally has a picture of a baby being sacrificed and it was quite likely a grimoire of black magic / combat magic.

 

Crowley was an arsehole by most accounts ... but an excellent occultist and solidly on Britain's side in WW2.  Frida Harris was a gifted artist.

Thoth isn't my cup of tea ... but it's not a baby-killing to defeat your enemies grimoire, either.

2 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

... I do a majority of my readings using a regular deck of poker cards.

This is a TAROT forum. Yes, we get into general cartomancy ... but I'm a TAROT reader.

I too can read poker cards ... but they lack a certain special "something" that makes tarot ... tarot.

2 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

... I keep the decks I do readings with separate from the decks I play games with and they have a different “feel” or vibration to them. That is from the intent behind their use and not the way they were made. So, if people can do readings from a regular deck of mass produced poker cards, why not from a deck of AI created images?

Well, you touch upon something there. To me an AI deck *is* more like a soul-less mass-produced poker deck. I could read with it ... but TAROT is my love and passion. And hand-drawn tarots. Or done by digital artists such as Marchetti who have real depth to their talent. This is beyond a simple "like and dislike" thing for me. It's about soul.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Misterei said:

do understand what you're saying though. I felt a terrible repulsion to the Sola Busca deck. But this deck literally has a picture of a baby being sacrificed and it was quite likely a grimoire of black magic / combat magic.

Yikes!

Kinda glad I missed that one.

 

1 hour ago, Misterei said:

Well, you touch upon something there. To me an AI deck *is* more like a soul-less mass-produced poker deck. I could read with it ... but TAROT is my love and passion. And hand-drawn tarots. Or done by digital artists such as Marchetti who have real depth to their talent. This is beyond a simple "like and dislike" thing for me. It's about soul

Out of curiosity….. How many of your decks are actually “hand drawn” and how many are mass reproductions of original hand drawn decks? You talk about mass production being soulless and yet, that is how 99% of Tarot decks are made and sold. Sure, they were originally hand drawn but so were playing cards.
 

While AI will never be “hand drawn” I still feel that it is more the intent of the creator and the user that gives a deck it’s “soul” and not the method used.

 

In the end, the production for the masses ends up being the same.

[Raggydoll]

I think the hand drawn vs AI art is an interesting topic. To me, there are two different aspects. For one there is aesthetics. I would always be drawn to traditional art over AI. It’s a personal taste, for sure. 
 

Then there is the topic of magic and specific types of divination. This will depend on a persons spiritual practice and on their beliefs.

To me, certain things need to be hand drawn. Not for divination in general, but for instance, I wouldn’t use an AI generated rune set. It has to be handcrafted, and as far as I’m concerned, it should be the rune caster that crafts their own runes. This is a matter of spiritual and ancestral principles that I won’t go in here. But it’s the same for some other things. And definitely for magic. Though as I said before, I could in theory divine with most things. I just wouldn’t do psychic/journey sessions or ancestral practices with certain types of art objects (AI art included). I won’t go into my reasons for this as they are very personal and specific to my practice/culture. 

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I think the hand drawn vs AI art is an interesting topic. To me, there are two different aspects. For one there is aesthetics. I would always be drawn to traditional art over AI. It’s a personal taste, for sure. 
 

Then there is the topic of magic and specific types of divination. This will depend on a persons spiritual practice and on their beliefs.

To me, certain things need to be hand drawn. Not for divination in general, but for instance, I wouldn’t use an AI generated rune set. It has to be handcrafted, and as far as I’m concerned, it should be the rune caster that crafts their own runes. This is a matter of spiritual and ancestral principles that I won’t go in here. But it’s the same for some other things. And definitely for magic. Though as I said before, I could in theory divine with most things. I just wouldn’t do psychic/journey sessions or ancestral practices with certain types of art objects (AI art included). I won’t go into my reasons for this as they are very personal and specific to my practice/culture. 

 

I can appreciate something being done in a culturally specific kind of way and for that, you need things created in a manner consistent with that culture and tradition.

 

However, traditions have a way of evolving. What was cutting edge 100 years ago is now just part of how things are done now. In the future, the new things now will be old traditions.

 

Can you imagine in 100 years? “Don’t you just love those old AI decks from the early 2020s?” 🤣

[Raggydoll]

46 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

Can you imagine in 100 years? “Don’t you just love those old AI decks from the early 2020s?” 🤣

OMG yes 😅🤣 Some things change very fast. However, traditional art tends to remain a vital part of human expression and I don’t think that will ever change. That doesn’t mean that we won’t see other things alongside traditional art - in fact, I’m certain we will. It’s just that the act of physical mark making seem to be significant on so many levels. I think that it not only sits at the top of Maslows pyramid, but that certain aspects of art speaks to our sense of belonging and origin too. The act of physical mark making means that we leave a tangible sign of our presence; our ability to make a lasting impact etc. But this is probably too far off the original topic so I’ll stop there 😊 Great discussions though, I really appreciate everyone’s point of view! 

[Misterei]

17 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

Out of curiosity….. How many of your decks are actually “hand drawn” and how many are mass reproductions of original hand drawn decks? You talk about mass production being soulless and yet, that is how 99% of Tarot decks are made and sold. Sure, they were originally hand drawn but so were playing cards ... In the end, the production for the masses ends up being the same.

Good point. My collection is a pretty standard mix of mass market repros of hand drawn (like RWS) plus a few limited editions plus some historic decks which may have been wood block prints originally.

 

Still ... when using RWS, for example, I feel a connection to PCS and to AE Waite. Some of their "soul" or essence is present in the designs in spite of being printed in china or god knows where. I think this is one reason I dislike TdM decks. The originaly Tarocchi cards were hand painted and much thought went into the ymbolism of the Triunfi (Majors). But TdM were carved hurriedly and sloppily for the french printing presses to crank out cheap playing cards for the masses. I've never liked TdM for this reason. Most of my historic decks are Italian and seem to be made with more care and eye for detail - even if they were also blockprints or engraved prints.

 

My favorite playing cards for reading are Russian cards that were originally hand painted. Although mass-printed ... they have a level of beauty and detail which is completely missing from the standard, boring, Bicycle brand type playing cards. The Russian playing cards also have a bit of "soul" because someone painstakingly painted these incredibly intricate designs with little tiny brushes.

 

I wonder if AI religious icons are coming next?

An AI generated Laxmi or Ganesha for the puja room. Somehow this seems cringe-y to me.

15 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Then there is the topic of magic and specific types of divination. This will depend on a persons spiritual practice and on their beliefs.

To me, certain things need to be hand drawn.

@Raggydoll A friend of mine (now dec'd RIP) carved her own runes (forget which wood  ... but that was special too) and dyed them with her own blood as ink. D@mn. Those were some powerful runes.

13 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

... Some things change very fast. However, traditional art tends to remain a vital part of human expression and I don’t think that will ever change. That doesn’t mean that we won’t see other things alongside traditional art - in fact, I’m certain we will. It’s just that the act of physical mark making seem to be significant on so many levels.

What a great way to put it. I agree totally.

 

@WilliamEridani <<Can you imagine in 100 years? “Don’t you just love those old AI decks from the early 2020s?>>

I'm guessing that AI art will get better ... and future ppl will look back and laugh at how awful it was in the 2020s.

 

Still, I must say I was disturbed by a snippet of an interview I saw on the YT. One of the tech bros who owns an AI art platform (name????) was asked about the complaints of copyright violation from artists ... and he just dismissed it saying something like, "That conversation doesn't interest me."

This is why Pythagoras didn't teach science to Cylon.

Some people prolly shouldn't be doing science ...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Misterei said:

Still ... when using RWS, for example, I feel a connection to PCS and to AE Waite. Some of their "soul" or essence is present in the designs in spite of being printed in china or god knows where

Completely off topic but I sometimes wonder how much Pamela actually cared about the deck. She was paid a pittance for the work and her name was almost never connected with the deck for decades. When I look at the deck, there are images that are wonderful but there are several that seem rushed and poorly thought out as well. (8 of Cups, 4 of Wands and 5 of Pentacles immediately come to mind.) Some seem overly cluttered. I remember reading an article about her that mentioned a letter she had sent to a friend shortly after finishing the deck. In it she made the comment, “I just finished a very BIG job for very LITTLE money.” Makes me wonder if it was a labor of love or cash.

 

Personally, there are remakes of the RWS deck I like far better. The Morgan Greer deck it probably top of that list.

 

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

I'm guessing that AI art will get better ... and future ppl will look back and laugh at how awful it was in the 2020s.

I imagine it will improve as most aspects of technology generally do.

 

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

Still, I must say I was disturbed by a snippet of an interview I saw on the YT. One of the tech bros who owns an AI art platform (name????) was asked about the complaints of copyright violation from artists ... and he just dismissed it saying something like, "That conversation doesn't interest me."

It’s a conversation I wish we didn’t have to have but it shouldn’t be ignored either. I guess it begs one to wonder how much something needs to be changed before it is considered to be something new.

 

But there are few truly original things left. Just about everything being done now has already been done.

 

I used to play bass until nerve damage in my left arm made it impossible to play without pain. A guitarist in a band I was in once made the comment, “there are only 12 notes. Eventually every song will sound like something else.”

 

Kind of sad to realize the old adage, “there is nothing new under the sun,” might be very close to the truth.

 

I will always have a great respect for anyone who has any sort of artistic skill. But I do not believe AI is “stealing” artwork. As of yet, I have not seen anything produced by AI that could be misconstrued as someone else’s original work.

 

After all of that, back on topic:

I think AI images can be used for divination the same as any other tool. The intent is put there by the designer and the user. However, not all divination tools work for all people. AI will work for some and for others, it will not.

[Raggydoll]

9 hours ago, Misterei said:

Some of their "soul" or essence is present in the designs in spite of being printed in china or god knows where.

 

A friend of mine (now dec'd RIP) carved her own runes (forget which wood  ... but that was special too) and dyed them with her own blood as ink. D@mn. Those were some powerful runes.

What a great way to put it. I agree totally.

 

I really wish to reply to this and I’ll do my very best to try and stay on topic while doing so! Bear with me!

 

In Norse heathenry, this would be explained by hamingja. (You can google the terminology if you’re not familiar with it, just know that “personal luck” is a limited explanation, in my opinion.) A person can infuse their hamingja into an object and they can also lend hamingja to someone else. The act of physical mark making is one way of doing this. Hamingja and blood reddened runes are aspects of ancestral magic. It is possible (in my cultural viewpoint) to infuse runes or drawings with personal and ancestral power (those two would intermingle and be hard to tell apart). 
 

AI art is different. It is, in my opinion, not a vehicle for hamingja nor does it hold ancestral power. The key aspect here is that this type of power is carried through your voice, your touch (sweat, dna on fingers), your blood, urine, saliva etc. Would it be possible to lend your hamingja to the AI tool so it creates a powerful piece of art? In my opinion, only a fool would consider it 😆 
 

I too have felt Pamela’s personal energy in her line work. I think it was transferred in the strenuous physical labor of creating that deck. Now, our decks are of course mass produced copies and these energy traces aren’t exactly hamingja. Yet, something is there for sensitive people to pick up on. I sometimes think of it as energy echoes. I don’t pretend to know how it works. All I will say is that I’ve never felt such a phenomenon from AI decks. In a way, I’m glad. I don’t think I’d like to pick up on artificial intelligence energies 😅

 

Though still, do you need any of this for divination? No. And once the cards are in your hands, could you try infusing them with your own hamingja to make them more effective? Yes you can. Would it be wise or hold much power? That’s really beyond the scope of this topic, and personal opinions would likely differ. I doubt there is a hard truth to be found. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

AI art is different. It is, in my opinion, not a vehicle for hamingja nor does it hold ancestral power. The key aspect here is that this type of power is carried through your voice, your touch (sweat, dna on fingers), your blood, urine, saliva etc. Would it be possible to lend your hamingja to the AI tool so it creates a powerful piece of art? In my opinion, only a fool would consider it 😆 

 

What about decks that are drawn digitally using a drawing pad and artistic software like Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop or GIMP? While a person IS drawing it, none of those elements ever actually come into contact with the artwork itself. Would those still be infused with hamingja in some way?

 

I doubt you could actually infuse an AI tool with your own personal energy but you could put your own energy into the final outcome once handling the deck. That would be more an infusion from the end user rather than the creator, which I don't really see as a bad thing. After all, cleansing a deck and infusing it with our own energy before using it is part of the process regardless of how it's made.

 

2 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

And once the cards are in your hands, could you try infusing them with your own hamingja to make them more effective? Yes you can. Would it be wise or hold much power? That’s really beyond the scope of this topic, and personal opinions would likely differ. I doubt there is a hard truth to be found. 

 

This would be a VERY interesting topic to explore in another thread. I have a few thoughts based on past experiences and would love to hear what others think about it as well. However, I think it definitely deserves its own thread to keep from running this one completely off the rails.

[Raggydoll]

4 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

This would be a VERY interesting topic to explore in another thread. I have a few thoughts based on past experiences and would love to hear what others think about it as well. However, I think it definitely deserves its own thread to keep from running this one completely off the rails.

I agree, it would be an interesting separate discussion! 

[gregory]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:19 AM, Misterei said:

This is my point. To explain it.

It's very easy to say I like this or don't like that. Sacred art is on a different level.

 

 

Not necessarily a different level. I LOATHE Michelangelo's David. I find it REALLY ugly (even when viewed from the "correct" angle, before someone starts on the foreshortening thing.) I can't explain it and am frequently asked to explain why I dislike it so. And am told that if I dislike something I must be able to explain it. Well, I can't. It's just - horrid. (off to wash brain out with coffee for having conjured up that image....)

 

OTOH yes, I'm with Raggydoll - Pamela shines through - even in iffy reproductions. Even if they don't look very good. Whether or not she cared, she still drew - and I think she took her art seriously enough that she couldn't but put herself in there.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, gregory said:

And am told that if I dislike something I must be able to explain it.

 

Off topic but that's a complete crock of alligator dung. You can't always quantify a like or dislike for something. Sometimes we are attracted or repelled by something on a level that goes deeper than conscious human understanding. There is no explaining it. If you don't like David, you don't like David. You shouldn't have to explain your feelings for them to be valid.

 

40 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I agree, it would be an interesting separate discussion! 

 

So start it! 😁

[Raggydoll]

6 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

 

So start it! 😁

Too busy at the moment! 

[Misterei]

18 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

Completely off topic but I sometimes wonder how much Pamela actually cared about the deck. She was paid a pittance for the work and her name was almost never connected with the deck for decades.

We may never know ... but PCS was an occultist in her own right. I think she DEFINITELY infuse some of her personal essence, soul, or "hamingja" into the deck. And yes, there are several cards I feel like they "got wrong". But altogether this deck changed "Tarot History". There's magic and soul in this deck that transcends personal egoic likes and dislikes.

10 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

... that's a complete crock of alligator dung. You can't always quantify a like or dislike for something.

Ahem. This is taking some of my questions out of context and then calling them aliigator dung. While colorful ... it's a bit rude.

I don't particularly think of David as sacred art. I always thought he was MichaelAngelo's f*ckboy ...?

 

OF COURSE people have their own reactions to art. My point was about judging sacred art by something beyond kneejerk reactions. I don't think this is a crock of shiite. The internet has made us a society of people who think they must like everything and if they don't like it ... then how dare it show up on my feed!

I think it's a valuable spiritual exercise to QUESTION our likes and dislikes.

Would you not agree?

But that's another topic, too.

[Misterei]

10 hours ago, gregory said:

... I LOATHE Michelangelo's David. I find it REALLY ugly ... am told that if I dislike something I must be able to explain it. Well, I can't. It's just - horrid. (

Per my other post ... I never particularly saw Michelangelo's David as sacred art. More like a sacred boytoy.

I'm not questioning that our emotional reactions to things are valid ... of course they are. I'm saying that in some cases it's worth going BEYOND the kneejerk reaction to question our likes and dislikes.

This is a concept that appears in both Buddhism and Hinduism ... but maybe not practiced by everyone. I constantly challenge my automatic "likes" and "dislikes" as a spiritual practice.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

Ahem. This is taking some of my questions out of context and then calling them aliigator dung. While colorful ... it's a bit rude.

I don't particularly think of David as sacred art. I always thought he was MichaelAngelo's f*ckboy ...?

Actually, I don’t see anything that you posted which would put your questions in the same category as, “you HAVE to give a reason or your opinion isn’t valid.” My response to that post wasn’t directed towards you in any way. You have asked if I could quantify my reasons for liking or disliking something but you haven’t demanded an explanation by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You could be right about David though. 🤔

 

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

OF COURSE people have their own reactions to art. My point was about judging sacred art by something beyond kneejerk reactions.

 

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

The internet has made us a society of people who think they must like everything and if they don't like it ... then how dare it show up on my feed!

I think it's a valuable spiritual exercise to QUESTION our likes and dislikes.

Would you not agree?

We can question them all we like but sometimes there just isn’t an answer. At least not one we are consciously aware of. Sometimes we can find answers when working on ourselves spiritually but other times the answer may be hidden for a reason. (Usually because we are not ready to accept the answer given us.)

 

I’m not saying you shouldn’t explain why you do or don’t like something if you know the reason but sometimes you just don’t know why and can’t explain it. That doesn’t make the feeling any less valid and it doesn’t necessarily make it a “knee jerk” reaction.

 

But we keep rolling WAY off topic here.

 

Yes. AI art can be used for divination but it’s not going to be everyone’s cup o’ tea leaves. (There. I fixed it! 😁)

[BradGad]

On 3/4/2023 at 4:12 PM, Misterei said:

We may never know ... but PCS was an occultist in her own right. I think she DEFINITELY infuse some of her personal essence, soul, or "hamingja" into the deck. And yes, there are several cards I feel like they "got wrong". But altogether this deck changed "Tarot History". There's magic and soul in this deck that transcends personal egoic likes and dislikes.

Ahem. This is taking some of my questions out of context and then calling them aliigator dung. While colorful ... it's a bit rude.

I don't particularly think of David as sacred art. I always thought he was MichaelAngelo's f*ckboy ...?

 

OF COURSE people have their own reactions to art. My point was about judging sacred art by something beyond kneejerk reactions. I don't think this is a crock of shiite. The internet has made us a society of people who think they must like everything and if they don't like it ... then how dare it show up on my feed!

I think it's a valuable spiritual exercise to QUESTION our likes and dislikes.

Would you not agree?

But that's another topic, too.

 

Always fun to learn a new word!

 

[rylla]

Interesting threat and debates. A few days ago I didn't even know what AI means (luckily I was enlightened by gregory). I had in mind doing a collage deck (only for myself) but I like the idea of doing it by AI. Then I would print it out and I'd add some personal touch/correction by hand.  

 

Personally I don't care if a deck is hand drawn or by AI. But I do care how it looks. Some decks look computer made with artificial images or artificial shadows, I can't stand those and I never buy them. But others like the Primordial Dream tarot (I backed it on kickstarter and I now I have the eBook with the pictures of all the cards) doesn't look artificial made. At least I did not realize that it's not painted.

So if a deck looks 'natural' I'm perfectly OK with it. And there are zillions of pictures on the net to use without being 'stolen' goods.

[DanielJUK]

I know we have said this several times before but can we please keep this discussion on topic.

One word discussions on a word unrelated to the topic, does not a good discussion make! Off-topic discussion on hamingja has been removed

 

Please can we stay on the topic of this discussion.....

 

I'm curious what opinion people here have on whether AI art is useful for divination

 

If you want to discuss a different topic, start a different thread for that 🙂

[gregory]

I'm not sure it's AI decks as such; computer art is not the same thing.

[remod]

I've done some deck (not necessarily tarots) with AI (midjourney) and other decks using only Gimp and Inkscape.

To me, they are all tools that I use to express myself and create something that could be useful and meaningful to those looking at them. 

Hopefully, it will be the same meaning I had in mind when I created them, but one can never know.

 

About the key point of whether AI images (or CGI Images, or computer graphics images) are useful for divination, my firm belief is that the answer is yes.

 

The way an image has been created (by hand drawing with a pencil, by randomly spraying paint on a card, by taking a photograph) has nothing to do with the image itself.

 

The point is whether a specific image is useful for divination or not, regardless of how it has been created. After the image leaves its creator and goes around the world, its significance is in the eye of the beholder.

An image I find inspiring could be dull for others and the other way around, that's why I think it is important that we have all these tools at our disposal.

 

While creating a nice image with the current AI tool is very easy, creating exactly the image you have in mind si much much more difficult. And keeping the style consistent across an entire deck is even more complicated.

 

I don't do art. I just try to create the images I have in mind using an AI powered tool.

Art is something that carries a deeper message and is independent of the material and process used.

Otherwise Marcel Duchamp's "fountain" would just be an urinal, and Lucio Fontana works would just be cut canvas.

 

I believe that all this noise about "AI art" is more detrimental than useful.

Edited March 16, 2023 by remod

[rylla]

In my view AI is as good as any for divination, as long as it doesn't look too artificial (which can spoil a deck for me). The content is more important. Collage deck are not unique art, but I love them (much creativity goes in doing those but there are not original art).

 

So I am very excited about this thread as I am learning about AI and people opinion about it.

 

I read on the net that there are lots of AI program. Please, can somebody who uses it give me an indication about which program is good and useful? I'd like to try using it. Until now I just used Photoshop to manipulate pictures. (or should it be a new topic discussing this?)