I find that the images I generate using AI that I like the most get the lowest vote scores, while the ones that I am even ambivalent about posting get the highest scores.
Examples: These two (Despair & Colors) were my most intimate ones. They are reflections of internal experiences I’ve had my whole life, followed by decades of introspection to imagine these images. They also took me the most work to generate, and if anyone in MS is reviewing what I make, they might be concerned with how hard I worked to make these and the troubling prompts I used. Anyway, I posted them immediately after generating them because I thought they were great. Still, they only have a score of 28 and 36, respectively.
On the other hand, I sat on posting the Electric Slide for a day or two, yet it was the best received with a vote score of 166. The He-Moon I was almost certain was going to be in the negatives, yet it has a score of 150. Both of these probably took 15 mins max each to generate, but are my top scoring images. We can argue that humorous ones will likely be better received, but the humorous ones I like the most did not score anywhere near as much. Drahkermit still makes me laugh (lol), yet has a score of 48.
Anyone else, or am I alone on this? Also, do you have any relevant insight to share?
Btw, I’m not critiquing anyone or complaining at all. I don’t really care for my scores other than to assess how others liked them for guidance on what to post. I’m really just trying to figure out why this phenomenon is occurring and why. I find it curious that there is an apparent mismatch, and I think it would be an insightful lesson for me to help understand things better :)
Note: The scores noted here are what I saw at the time I posted this.
As someone that enjoys writing and photography, this is the truth of all art. The artists feelings for a thing only matter if they resonate with the viewer. Visual art is just another form of rhetoric, the means of persuasion, which was originally verbal. And what resonates with an audience depends on the context. So, your idea that social media is fast and people aren’t willing to put in the time really get it, is spot on.
Conversely, I’m sure OP could do something to facilitate longer viewing times on their art. He’s not completely helpless in this regard. Like, maybe make a community for more thoughtful AI generated images. Idk…but the idea would be on doing art, creating compositions that have depth and meaning and are worth more than a glance. That is, after all, what traditional artists do after they learn the mechanics.
Actually…photographers have groups where they critique each other’s photographs, and it’s how they improve. Something like that for AI generated art would be worthwhile, I think.
Sure. Presentation has a lot to do with how art is received. But I think on platforms like Lemmy there is only so much you can do. I mean… It’s kind of the correct approach. You can post images and a preview shows up in everyone’s timeline. People can vote and engage in a discussion…
Still, I think I’m often in the wrong mindset. I open the app, my brain is looking for that short dopamine rush while scrolling through things but it’s news article, cute picture of an animal, AI art, someone’s project, next news article about war… I don’t think I’m really paying attention or embracing anything, most of the time. It’s just too much and quality of the posts is very mixed so I make split second decisions if I even pay attention at all.
You’re probably right. A forum or blog would be something that encourages people to spend a bit more time on a given subject. Or something like a magazine with curated content. Or we just don’t mind that Lemmy / social media doesn’t encourage people getting into the correct mindset. The added exposure could be worth it over the smaller audience in a dedicated forum. And it seems to reach some people…