Are all "artists" renamed to "directors" in the language files, or is there some sort of a meaningful entity called an "artist" on e6AI?

Sometimes multiple people collaborate. For example, a digital or traditional artist can draw a sketch and then an AI director can color it. Do "artists" become "directors" in this case?

I was thinking about making a post about this too, because yes you're right - the language of e6ai is very *binary* - it as if it assumes it's all AI or only traditional (e621).

I have had at least one instance where the sketch was given to me by a traditional artist to be rendered out in AI, but there's no formal way to give credit to the artist with how e6ai is setup now...

In the meantime I suppose the bandaid fix is to just tag them as a director instead and make a note to clarify in the description.

The use of 'director' instead of artist is kind of petty to begin with. It's arguing that AI artists aren't real artists because some people don't like the tools they use. It's needless depreciating to a new field of artists and their works.

That said, if these kinds of mix use issues keep coming up they'll have to do something about it. Depending on how the data base and code base are structured, 'director' might just be a relabel of artists or a whole new category. If the later, adding an artist field would be easy in the future.

The use of 'director' instead of 'artist' is an important distinction.

A quilter can make a very pretty quilt. Do you call them an artist, or a quilter?
A welder can create beautiful structures out of steel and iron. Do you call them an artist, or a welder?
A chef can lay down an intricately plated and delicious meal in front of you. Do you call them an artist, or a chef?
A director can prompt, edit, rearrange and iterate an algorithmically generated image to create a new, unique image of their own imagining. Do you call them an artist, or a director?

In the OPs case, yes both participants are correctly labeled directors. The artist may have created the initial sketch, but that sketch was used as a tool to direct the algorithm to generate the final image, making them co-directors in it's generation.

Whether or not a director is a "real artist" is a topic best left for people to squabble about on chan boards and twitter threads.

confusion-cookie said:
The use of 'director' instead of 'artist' is an important distinction.

A quilter can make a very pretty quilt. Do you call them an artist, or a quilter?
A welder can create beautiful structures out of steel and iron. Do you call them an artist, or a welder?
A chef can lay down an intricately plated and delicious meal in front of you. Do you call them an artist, or a chef?
A director can prompt, edit, rearrange and iterate an algorithmically generated image to create a new, unique image of their own imagining. Do you call them an artist, or a director?

In the OPs case, yes both participants are correctly labeled directors. The artist may have created the initial sketch, but that sketch was used as a tool to direct the algorithm to generate the final image, making them co-directors in it's generation.

Whether or not a director is a "real artist" is a topic best left for people to squabble about on chan boards and twitter threads.

By that logic we should be calling those who paint painters and not artist, or people who use photoshop like tools photoshopers again instead of artists. Instead we all just call them artist. Calling an artists a director instead of an artists is a slight, given that no one does the same thing on other art boards for different mediums.

Personally, director doesn't even make sense for what I do, which is closer to pure math and science. Computational artists (old term) makes way more sense for how I work. Should I be called a scientist (that's pretentious) or computationalist (That's a mouthful).

Calling someone a director instead of an artist is diminishing their work. This conversation wouldn't even be needed if we were consistent in our terms and just called them artists. Like any other art site would.

confusion-cookie said:
The use of 'director' instead of 'artist' is an important distinction.

A quilter can make a very pretty quilt. Do you call them an artist, or a quilter?
A welder can create beautiful structures out of steel and iron. Do you call them an artist, or a welder?
A chef can lay down an intricately plated and delicious meal in front of you. Do you call them an artist, or a chef?
A director can prompt, edit, rearrange and iterate an algorithmically generated image to create a new, unique image of their own imagining. Do you call them an artist, or a director?

In the OPs case, yes both participants are correctly labeled directors. The artist may have created the initial sketch, but that sketch was used as a tool to direct the algorithm to generate the final image, making them co-directors in it's generation.

Whether or not a director is a "real artist" is a topic best left for people to squabble about on chan boards and twitter threads.

Make a quilt with a can of beans motif on it and you're an artist.
Weld together some scrap metal into a random sculpture and you're an artist.
Cook fancy and exclusive meals for the rich and you're an artist.

Arrange a hundred blocks of concrete on a public place and you're an artist.
Wrap a building in foil and you're an artist.
Splatter some color randomly across a canvas. Congratulations, you are an artist.

I wouldn't be so nitpicking about the matter.
With society's standards, I'd say anyone who creates something for an esthetical, and not practical, purpose (with whatever tools and materials) could be called an artist with some justification.
I could drench my cats' feet in paint and have them run over a canvas and they would call me an artist...
It's hard to draw a line.

I couldn't care less about the "director" labelling, though. Just saying the "importance" eludes me.

rantas said:
Make a quilt with a can of beans motif on it and you're an artist.
Weld together some scrap metal into a random sculpture and you're an artist.
Cook fancy and exclusive meals for the rich and you're an artist.

Arrange a hundred blocks of concrete on a public place and you're an artist.
Wrap a building in foil and you're an artist.
Splatter some color randomly across a canvas. Congratulations, you are an artist.

I wouldn't be so nitpicking about the matter.
With society's standards, I'd say anyone who creates something for an esthetical, and not practical, purpose (with whatever tools and materials) could be called an artist with some justification.
I could drench my cats' feet in paint and have them run over a canvas and they would call me an artist...
It's hard to draw a line.

I couldn't care less about the "director" labelling, though. Just saying the "importance" eludes me.

I mean this sincerely, I'm glad it doesn't bother you. I wish it didn't bother me but it does. I guess it's hard to explain, maybe it's just because I've been told I'm not a "real artist" before that it bothers me so much. I don't even want approval necessarily, just, don't say what I do is less that what someone else does. Being called director just seems to "other" me and my work, along with other AI artists.

Anyway, I've said my peace. Cheers!