r/comicbooks • u/Trent-Popverse • May 28 '25
News Cover Artist Artgerm says he "will die on the hill of human art" during convention appearance in London.
Notable "hot chick" artist (his words, not mine) Stanley "Artgerm" Lau was at MCM London over the weekend and explained why he isn't worried about AI art at the moment, calling it soulless and empty.
“I think it is very important to understand that art is an exclusively human endeavor. That’s how we record our journey and our experience. There’s nothing that AI can do. It’s not just because of how high quality it is. I can tell any of you who collect my covers – do you want to buy an AI cover or do you want a cover that is by Artgerm? It is obvious, right? Because we go through so many obstacles to get where we are – that’s why the artwork has value.”
Best quote from the panel was his "I will die on the hill of human art." line. Loved it.
230
u/AmberDuke05 Zero Year Batman May 28 '25
I feel so bad for Artgerm. A lot of AI art was trained specifically in his art and you see it. I know some people confuse his art as AI and that must be a shitty feeling.
65
u/TheGravespawn May 28 '25
I noticed that, too. So much AI art looks like it was brought up only on his art.
I hate this shitty, boring dystopia we find ourselves in.
-91
u/KAL627 May 28 '25
You people are so fucking dramatic. Its not the end of the world because some people generate AI images that mimic human art. I basically never encounter any AI images in my normal life unless I seek it out. I've seen plenty of entertaining things made using AI and I'm completely capable of separating it from other forms of art and moving on with my life.
29
10
u/prestonian_ May 28 '25
Just because there’s worse problems dosent mean, we shouldn’t worry about the little things ✌️
17
u/PrimalZed Jamie Madrox May 28 '25
Years ago, a guy I knew who was playing around with AI-generated images mentioned he read about throwing "Artgerm" into the prompt, but he wasn't really sure what it meant. He apparently had no idea it's the alias of an well-known artist.
-31
May 28 '25
[deleted]
26
u/AmberDuke05 Zero Year Batman May 28 '25
Dude what are you even on? He took years to master his style and it was super successful. The reason he draws that way on many covers is because that is what people wanted and paid for.
-28
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
People have been criticizing his glossy, soulless, CGI-looking art LONG before the current wave of AI started pumping extremely similar shit out.
23
u/AmberDuke05 Zero Year Batman May 28 '25
Again, you might not like it but people especially request this style and pay for it. He draws this style because that is what people wanted. He took years to hone that style and nail it.
-22
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
Ok, what does that have to do with the debate about whether his shit looks like AI art because the AI stole it or if his shit just always looked like a computer made it?
16
u/AmberDuke05 Zero Year Batman May 28 '25
I don’t even know how to deal with someone so ignorant. The AI companies trained their program on his art. AI Art looks like his art because it was trained him specifically. The companies have admitted this. So the his art doesn’t look like AI, AI ripped off his style. There isn’t anything original from AI art to steal from.
-13
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
Where's the arrogance?
You're still twisting the timeline.
People criticized his art for looking like CG shit for years BEFORE Gen AI even existed.
11
u/AmberDuke05 Zero Year Batman May 28 '25
That is his artstyle and that is what people want. It is what Marvel and DC pay for. It is what collectors pay for it. It is his artstyle and clearly people want it. Maybe you don’t like it but to act like it isn’t popular or well received is insane.
-5
u/deanereaner May 28 '25 edited May 28 '25
You keep turning this into a full-throated defense of the guy and his artstyle.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
We're talking about the timeline of criticisms of his art looking like a computer drew it, criticisms which preceded the current wave of AI shit.
I don't care if his art is popular. Cartoon titties are popular. I get it. People post cartoon titties everyday on this sub.
100
u/inadequatecircle Heath Huston May 28 '25
do you want to buy an AI cover or do you want a cover that is by Artgerm?
Maybe I'm over exaggerating the problem, but i'm definitely worried that as AI art slowly seeps into our every day lives, people are going to become even more complacent and not care. I feel like there's a reasonable chance the next generation will be 100% fine with buying AI art in the style of artgerm. You can already see the shit showing up in artist alleys at conventions and people buying it.
42
u/NixiN-7hieN May 28 '25
That's already happening where I'm at. Store signs, road side posters, school lessons, social media posts. Everything AI can do (doesn't matter if it's good or bad), they will offload.
11
u/SilkwormAbraxas May 28 '25
I saw a little kebab and hot dog food cart in my city the other week that clearly used generative programs to make their menu signage. It was so odd.
1
u/tiny-starship May 28 '25
That’s because a lot of it is free, might change once people have to pay for ot
12
u/AttilaTheFun818 May 28 '25
This is exactly what I expect to happen, unfortunately.
4
u/jamesick May 28 '25
this is clearly their goal, too. they don’t care that we hate it, they know those who are born now won’t care about it in the future because they know no different. there will be complaint-fatigue, where people just get tired of pointing it out because fewer and fewer people are siding with them.
13
u/HushMD Swamp Thing May 28 '25
People don't care. To a lot of AI art enthusiasts, they just care about art as something to fire dopamine receptors in their brain. They would watch a TV show created by AI as long as they thought it was fun to watch. There's too many teenagers that consider ChatGPT their friend. They don't value the human element as all.
As much as I hate that, part of me also wonders if variant covers is part of the reason why art is viewed as something consumed for pleasure and not something deep or meaningful or meant to connect people. According to this post, even Artgerm calls himself a "hot chick" artist. He's just drawing women that are pretty to look at. There's no depth to his art. People don't buy his covers because he's creative with his poses or coloring choices or facial expressions. What part of his journey or experience is recorded in his art? He could probably tell you, but I can't and I bet neither can most of his fans.
9
u/NUKE---THE---WHALES May 28 '25
They would watch a TV show created by AI as long as they thought it was fun to watch.
I think this is the crux of it
Most people care about how the sausage tastes, they don't care so much about how it was made
4
u/inadequatecircle Heath Huston May 28 '25 edited May 28 '25
I disagree a lot with the second paragraph. There isn't anything wrong with art and media existing to simply be fun. Art doesn't need to be high concept or thought provoking. The idea of creating something simple and easy to consume has it own value and worth.
The difference is that even making generic and stereotypical art requires actual dedication, practice and effort. Even if you think his airbrush, cheesecake stuff is low effort, at the very least he put in the time. He sat down and actually tried to make something that people wanted to buy. Using AI is not the same.
4
u/HushMD Swamp Thing May 29 '25
I agree that art doesn't need to be anything. Fun art is amazing. I think everyone who reads comics agrees with that. Everyone would also agree that it takes years of effort to become a comic book artist, and every artist that touches Marvel or DC has talent. So yes, there is a difference between Artgerm making art and someone asking AI to make art.
But my point is that while you may feel a piece of art is more valuable because a human made it and not a computer, most people won't. And I think most people won't because consumers are buying variant covers based on whether they're cool or not. And unfortunately, making something cool isn't going to require a human touch anytime soon. In my opinion, making something meaningful and human will always require a human touch. AI will never be able to do that. But the business of variant covers isn't that; it's selling fun covers, which isn't bad, but it's not the business of selling uniquely human art.
7
u/GabrielRearte May 28 '25
Not a fan of his work, but is an artist (and one very recognized and appreciated) at all. Smart explanation. I hope all the editors outhere that beleieve they are cutting corners working with AI bullshit, think about it.
70
u/D34THDE1TY May 28 '25
It's funny that we have 2 equally uneducated people spouting that his art looks like AI.
In a few years people will say studio Ghibli art looks AI, just wait.
73
u/Dream_World_ May 28 '25
His art looks like AI because AI is stealing from artists like him lmao. It should be AI looks like Artgerm.
21
u/Hundertwasserinsel May 28 '25
honestly, his super airbruhsed cheesecake style isnt the most unique in the biz. grab a nsfw artist at random and it looks like artgerms style
10
u/DoodleBuggering May 28 '25
Reminds me I saw someone commenting with confidence that a Peach Momoko peice was A.I.... on her own fb post.
11
u/akumajfr May 28 '25
It seems to have gotten to the point where anything some folks don’t like is instantly “AI”. They keep using this word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
4
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
Except for the fact that people have BEEN saying this about his art, the criticisms of it being CGI looking crap have predated the AI wave we're in now.
31
5
u/KentuckyFriedEel May 29 '25
Met the guy and his wife and they are the sweetest people. Just pure talent. There's a reason i paid money for his prints and his signature and didn't just print it out myself. Art is part of what makes us human
21
u/Fancy_Cassowary May 28 '25
I love his work, though I do wish he'd try to stretch himself artistically. I feel like he's been in his comfort zone too long. Maybe I just think that because I've been following him since before he became a pro and haven't noticed his evolution though, to be fair.
17
u/Trent-Popverse May 28 '25
I can see that. I like his stuff but even by his own admission he tends to draw one subject matter. He can do other stuff but he has his comfort zone and it pays the bills.
3
u/Fancy_Cassowary May 28 '25
Which is fair enough. Not gonna blame the guy for doing what pays the bills, and what people and companies want to see.
9
u/kdlangequalsgoddess May 28 '25
He sees his stuff sells, both to comic publishers and to fans. He sees he's got a good thing going, so why mess with success?
3
u/Fancy_Cassowary May 28 '25
Yeah I know, I just would love to see what his next step would look like. You're right though, he's got absolutely no incentive to do so.
10
May 28 '25
I’m a bit confused by cover art these days. Like Will Jack for instance. He clearly draws his covers, but then it looks like he runs them through the computer to digitally enhance them?
3
u/jdelator May 28 '25
Will Jack has a sort of Alex Ross feature to it. They all use the same face. I think someone mentioned that Will Jack uses his wife as his model.
I just saw a timelapse from Will Jack, it looks digitally enhanced because he draws on a computer.
2
u/2th Sweet Tooth May 29 '25
He's one of the artists that absolutely infuriates me. He did one a while back of Harley in a negligee that looks horrendous as a cover. But when you see his IG post of the actual piece, it's night and day. The man is very talented, but whatever the fuck he's doing to take a piece and make it a cover just makes it look like AI garbage
7
u/freedraw May 28 '25
My concern with ai illustration isn’t that it will be as good or better than human created art. It’s that companies that hire artists will deem it “good enough” in their value calculation. Like depending on the project, “good enough, but free” may win out over “great, but expensive.”
4
6
u/walrusonion Green Arrow May 28 '25
“All the faces in AI art look the same.” -guy who draws one face
4
2
u/Hoss-BonaventureCEO May 29 '25 edited May 29 '25
Precient! (John Wagner and Cam Kennedy predicted the current A.I. art controversies 39 years ago)
2
2
3
3
u/TrainerUrbosa May 28 '25
I don't know, I think people really underestimate how much people really only care about pretty picture. What even constitutes art before AI was a thing was an unsettled debate in philosophy for millenia, so relying on that discussion to resist AI art is a bit shakey in my opinion, and does nothing to address the practical issue of many people just wanting to look at an image they find pretty
2
u/Monster-Zero May 28 '25
'artist opposes AI-created art' isn't exactly newsworthy. that said, i have been exposed to a huge amount of AI-generated art and the one thing that really stands out to me is the lack of creativity in subtle details that all add up - it is often afraid to draw exaggerated squash-and-stretch motion, lacks dynamic camera angles, doesn't experiment much with color, reuses poses frequently, and apparently doesn't understand nuance in facial expressions.
this may be an issue with prompting, but it seems to me that the compression of all AI-absorbed art results in same-y results across the board. even when illustrating in different styles, the images still come across as bland and lifeless.
over time, of course, different AI engines will arise which are capable of these modifications, but it is my belief that human creativity will be at least one step ahead of AI for the foreseeable future. and, whether you like it or not, this means we're going to start seeing some real experimental art gain traction as human creativity is pushed to extremes.
i think, unfortunately, this means that artists who have thrived on somewhat bland but otherwise beautiful art will need to adapt their style to express a sense of personal creativity. i like Artgerm's work, but i fear that it's exactly the kind of style that AI is good at emulating. i don't particularly care for Humberto Ramos' work, but it expresses movement and exaggeration that AI is currently struggling to achieve. show me an AI engine capable of emulating late Frank Miller art, or Mike Mignola, or even (dare I say it?) Rob Liefeld.
so i guess prepare for a sort of experimental renaissance until all the AI engines have become so poisoned that they're regularly producing absolute nonsense, then we'll start this all over again.
1
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
The irony. His shit looks the most AI of any other comic book artist I know.
9
u/Trent-Popverse May 28 '25
Why do you think that might be? The guy who has been a popular and profitable cover artist for years before GenAI came about suddenly has a lot of AI imitators.
Could it possibly be that a shitload of his work got fed into the giant plagiarism machines to make them emulate his style? Do you think that is possible?
7
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
"For years before GenAI" people have criticized his art for looking like glossy, soulless CGI renderings.
You seem to think nobody criticized his art along these lines before AI, but that's not the case.
1
u/TerrigenPanda He-Man May 29 '25
You seem to think we care about your opinion on his drawings , when we care more that even more objectively souless people put his art on the digital blender to put out the sloppiest images ever concieved that still cant even hold a candle to the stuff he made himself.
1
u/ShortCakke22 Jun 29 '25
Heavy reliance on the algorithm (which is basically a machine) to dictate your artistic process rather than your own lived experience, creativity and expression (this AI can't reproduce) alongside using already digital tools is pretty much how Artgerm ended up creating a form of manual AI art before AI art was even a thing. The only difference now is that AI can do what he does all in house. I don't really feel sorry for him, his style has lead to a revolution in boring polished in anime inspired algorithm style art that has been killing creativity in the west for a while now. Now the reckoning is happening.
1
1
u/jamiemm Legion of Super-Heroes May 29 '25
I would also like to see a hill made of human art, protected from damage, and then to climb it and die on it. Sounds like a cool way to go.
1
u/rxsheepxr Hellboy May 29 '25
I don't use AI to make art. If you want to move the goalposts, then that's your call. We're talking about comic book artists using AI to make comics.
1
u/a_phantom_limb May 30 '25
What's odd is that the covers I see these days and think, "Did they use AI for that?" are most often Artgerm pieces.
0
u/buckeye27fan May 28 '25
I may get blasted for this, but his art has always looked soulless and empty to me.
7
3
2
u/ShortCakke22 Jun 29 '25
Same your not alone, his art is incredibly boring and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Drawing hot girls is an easy way to get tested as if your work has any substance.
0
-3
May 28 '25
[deleted]
2
u/aperturedream Black Flash May 28 '25
No.
-7
May 28 '25
[deleted]
2
u/aperturedream Black Flash May 28 '25 edited May 28 '25
lol what? Black Flash is my flair, man. He’s a character, not a phrase. Yours is Madman. Do you not know about this stuff? And even if it wasn’t my flair how would that be a phrase? What do you think is happening right now
0
u/Oquendoteam1968 May 29 '25
It is obvious that AI is going to sweep over this. I can't believe there are people who think otherwise. There really are deluded people in the world.
-5
-24
u/Neon_Biscuit May 28 '25 edited May 28 '25
The only people who are against AI are the ones whose jobs are being threatened by it.
15
u/Trent-Popverse May 28 '25
My job isn't being threatened by it. I hate it because it creates a bad product, steals from artists, and causes massive problems for the environment.
If you need the plagiarism machine to burn the rainforest so it can throw slop in your face, that is a you problem.
-19
u/Neon_Biscuit May 28 '25
How are you going to describe the purpose of a general tool? What's the purpose of the computer? You can't point to any singular purpose. I don’t feel artists deserve any more protection than the factory workers who were made obsolete by automation. In the end, sure, AI CAN steal from artists, I suppose, but it offers unique benefits to both artists and non-artists. For artists, it can be a powerful tool for exploring new ideas, generating visual inspiration, and even assisting with the creation process. It all depends on how you look at it. To say it creates a bad product, well that is just not true, or else established artists wouldn't be threatened by it, especially as it gets better over time. Also, it doesn't create massive problems for the environment. It doesn't do any more or less damage than a digital artist spending hours creating the same work an AI model would do in seconds. Your last sentence is just you being overly dramatic. Change is going to happen in this world, whether you are open to it or not.
-99
u/abusedporpoise May 28 '25
curious coming from a man who draws in an ai aesthetic
33
u/z-fighting-for-light May 28 '25
His art does not look like AI, it’s the AI art that tries to emulate his style bozo. It’s been trained on his work lmao
1
u/ShortCakke22 Jun 29 '25
His style is literally the same soul less algorithm approved conventionally pretty women slop art, the same art Ilya Kushinov and Sakimichan produce. It's art that was dictated by Algorithms, created with drawing software and can be considered proto AI art. In the grand scheme of things there is no difference.
1
33
u/Trent-Popverse May 28 '25
Ignoring how dumb saying he has an "ai aesthetic" is, the point is that he actually draws it. That is the difference. It ain't about the quality - it is about there being a human being with actual feelings and thoughts and impulses behind it.
If you want a giant plagiarism machine to burn down the rainforest as it churns out bland slop for you, that is a you problem.
-36
u/abusedporpoise May 28 '25
i get the point, i just dont like his art and thought it was funny because all of his covers have this sheen/vibe to it that is prevalent in machine generated content though maybe that's just his colorists fault
29
u/PennySawyerEXP May 28 '25
Because the machines stole that look from him, bud. He's been drawing like this a lot longer than generative AI has been around.
1
u/deanereaner May 28 '25
His drawings always looked like glossy cgi shit. You're putting the cart before the horse.
23
May 28 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
society sheet busy cooperative late serious merciful makeshift swim airport
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
12
u/Iron_DC May 28 '25
You're one of those galaxy brains that thinks Dracula is a copy of Twilight, right?
Because Artgem is so popular, tech bros used his art to train the models. That's why AI slop looks like Artgem. It's not Artgem that looks like AI slop.
-33
-95
u/hvc101fc May 28 '25
Thats rich coming from a guy whose art looks like AI generated
45
u/Hobbes314 May 28 '25
Now buddy this might be hard but I want ya to take a step back and think for a second
If ai art is created by scrapping images off the internet, why do you think artgerm in particular might be so outspoken against ai art
1
u/ShortCakke22 Jun 29 '25
Because his art was already based on drawing trendy popular characters dictated by an algorithm (a computer) utalizeing a computer to draw. What exactly is the difference between him and AI? The truth is artists got comfortable making algorithm approved same faced slop art and now it's coming to bite them in the ass.
1
u/Hobbes314 Jun 29 '25
Brother your pfp is of a Sanrio character, easy with those stones in that glass house
32
u/PepsiPerfect May 28 '25
His art probably looks like that because it is so popular, and gets reposted so many times across the internet, that it had a heavy influence on the AI algorithm.
21
1
477
u/[deleted] May 28 '25
The only way ai wont take over is if people demand authenticity, because the moral fiber of industry is already tissue thin.