<p>A problem with current AI-powered imagery is that, since—based on my limited knowledge of their processes—they <em>patch</em> together new images based on a vast database of existing images (generated during AI training), it is hard to properly place these images within existing (art historical) frameworks.</p>
<p>The noise (and probably to a lesser degree the colours and lighting) reminds me of computer renders. It is similar to what DALL-E 2 sometimes does when you query a &quot;render&quot; of something, likely due to it having processed many path-tracing renders which are known for their noise.<br />
It's too much of an illustration to remind me of a specific artist, though.</p>
<p>Otherwise what comes close is puppet- or stop motion animation, claymation, or similarly hand-made miniature-based scenery.</p>
<p>But both renders and plasticine are mediums, not styles.</p>
<p>Your picture could represent a photograph of a claymation setup, but then the question is whether you're looking for the style of the photo or the style of the scene :)</p>
<p>For now, my—very pedantic—answer would be that it is <strong>AI style</strong>:</p>
<p>Alternatively it could be called <strong>AI/CG (computer graphics) impressionism</strong>, distinguishing them from formal impressionism, since these 'impressions' differ considerably in quality from human impressions, based, as they are, on <em>generalized existing interpretations</em>, not on (human) sight.<br />
Since not paint but something akin to a clone-brush is being used by these AIs, these 'impressions' not only depart from another type/model of knowledge, but also are expressed through other means.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-07T21:51:05.930Z
The AI could be trained to create in a specific style, then the result would fit that style. But this type of application results from being trained on many styles (or simply illustrations or photos). The AI doesn't have a concept of why/how humans perceive certain styles. It produces a composite of elements of different styles. The result can look eerily similar to human creations or distort things in ways that appear like strange noise or comical exaggeration to human senses. (cont'd)
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-07T21:51:11.097Z
In general, some AI art can look odd, not like something a person would create, or extremely complex and too perfect for people to have created by hand. For that, "AI style" is probably a good fit. This example, I wouldn't credit AI with inventing its style. I think you're right that it resembles what people produce with CG, claymation, etc. Does that have a style name?
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-07T22:59:44.833Z
@fixer1234 Well, that is just a medium, and with my limited exposure to art made that way I see no resemblance to anything specific. Hence my question to the OP: why presume it has a style, as not everything does. And it was certainly not my intention to make it seem I credit the AI with inventing a style - I think it might be exactly that lack of style or an eclecticism that would characterize it (too early to tell, perhaps). But maybe that all is an answer in itself :)
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-08T16:06:43.200Z
But what the AI is doing is making a digest of many many _human_ artworks, so that is where any style would originate. So if by AI style you mean a mashup of different established styles then maybe... but really it is not saying anything, since the next AI style work could have a totally different style depending on which human works it is referencing.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-08T17:13:16.743Z
Treat the AI like any other creator. Then what happens?
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-09T09:37:43.750Z
@rebusB Yes, I think that is kind of the point I'm making as well :)
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-07T14:44:12.650Z
2022-11-07T14:44:12.650Z
Joachim
<p>The art piece itself seems as though it would be a digital illustration of a busy work, specifically cubicle, environment. The cubicles are symmetrical, but the humans are asymmetrical. It leans less to abstraction, and more to a digital illustration.</p>
<p>Elmy replied that it is abstract. Although it has some abstract components in the piece, it still is based in reality, like the fact that it looks like a work style environment. It still is based in reality, at least in the sense of the second description of what abstract art means. I think the image pulls together more than abstraction with objects and shapes.</p>
<p>I would like to point out a key feature is that it has a Lego-style quality to it, or at least in its essence has a similar characteristic to it. I'm also reminded of when I was a child, those little figurines such as the Polly Pocket in the early 1990's. They were little figurines with a body and head that snapped together to create a humanoid doll made of plastic.</p>
<p>This might actually be multiple questions because what art style it is and what artists it most resembles are two entirely different questions.</p>
<p>The thing about AI art is that it comes up with images that have never been created before, based on similar images it has seen before. So unless the software prompts for the artist style so the software can emulate it specifically, there wouldn't be an answer to the question of what artist is similar in style.  For example, &quot;Office cubicle environment made in Lego's in the style of [Blank]&quot; would not be possible.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-20T01:14:45.833Z
For anyone not familiar, Lego mini-figures (https://i.sstatic.net/Ayr6B.png) look very similar to the image in the question. They have become somewhat of a meme in ads and animations. The image in the question could almost be a still image lifted from one of those (they often have a similar exaggerated, cartoonish quality). To me, the style is really similar to many of the "Lego" works, and the artist would be whoever puts those together.
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-07T14:48:22.857Z
I don't think they look anything like Lego (and to a lesser degree PP) figures, though :) They are not similar in shape, they have more [subsurface scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering) than hard plastic (they seem to have been made out of fabric), and, whereas Lego figures have cylindrical heads with a single protrusion on the often covered top, here some have noses or ears. I agree with the rest of your answer, though.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-08T17:12:01.627Z
Actually you got it in the first line. __Digital Illustration__ would be the style. It is the work, not who made it (in this case AI) that defines the style.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-09T09:36:35.810Z
@rebusB But digital illustration is a medium, not a style..
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T20:43:48.137Z
2022-10-20T00:16:42.033Z
2022-10-20T00:16:42.033Z
Lyssagal
<p>I'll venture out and call it <strong>abstract art</strong>.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> gives this definition:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Abstract art uses visual language of shape, form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.<br />
[...]<br />
Abstraction indicates a departure from reality in depiction of imagery in art</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We see a 3-dimensional grid shape and some human-shaped blobs and this image is independent of anything that exists in the real world. Granted, it is much less abstract than most works of human artists. When speaking about &quot;abstract art&quot;, most people think about a level of abstraction that results in only lines or geometric shapes. This AI-created work has a much lower level of abstraction where humans are condensed into an oval torso and a round head with painted-on eyes (comparable to a puppet).</p>
<p>In a way that makes complete sense and reflects how imaging AI works: it is fed with a high number of real world images and is told to <em>abstract</em> new images from the data.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T06:30:56.550Z
All the examples of abstract art I've seen were such abstractions that nothing was similar to the real world (more like an encrypted representation of something). This seems more like cartoonish exaggeration of the real world, with real world objects and people easily recognizable. https://www.imaginated.com/art-glossary/what-is-abstract-art/ might be a better description than Wikipedia's (which could describe a lot of stuff that probably wouldn't be called abstract).
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T06:42:30.510Z
@fixer1234 I honestly thought about mentioning impressionism, because I feel that blurring and pixelating would be a computers equivalent to a humans quick and short brush strokes. But that would imply an intention of the AI to only capture impressions instead of recreating real looking images which I highly doubt is what's going on. And that's the problem with any art style: human painters had an *intention* when creating art, an AI has not.
Elmy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T06:58:27.667Z
Elmy, I checked with my AI on that.  It said AI's do have an intention when creating art but that humans lack the intelligence to understand it.  :-)
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T14:02:45.520Z
Abstract art as a style differs tremendously from abstraction as a characteristic/property. I think you're thinking of the latter here. While impressionists and expressionists abstracted considerably, what we consider now as abstract art proper are paintings of the first half of the 20th century: fauvism, *abstract* expressionism, suprematism, cubism, minimalism. The Wikipedia article seems to somewhat confuse both as well, but the images it displays convey the former a lot better.
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T17:59:15.867Z
I'm going to try to out on a limb, but I 'm not sure if this would be an answer, or an opinion. But the art piece itself seems as though it would be a digital illustration of a busy work, specifically cubicle environment. The cubicles are symmetrical, but the humans are asymmetrical. It also has a Lego quality to it. The thing about ai art, is that it comes up images that have never been created before, based off of similar images it has seen before. So, unless in the text prompt the artist style was requested. There wouldn't be an answer to this question of what artist is similar.
Lyssagal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T18:54:40.087Z
@Lyssagal, you're right, those look like Lego figures.  Lego Art may be the perfect style name.
fixer1234
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-08T17:15:14.720Z
@fixer1234 - I am guessing that was tongue in cheek. If not I would venture to say most people would expect the art to be made of Lego or similar bits to be considered Lego Art style.
rebusB
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T06:02:29.270Z
2022-10-19T13:44:15.180Z
2022-10-19T13:44:15.180Z
Elmy
<p>The image below is made by AI, using Midjourney.</p>
<p>I want to ask what art style this can be considered.<br />
And which famous artist does such an art style resemble?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/NIfbu.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/NIfbu.jpg" alt="MidJourney image showing what seems to be an office scene with many cubicles, some filled with people" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-16T14:25:48.633Z
Hi quarks, is there are reason you think it is a specific style?
Joachim
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-16T17:42:37.873Z
Welcome to Arts & Crafts. The image has a lot of different salient characteristics. It seems like if this does fall into a style, it could fall into a number of different styles depending on what aspect you're focused on. Can you clarify that? Or is the question more, "did the computer invent a new art style or naturally produce something characteristic of XYZ style?"
fixer1234
<style-identification>
What is this art style?
quarks
# What is this art style?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-16)

The image below is made by AI, using Midjourney.

I want to ask what art style this can be considered.  
And which famous artist does such an art style resemble?

[![MidJourney image showing what seems to be an office scene with many cubicles, some filled with people](https://i.sstatic.net/NIfbu.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/NIfbu.jpg)

**Tags:** style-identification

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi username_0, is there are reason you think it is a specific style?  
> **username_2**: Welcome to Arts & Crafts. The image has a lot of different salient characteristics. It seems like if this does fall into a style, it could fall into a number of different styles depending on what aspect you're focused on. Can you clarify that? Or is the question more, "did the computer invent a new art style or naturally produce something characteristic of XYZ style?"  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-11-07. Score: 3

A problem with current AI-powered imagery is that, since—based on my limited knowledge of their processes—they *patch* together new images based on a vast database of existing images (generated during AI training), it is hard to properly place these images within existing (art historical) frameworks.

The noise (and probably to a lesser degree the colours and lighting) reminds me of computer renders. It is similar to what DALL-E 2 sometimes does when you query a "render" of something, likely due to it having processed many path-tracing renders which are known for their noise.  
It's too much of an illustration to remind me of a specific artist, though.

Otherwise what comes close is puppet- or stop motion animation, claymation, or similarly hand-made miniature-based scenery.

But both renders and plasticine are mediums, not styles.

Your picture could represent a photograph of a claymation setup, but then the question is whether you're looking for the style of the photo or the style of the scene :)

For now, my—very pedantic—answer would be that it is **AI style**:

Alternatively it could be called **AI/CG (computer graphics) impressionism**, distinguishing them from formal impressionism, since these 'impressions' differ considerably in quality from human impressions, based, as they are, on *generalized existing interpretations*, not on (human) sight.  
Since not paint but something akin to a clone-brush is being used by these AIs, these 'impressions' not only depart from another type/model of knowledge, but also are expressed through other means.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The AI could be trained to create in a specific style, then the result would fit that style. But this type of application results from being trained on many styles (or simply illustrations or photos). The AI doesn't have a concept of why/how humans perceive certain styles. It produces a composite of elements of different styles. The result can look eerily similar to human creations or distort things in ways that appear like strange noise or comical exaggeration to human senses. (cont'd)  
> **username_2**: In general, some AI art can look odd, not like something a person would create, or extremely complex and too perfect for people to have created by hand. For that, "AI style" is probably a good fit. This example, I wouldn't credit AI with inventing its style. I think you're right that it resembles what people produce with CG, claymation, etc. Does that have a style name?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Well, that is just a medium, and with my limited exposure to art made that way I see no resemblance to anything specific. Hence my question to the OP: why presume it has a style, as not everything does. And it was certainly not my intention to make it seem I credit the AI with inventing a style - I think it might be exactly that lack of style or an eclecticism that would characterize it (too early to tell, perhaps). But maybe that all is an answer in itself :)  
> **username_3**: But what the AI is doing is making a digest of many many _human_ artworks, so that is where any style would originate. So if by AI style you mean a mashup of different established styles then maybe... but really it is not saying anything, since the next AI style work could have a totally different style depending on which human works it is referencing.  
> **username_3**: Treat the AI like any other creator. Then what happens?  
> **username_1**: @username_3 Yes, I think that is kind of the point I'm making as well :)  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-10-19. Score: 3

The art piece itself seems as though it would be a digital illustration of a busy work, specifically cubicle, environment. The cubicles are symmetrical, but the humans are asymmetrical. It leans less to abstraction, and more to a digital illustration.

username_5 replied that it is abstract. Although it has some abstract components in the piece, it still is based in reality, like the fact that it looks like a work style environment. It still is based in reality, at least in the sense of the second description of what abstract art means. I think the image pulls together more than abstraction with objects and shapes.

I would like to point out a key feature is that it has a Lego-style quality to it, or at least in its essence has a similar characteristic to it. I'm also reminded of when I was a child, those little figurines such as the Polly Pocket in the early 1990's. They were little figurines with a body and head that snapped together to create a humanoid doll made of plastic.

This might actually be multiple questions because what art style it is and what artists it most resembles are two entirely different questions.

The thing about AI art is that it comes up with images that have never been created before, based on similar images it has seen before. So unless the software prompts for the artist style so the software can emulate it specifically, there wouldn't be an answer to the question of what artist is similar in style. For example, "Office cubicle environment made in Lego's in the style of [Blank]" would not be possible.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: For anyone not familiar, Lego mini-figures (https://i.sstatic.net/Ayr6B.png) look very similar to the image in the question. They have become somewhat of a meme in ads and animations. The image in the question could almost be a still image lifted from one of those (they often have a similar exaggerated, cartoonish quality). To me, the style is really similar to many of the "Lego" works, and the artist would be whoever puts those together.  
> **username_1**: I don't think they look anything like Lego (and to a lesser degree PP) figures, though :) They are not similar in shape, they have more [subsurface scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering) than hard plastic (they seem to have been made out of fabric), and, whereas Lego figures have cylindrical heads with a single protrusion on the often covered top, here some have noses or ears. I agree with the rest of your answer, though.  
> **username_3**: Actually you got it in the first line. __Digital Illustration__ would be the style. It is the work, not who made it (in this case AI) that defines the style.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 But digital illustration is a medium, not a style..  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-10-19. Score: 0

I'll venture out and call it **abstract art**.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art) gives this definition:

> Abstract art uses visual language of shape, form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.  
> [...]  
> Abstraction indicates a departure from reality in depiction of imagery in art

We see a 3-dimensional grid shape and some human-shaped blobs and this image is independent of anything that exists in the real world. Granted, it is much less abstract than most works of human artists. When speaking about "abstract art", most people think about a level of abstraction that results in only lines or geometric shapes. This AI-created work has a much lower level of abstraction where humans are condensed into an oval torso and a round head with painted-on eyes (comparable to a puppet).

In a way that makes complete sense and reflects how imaging AI works: it is fed with a high number of real world images and is told to *abstract* new images from the data.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: All the examples of abstract art I've seen were such abstractions that nothing was similar to the real world (more like an encrypted representation of something). This seems more like cartoonish exaggeration of the real world, with real world objects and people easily recognizable. https://www.imaginated.com/art-glossary/what-is-abstract-art/ might be a better description than Wikipedia's (which could describe a lot of stuff that probably wouldn't be called abstract).  
> **username_5**: @username_2 I honestly thought about mentioning impressionism, because I feel that blurring and pixelating would be a computers equivalent to a humans quick and short brush strokes. But that would imply an intention of the AI to only capture impressions instead of recreating real looking images which I highly doubt is what's going on. And that's the problem with any art style: human painters had an *intention* when creating art, an AI has not.  
> **username_2**: username_5, I checked with my AI on that.  It said AI's do have an intention when creating art but that humans lack the intelligence to understand it.  :-)  
> **username_1**: Abstract art as a style differs tremendously from abstraction as a characteristic/property. I think you're thinking of the latter here. While impressionists and expressionists abstracted considerably, what we consider now as abstract art proper are paintings of the first half of the 20th century: fauvism, *abstract* expressionism, suprematism, cubism, minimalism. The Wikipedia article seems to somewhat confuse both as well, but the images it displays convey the former a lot better.  
> **username_4**: I'm going to try to out on a limb, but I 'm not sure if this would be an answer, or an opinion. But the art piece itself seems as though it would be a digital illustration of a busy work, specifically cubicle environment. The cubicles are symmetrical, but the humans are asymmetrical. It also has a Lego quality to it. The thing about ai art, is that it comes up images that have never been created before, based off of similar images it has seen before. So, unless in the text prompt the artist style was requested. There wouldn't be an answer to this question of what artist is similar.  
> **username_2**: @username_4, you're right, those look like Lego figures.  Lego Art may be the perfect style name.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 - I am guessing that was tongue in cheek. If not I would venture to say most people would expect the art to be made of Lego or similar bits to be considered Lego Art style.  

---

