GANfield: ai-generated Garfield

Originally published at:


Spotted the comment about second 26? These adversarial networks, eh?


The motion reminds me of a lava lamp, or those falling-sand picture thingies.

1 Like

0:26 isn’t the only commentary lurking in the video—there’s also this at 0:49

Anyway, this is by far the best use of Garfield I’ve seen in a long time!


Don’t let yourself believe for one moment an AI generated that commentary. Both 0:26 and 0:49 don’t track with the rest of the frame. It’s just a video edit.

I dunno, that kind of thing irks me and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiment. Don’t adulterate the result of the algorithm with your own bullshit.

We know. @Richard_Kirk was making a joke. Nobody here believes the commentary to be AI-generated.

The edits aren’t adulterating the output of the algorithm anymore than the music is: this is meant to be a music video, an artistic creation, that uses the algorithm’s output as one component.

Sure, you can consider the addition of sugar and flour to eggs to be a corruption of the eggs’ purity, or you can choose to see it as someone making a pastry.


Yep. I stopped the frame and it is obviously a rectangle dropped onto the image. I had thought they might have scraped Garfield images from the internet and picked up this with them, just as they might find Charlie Brown with a speech bubble saying “what the f…”. But no.

I don’t think whoever did this has violated the purity of the medium, but I am reminded of John Ganfield’s 1970 book “The Müller-Fokker Effect” : if you are saying that it is AI and you find out it is not, then what’s the point? Okay, much art is finding out what the rules are, if only to lampoon them or chuck them out. My personal guess is that the person who generated this wanted to sign their work somehow.

It’s fine either way, for what my opinion is worth, but it could have been done more subtle.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.