The robots are coming for our Art. Artists are losing their ability to make a living and we will all be poorer financially and creatively for it. I have been trying to ignore Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Art. Don’t get me wrong. In its place, AI can be very useful. I am aware that as I mistype this text, my computer is offering up corrections. That’s an example of AI. The human element, however, is vital to decide whether to accept the suggested changes or not.
So What’s the Problem?
The type of AI I am concerned with here is something called Generative AI. It is based on deep-learning models that can generate high-quality text, images, and other content based on data (which can be text, numbers and or images) they were “trained” on. The supposed promise of generative AI is that it will generate the image in your imagination if you can describe it. Although, it may take a few goes to find a version that you like.
The thing is that I don’t like it. It doesn’t matter if they are AI “paintings”, illustrations, cartoons or photographs. I find them a bit unnatural and creepy. Many people describe these images as soulless.
One of the joys of being an artist is creating something from nothing. Well, not nothing exactly but being inspired by an idea, a view or a scene and drawing, painting or photographing to make something that did not exist before. The process is an act of creation, from noticing a particular colour or light, composing the layout of the work to the execution of the piece. The landscapes I paint mean something to me; they capture a place, a feeling or a time. I hope they mean a lot to the people who buy them too.
The problem I have with AI generated Art is that it is automated Art. It has no meaning. Work generated by AI isn’t novel. It’s banal—or worst of all, in the art world—derivative.
I know, someone will say: “Good Artists Copy: Great Artists Steal”. I am not sure who said this first. A lot of people are credited with saying it including Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, T.S. Eliot and Igor Stravinsky.The difference is that those artists were inspired by what had gone before and gave it their own interpretation. Picasso’s later work only makes sense in the context of the African sculptures that inspired him. Picasso, however, was a very skilled draughtsman and supremely confident painter and you can see from the images below that he was not merely copying the sculptures but had imbibed, digested and reformulated their essence in his own way.
Compare Picaso’s work with an AI version:
These AI generated images (above ), however, are pale imitations and are quite “dead” in comparison to Picasso’s work. They come from a site called artvy.ai which specialises in generating art in the style of named artists. They include a disclaimer that their images are meant to “provide inspiration” and not be “replicas of the artists’ work”. This is significant as the AI Art companies say this to avoid being sued for copyright infringement. These images also miss the physicality of real world art – the actual texture of the paint and the surfaces. An AI version of Jackson Pollock or Claude Monet just doesn’t cut it for me; without the texture of the paint they have had their spirit removed.
Some commentators see this use of others’ work as inspiration for new work by humans as broadly analogous to what AI art does. Yes, there are artists who use AI art in their own creations as a means or tool to create meaning. American artist Eric Millikin is one such artist, he uses AI in an interesting and genuine creative manner as one of many tools. That’s different. Whether he owns the copyright to this work, however, is a grey area. People who create work using AI do not own the copyright. Most jurisdictions, including Spain and Germany, state that only works created by a human can be protected by copyright.
The problem is that AI Art is getting better and they are using living artists’ work to improve. In doing this, they are killing off thousands of jobs, such as illustrators, cartoonists and designers. AI companies are not going to compensate those people. It will also put young people off from going to art school. Artists will have to give up Art as they can’t make a living at it. Why bother spending years honing your skills and unique style if AI can do it better and faster? Why bother taking 10-20 years learning colour theory and anatomy if AI is just going to rip off your work in seconds?
Jon Stewart – a bit sweary but very funny take on AI
Writers face the same issue and the Authors Guild in the US is involved in a similar (or possibly the same–I’m not sure) lawsuit. The problem, though, lies slightly outside current copyright laws, and a narrow interpretation of them won’t protect us. New laws are needed but won’t un-scrape what’s already been scraped from the internet. I love the idea of programs that protect an artist’s work and wish we could do the same with words.
I’ve been tempted to ask an AI program to write something in my style, just to see what it does and what I look like when I’m not me, but something about doing that goes against the grain and I draw back each time. It seems to be a line I won’t cross.
I thought about having a go at making some AI Art but I couldn’t face it.
I can understand that. The New Yorker ran a short story that someone had written by prompting an AI bot. It was bizarre. Interesting, but very, very strange.
That’s a bit like some of the AI Art that’s not a rip -off of some named artists’ work. Sort of other worldly and wierd.
That’s very interesting. I have heard Amazon is flooded with fake books using real authors names with AI content that is essentially gibberish. Their way of dealing with it is to limit people to “only” self-publishing three books a day! Yeah, that will sort the problem.
There are all sorts of issues such as telling fake from real, people ripping off your style and killing creativity (as well as your livelihood). I have had an artist tell me that she can upload an image of one of my Donegal paintings and ask the Adobe AI to generate a “new” image of a Donegal scene in my style. They charge 80 Euros for this. I get nothing and they get the ordinary person to do their dirty work for them.
Social Media platforms and now AI have pretty much killed off local news which is a massive loss for local democracy. Authors’ copyright needs to be protected, the BBC and the NYT have managed it somehow. Legislation needs to be brought in to tax these companies (that’s a joke they pay next to nothing now) and they should fund local journalism/arts/authors etc. In the mean time we get poorer, people buy shoddy product and al the money vanishes into an off shore account where it does no one any good. I would spend the money in my local economy, as would you.
I could rant and rant on and on about this, Ellen, so I better stop there.
All true. And I expect a lot of people won’t notice that light gradually dimming in the “art” that’s available to them as AI makes more and more of it, until somehow, surprisingly, it just doesn’t interest them anymore and they wonder where it’s gone.
Bit like music then.
It’s a pity, regarding DeviantArt. I used to stick my head in there from time to time. There used to be some interesting. Stuff. Now I don’t know what it is.
and that Brendan is the really problem with AI – we dont know what is human-made and what is AI-made. What am I looking at? Should I be impressed or let my attention pass on to something else? That goes for looking at Art online (in real life I would hope you could tell from the surface of the painting) to deciding facts and videos are real or not. It’s already difficult but its going to become impossible unless government legislate now. We are increasingly swammed in junk AI-articles online. Deep fakes will confuse and sour our politics (even more, than they already are, I mean).
Great article, Emma. I can only hope that the essence of human touch in texture and finish of paintings remains valuable to people. Generative AI is going to affect so many jobs, I think we’re in for a lot of changes…
I agree Katherine, texture and finish will be important and sharing the process. I had assumed that photography hadn’t killed of painting so I hoped AI wouldn’t either. Time will tell, I guess.
Fake is the new real.
It will be hard to tell the difference. We are charging into dangerous territory.