One topic that has been at the forefront of my thinking as I have delved into the relatively new world of AI (Artificial Intelligence) generated art is the big question – “Is it really art?” Let’s take a look.
First, we should consider my use of “relatively new” in the previous paragraph. I say this because, for many years, I have been using image editors and other tools to alter and enhance photographs and other images. Think airbrushing, image filters, and even CGI (computer-generated imagery), which have been a staple of movies for years. However, the new crop of AI tools is undoubtedly different.
Imagine a world where computers can make paintings or pictures—well, we’re already there! This is all thanks to AI. It’s like teaching a computer how to think and make stuff up, including art. But this has got people asking a big question: When AI makes a picture, can we call it real art?
Some are all for it. They say that making art is about trying new things and making choices, no matter if it’s a person or a computer doing it. Think of AI as just a fancy pen or camera. It’s a new tool for making art. Plus, it’s pretty cool that even if you’re not good at drawing or painting, AI lets you get creative and make something unique.
Also, AI can surprise us by making things that might not have popped into a human brain. It’s like adding a new flavour to the world of art that we’ve never tasted before.
But not everyone’s on board. There’s a side that’s not too keen on calling AI work ‘art’. They reckon that real art comes from people having feelings and thoughts, which AI doesn’t have. It’s all about the human touch, something special that a computer can’t copy, at least for now.
Then there’s the tricky bit about right and wrong. AI uses loads of pictures made by people to learn how to make its “stuff”. Is that fair? And who should get the credit for the art it makes—the person who built the AI, the one who asked it to make something, or no one at all?
In the business world, AI art stirs things up, too. It’s cheap and quick, which might make life challenging for artists trying to sell their work. And when it comes to the price tag of art, people care a lot about where it came from and who made it. With AI art, that’s all a bit fuzzy.
Who gets to say who owns AI art is another head-scratcher. It’s a big question for the folks who make laws and the ones who sell art.
This whole debate isn’t just small talk for art nerds. It’s a big deal for all of us living in a time when computers are getting really smart. How we answer these questions could change not just art, but how we think about what’s creative and fair.
From my perspective, there’s no right or wrong. For people like me with no training and few skills in traditional art creation, AI tools give me the opportunity to experiment with my creativity. I imagine what I want to create and use the tools to achieve that ambition. That’s why I am trying out some of the software behind the inline text-to-image sites. That way, I can have maximum input to the creative process rather than feed in a description and accept the result.
I also try to make clear that my artwork is AI-generated. Passing off generated photos as real or claiming to have created artwork manually when it is AI-generated is wrong. There are a number of disclaimers for AI-generated content emerging. I would consider including one on this site if I find one that works for me.
For me, this is as much about the technology, which, as a geek, I find exciting and interesting to explore. The genie is out of the bottle, and we need to find a way to use it productively and creatively. It should be thought of as adding to the pool of creativity and not replacing any of it.
So, as we’re figuring this out, everyone’s part of the conversation. What do you reckon—is a computer-made picture as good as one made by a person? The story’s still going, and everyone’s got a part to play in how it’ll end.