People assure me AI art is “soulless,” that unlike human artists AI can’t be “original.” It can only copy. This reflects a widespread misunderstanding of how human artists work: we copy, and there’s no such thing as “original.” I understood this 16 years ago.
We draw from more or less the same pool of culture that AI does, only our pools are necessarily smaller as humans simply don’t have the capacity for exposure to as much stuff. No matter, because all works carry the influences and language — be it verbal, visual, or musical — as the works around them. You don’t need to see every painting to get the styles and grammar of its time and place, just as you don’t need to hear every English speaker alive to learn English. But AI can read, see, and hear vastly more cultural artifacts than any individual artist can, making it capable of a much broader stylistic range.
All creative work is derivative. AI simply derives faster and better than humans.
What about Intention? The intention comes from the human prompter. All that AI art is prompted by someone; that’s its intention. Is that its Soul? No, its soul is the soul of human culture, that vast pool of source material it draws from and imitates. The same one humans draw from and imitate. Humans aren’t individual geniuses, we are imitators. Our “genius” lies in our shared* culture, and our skill in copying.
This is why I don’t hate AI, but marvel as it shakes the ground beneath my feet and blows apart my orientation to culture and my fellow human beings. Those who hate it believe in the myth of originality and think copying is theft. They were delusional 16 years ago when I freed Sita Sings the Blues, and they’re delusional now. Delusionality is part of shared human culture too, and AI will imitate, remix, and regurgitate it just like we do, only much faster and more efficiently.
And, perhaps admirably, without the ego.
*Shared despite countless delusional egos insisting it’s private property. Fools.
I generally agree. What program are you currently using?
I can’t stop thinking of how people thought that pianolas (and jukeboxes) would put musicians out of business, too. And it turns out that decades later, people kept playing piano and people kept listening to other people play piano because amazingly enough, people continue to like doing things and watching and hearing other people do things. I don’t care if there’s a computer somewhere that can do a jigsaw puzzle faster than me. It can’t ENJOY doing it for me.
We’ll be okay; the definition of what counts as “okay” will change.
There is a human component to art, the ideas come through the artist’s muse. A computer program doesn’t have a muse, so it has to rely on the human prompts, then turn itself into a mechanical assistant to bring the idea to life in painting.
Have you noticed that the light source in AI is generally left-to-right?
As long as the light source is consistent, any number of made-to-order elements (in the same style) can be slapped together seemingly seamlessly.
Take a look at your two example pictures: would it make a difference in your judgment of them if you were told that these were just clip art – not “created” by a computer?
Your argument is fallacious. It’s true that AI is capable of digesting a larger mass of artwork in a very short time. But it does so indiscriminately, without any criteria of quality or relevance. Because it doesn’t understand them. The human being is influenced by a smaller number of works of art, works of art that are more or less significant depending on the meaning the human being gives them. This meaning is linked to personal, family and community history. This meaning is linked to the story each of us builds to give meaning to our lives. In short, this accumulation of influence is unique to each human being. Today’s artificial intelligence tends to standardize the works it produces. They are commonplace wherever you are in the world. The images that illustrate your post are a good example.
You say “We draw from more or less the same pool of culture that AI does”. I don’t. My background is different from yours because I’m not American. My mother tongue is not English. Despite the imperialism and hegemony of American culture, human cultures are still multiple. How many Quebec visual artists do you know?
Moreover, AI is only based on digitized works of art. Do you think all the art in the world is online? I have the impression that we always see the same works on the Web (Girl with a Pearl Earring and so on). I’ve been influenced by artworks that can only be found in museum halls, by works I’ve seen while travelling in countries where the Internet is underdeveloped, by the zines we exchange. My greatest influence remains what I see of reality. Observational drawing was part of my training. And when I draw, I’m not only inspired by visual works, I’m also inspired by Quebec literature, music and cinema.
Thank you for your article, a little provocative, but it helped me to deepen my thinking. I note that you don’t address the environmental issue. AI uses obscene amounts of energy while the world burns.