AI Art and the End of Creativity
Midjourney AI Art based on prompt: The end of creativity, uhd, hdr, 8k
Except, not really…
AI art via tools like Midjourney have hit their stride, it appears. High quality renders of beautiful character concepts, sprawling landscapes of imaginary worlds, and cover art that hits the exact beats the artist is looking for.
Hm? Yeah, I said artist. And I mean the person inputting the prompts.
Before you light your computer on fire and walk away, bear with me. I’d rather not keep arguing these points for the next three days as well, so keep calm and carry on.
Every New Tech Leap Causes Chaos and Dissent
I’m old enough to remember when Photoshop came out in the 90s. I fell in love with it during high school art class — where else could you sit down for an hour and have a complete painting or piece of work? What methodology could match LAYERS? I mean, digital layers were an artistic revolution that, I assume, came from that non-art form called animation (at least that’s what people said prior to 2000).
EVERYONE started screaming that digital art wasn’t real art. That it was fake, cheating, and, best of all, eroded the public trust:
‘Digital photofakery is likely to be pernicious also, in the long run, to the continued good will of photography’s audience. Photography and the public have an unusual compact. “The camera does not lie” is a proposition that most of us know to be false yet we half believe anyway. This is a dynamic unique in the arts. The “willing suspension of disbelief” that Coleridge detected at the heart of poetic faith becomes in photographic faith a nearly automatic suspension. Once betrayed, this sort of uncomplicated belief goes quickly past willing to unwilling.’ — Excerpt from “Photography in the Age of Falsification,” May 1998.
Were they right? Kind of. But it didn’t bring about a mass exodus from creating art. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true. Photoshop, in a way, democratized the visual arts. Suddenly, anyone could pay $500 and paint to excess. No more expensive paints, no canvases and storage space for your new paintings. Just sheer, unmitigated joy that ushered in a new era of visual artists.
Now, we have CGI that can’t be differentiated from real life, games that flow more smoothly than any movie, and a new baseline standard for quality and mod-ability.
Maybe I had more exposure to this than the average non-artist as I went to Alfred University, a Fine Arts school known for its Ceramics program. Half the school population was enrolled there, which meant half of them spent their times locked in studios reeking of clay dust and manufacturing basement.
That also meant I had the chance to watch firsthand as artists tried to move into the digital art space, only to get smacked back down with phrases like “digital drawing isn’t art.” If I remember correctly, there wasn’t a proper Graphic Design class or studio on campus until ~2003. It just wasn’t taken seriously.
Look at the world now. The shortsightedness is crazy with hindsight.
I don’t see AI-generated as any different. We’re in the midst of a technological leap of at least the same scale as Photoshop.
Change is coming whether we want it to or not. History shows us that in no uncertain terms. Every time there’s a tech leap, people rail against it. ArtistHue has an interesting “History of Photography” article that’s worth reading. Here’s one of the highlights that stood out to me:
1700 — Camera obscura devices become increasingly common. Artist like Rembrandt, Vermeer and Caravaggio used the camera obscura. Those are some of my favorite artists and it is explaining how they could capture such level and realistic facial feature.
It had opened my eyes as an aspiring artist to the idea of tracing and that one may argue as cheating and one may say only a tool, the person who cannot draw, that will not help to achieve any great results in the artwork itself.
Sounds like the introduction of layers to me.
Ultimately, it’s the same arguments by new people. Yes, these are folks who have worked HARD to carve out their niche. I am not faulting their disappointment or frustration. I get that — I’ve been made obsolete in the past, I can understand feeling like that.
However, this is not the same as when Apple discontinued Mac OS X Server after I spent years specializing in the platform. These artists are still masters of their fields. They can create wonders from nothing and share and sell them however they want, just like I was able to pivot to Linux servers.
The smart thing would be to leverage the tool to help your productivity or to narrow in on a concept you just can’t visualize for whatever reason. Perhaps maybe just to test color combinations and styles.
But don’t pretend it doesn’t exist or that it’ll go away.
It won’t.
So, what about the artists?
Adapt. Utilize. And excel.
Those that don’t will scream about it into their graves.
Those that do will be fine.
This is not a technology that is going to get stuffed back into obscurity. The genie is already out, so to speak.
When it gets good enough to mimic my writing, I definitely plan on using it to draft chunks of text. There will be a TON of editing to make it uniquely me, but I reject the idea of ignoring new tech because it shakes up the old order.
The best we can do is be picky about where we do our AI art. Find a place with solid data training policies, make sure they’re being legit about not using copyrighted work, and do your best to make sure your own work is unique enough (Google image search).
Also, don’t be afraid to email these companies when their public documents aren’t clear. I currently have an email in to sudowrite.com waiting for confirmation of their content library original sources and license agreements on generated content. (UPDATE: Generated content is owned by the person who owns the subscription. See here for details.)
I’m not arguing for using every tool willy-nilly. Some are garbage, some definitely just scraped the internet for art regardless of copyright status, and some are just tools being used to harvest Face ID information.
Be smart about your choices. Be thoughtful.
We’re not trying to turn this place into a full on dystopia, after all.
Midjourney AI Art based on prompt: chaos and dissent, uhd, hdr, 8k
Two personal suggestions. First, when using artist styles to render anything, go out of your way to link to the inspiring author and show people how to buy those artists’ work. Second, avoid using artist styles for anything you plan to commercialize. That’s riffing off someone’s name and, in my opinion, that’s when you start owing people money. It’s not legally necessary, but it’s the right thing to do.
Ultimately, art is an expression of you. Of your life, your story, and the lessons and tales you wish to tell. How you do that is up to you and the tools you use to achieve that. Yes, the AI may render your thoughts, but they’re doing it based on your prompts, your photos, your variations and fine tunings.
A Prediction
Every time something like this happens, we go through an adjustment period after new tools start getting attention in the mainstream.
Right around then is when the people in that field who are going to be impacted start panicking and screaming. What follows is a societal ripple that results in new guidelines, laws, and societal expectations.
But what doesn’t happen is an elimination of these tools. I give it until 2030 at the latest before we can’t imagine a time when AI-generated art wasn’t the norm.
The best thing we can do is learn the tools, demand they behave in a legally and morally positive way, and adapt.
After all, we’re humans. It’s what we do.
Why stop now?
Originally published on Medium: https://mikewyantjr.medium.com/ai-art-and-the-end-of-creativity-21d470693b57
