Three weeks ago, a U.S. appeals court ruled that there shouldn’t be a way to copyright AI images, because there is “no human creator.” Most criticism of AI art is some version of this argument — that a machine is making the art, and the human is just observing.
Photography was met with the same critique in the late 19th century from artists, art critics and art institutions. Baudelaire called photography "the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies."
Of course, today photography is considered high art, although American art institutions only started collecting and canonizing photography about 100 years ago. Photography as an art form is just a blink of an eye when compared to the long history of sculpture and painting. Baudelaire’s suggestion that photography is not art because art requires a certain amount of effort, and a certain type of effort, seems ridiculous now, although that’s what critics of AI art are saying, too.
How does Baudelaire’s idea of “effort” define “art”? First, the amount of effort measured in time — how much time do you need to make a piece of art? An hour? Five hours? Five days? Five years? Van Gogh was an incredibly fast painter; he often finished a painting in one day. So, maybe it’s not the amount of effort, but the type: a skilled effort, an educated effort, a talented effort. Van Gogh was also self-taught, so not necessarily educated from Baudelaire’s snobby point of view. But Van Gogh was certainly skilled and talented.
So if skill and talent become our measuring sticks, why can’t AI art be art? Does skill no longer exist when you use Midjourney or Stable Diffusion? If you’ve ever tried to use these AI tools, I’m sure you understood pretty quickly that it takes time to develop enough mastery with them to be able to express yourself artistically.
Having studied oil painting and created art using Stable Diffusion, I do think it’s fair to say that painting takes more effort in terms of both time and skill. But I don’t think my painting is more artistic than my AI images. What I learned by making traditional art I am now using in my digital art. And for me, the digital tools encourage creativity.
When I was painting, it took an hour just to set up and clean, plus hours of painting and classes. I was not making a living as an artist, so I had to rouse myself to do the work after my paying work was done or on the weekend. It just wasn’t sustainable for me, a regular person with regular responsibilities. My AI images take hours, not weeks, and I get to jump right into the making. There is still a lot of failure and frustration, but for me, more reward.
AI tools make art-making available to everyone, not just students, people with a lot of money, or those wonderful, dedicated, special souls who are willing to starve for their art. AI art generators give people access to making art, and more access means more voices.
There’s lots more to say about this, and I will. But I’d like to hear your thoughts too. Please like, comment, subscribe and all the rest.
I value this, but am conflicted on the general argument. Regardless, consider it ‘liked’.
very interesting. I also have that creative side and agree that AI art can actually induce MORE creativity.