AI in art

[Sun_Worshiper]

I came across this video today of the rapper Lupe Fiasco using AI to create a song:

How do you feel about art going in this direction?

[AJ_Katz]

In all aspects of art and creation, there are different tools that someone can use.  To me, A.I. is just another tool.  There will always be people that are purists that report they are "tool free" in their creative approach and it will be their calling card. People in woodworking are a good example – handtool nerds vs. powertool junkies.  There will always be people willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to create their work and call it their own.  Hopefully we will see a culture of disclosure emerge, where people own up to what is authentically their own creation and what is created using tools like A.I.  But I give it 10 years before all that fades away and it's almost all A.I. inspired work.

More specifically on the influence of A.I. on music - I feel like big data, giant companies, and auto-tuning have already removed nearly all of the authenticity from the mainstream music industry already, so A.I. is only incrementally worse than where we've already arrived at.  If anything, maybe it could make better music?  Who knows.  I don't think any one of us can stop it.   

[Sun_Worshiper]

In all aspects of art and creation, there are different tools that someone can use.  To me, A.I. is just another tool.  There will always be people that are purists that report they are "tool free" in their creative approach and it will be their calling card. People in woodworking are a good example – handtool nerds vs. powertool junkies.  There will always be people willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to create their work and call it their own.  Hopefully we will see a culture of disclosure emerge, where people own up to what is authentically their own creation and what is created using tools like A.I.  But I give it 10 years before all that fades away and it's almost all A.I. inspired work.

More specifically on the influence of A.I. on music - I feel like big data, giant companies, and auto-tuning have already removed nearly all of the authenticity from the mainstream music industry already, so A.I. is only incrementally worse than where we've already arrived at.  If anything, maybe it could make better music?  Who knows.  I don't think any one of us can stop it.   

I agree to a point. This video is really neat and shows how a real artist can use AI in a transparent and creative way to produce something novel.

What I do worry about is record companies, movie studios, and book and magazine publishers cutting out the artists completely in favor of AI tools to create cheap and soulless content.

[Larimar]

In all aspects of art and creation, there are different tools that someone can use.  To me, A.I. is just another tool.  There will always be people that are purists that report they are "tool free" in their creative approach and it will be their calling card. People in woodworking are a good example – handtool nerds vs. powertool junkies.  There will always be people willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to create their work and call it their own.  Hopefully we will see a culture of disclosure emerge, where people own up to what is authentically their own creation and what is created using tools like A.I.  But I give it 10 years before all that fades away and it's almost all A.I. inspired work.

More specifically on the influence of A.I. on music - I feel like big data, giant companies, and auto-tuning have already removed nearly all of the authenticity from the mainstream music industry already, so A.I. is only incrementally worse than where we've already arrived at.  If anything, maybe it could make better music?  Who knows.  I don't think any one of us can stop it.   

I agree to a point. This video is really neat and shows how a real artist can use AI in a transparent and creative way to produce something novel.

What I do worry about is record companies, movie studios, and book and magazine publishers cutting out the artists completely in favor of AI tools to create cheap and soulless content.

That's my concern too. Business already treats artists in all media like dirt except for the few elite who become celebrities, and those get exploited even as they're indulged. Now with AI, artists might get treated as somewhere between irrelevant and nonexistent. It's probably starting to happen already.

[Kron3007]

I understand why artists are up in arms, but if AI generates good art for cheaper, it is a losing battle. I have some painter friends who rage against it and accuse it of plagiarism, but it really isn't.  I feel painting will simply become a hobby that no longer supports people professionally (or even fewer).  Sucks for painters, but it is the way of technology.  Not many people making a living with ancient carpentry methods these days either.

I feel musicians need to adjust by shifting back to live performances being their differentiator.  Of course, with ticket prices these days and the issues around that, it could be easier said than done.

[Larimar]

I will never buy AI art.

And I refuse to be replaced by AI as a poet and novelist.

Technology should not be allowed to usurp the human soul. Neither should money.

[Kron3007]

I will never buy AI art.

And I refuse to be replaced by AI as a poet and novelist.

Technology should not be allowed to usurp the human soul. Neither should money.

Portrait painters probably didn't want to be replaced by photographs either, but here we are ...

[Parasaurolophus]

I will never buy AI art.

And I refuse to be replaced by AI as a poet and novelist.

Technology should not be allowed to usurp the human soul. Neither should money.

Portrait painters probably didn't want to be replaced by photographs either, but here we are ...

I don't think they were, really. The market for painted portraits was always limited to those rich enough both to pay for them, and to have the free time to sit for them. And those people still commission portraits.

Photography just made portraits more readily available to a wider class of people (eventually; the early days were a bit of a weird time).

[apl68]

Photography and widely-available commercial prints put a lot of minor portraitists and folk artists out of business.  A number of local folk-art traditions went into decline in the nineteenth century as these cheaper forms of reproduction proliferated.  It was the artists working for a higher-end clientele who were able to stay in business.

[Kron3007]

Ok, portrait painting could be a flawed analogy, but photography in general has transformed the painting world.  I would argue for the better, for the reasons of accessibility mentioned.

This is just one of many examples though.  All sorts of handcrafts and works are now largely automated and more accessable.

Regarding art, in some cases I feel it is similar.  I have little innate artistic ability, but have ideas of things I would like to create and use.  I could not afford to pay someone to create them, but  Dall-e-2 (for example) has enabled me to make some cool images that I can use for whatever purpose.  It has really made the creation of art more accessible.  Why should the pursuit of art be limited to those who have innate ability when there are tools that can overcome this limitation?

As photography has enabled all of us to capture images, this next phase of technology is enabling us to create novel materials.

I probably wouldn't be thrilled about this if I were a professional artist or graphic designer, but I am not and appreciate how this allows me to overcome this.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

[Larimar]

I am all for making the arts accessible. Not, however, by means that make art untenable for artists.

Cameras and design software like InDesign and its ilk are tools that can help people, both amateur and professional artists, create art. That's perfectly fine in my book. However, AI taking over and doing the project and replacing a professional artist at the helm, I see as a problem.

[downer]

How about the use of AI in commercial design and illustration? Presumably that is already happening a lot, and will just happen more.

Also in animation -- it's largely done by computer programs, right?

Commerical music for movies, tv shows, and video games could be very affected by AI.

For high art, if there is such a thing any more, it's all about galleries, agents, art shows, investors, and self-promotion. It's basically an area for the rich. They will presumably continue to invest their money in artists. That may not be quite the same as for contemporary "classical" music but audiences still want to attend the work of composers.

For popular music, there's still a lot of weight put on personality, authenticity and drawing on experience. I don't see the general public getting hooked to the work of AI. Of course, the artists might use AI to compose their songs.

[Larimar]

How about the use of AI in commercial design and illustration? Presumably that is already happening a lot, and will just happen more.

Also in animation -- it's largely done by computer programs, right?

Commerical music for movies, tv shows, and video games could be very affected by AI.

For high art, if there is such a thing any more, it's all about galleries, agents, art shows, investors, and self-promotion. It's basically an area for the rich. They will presumably continue to invest their money in artists. That may not be quite the same as for contemporary "classical" music but audiences still want to attend the work of composers.

For popular music, there's still a lot of weight put on personality, authenticity and drawing on experience. I don't see the general public getting hooked to the work of AI. Of course, the artists might use AI to compose their songs.

As long as the AI in those contexts is not creating the art without the artists and cutting them out of the process, I can live with it. I just believe AI should not replace people.

[downer]

How about the use of AI in commercial design and illustration? Presumably that is already happening a lot, and will just happen more.

Also in animation -- it's largely done by computer programs, right?

Commerical music for movies, tv shows, and video games could be very affected by AI.

For high art, if there is such a thing any more, it's all about galleries, agents, art shows, investors, and self-promotion. It's basically an area for the rich. They will presumably continue to invest their money in artists. That may not be quite the same as for contemporary "classical" music but audiences still want to attend the work of composers.

For popular music, there's still a lot of weight put on personality, authenticity and drawing on experience. I don't see the general public getting hooked to the work of AI. Of course, the artists might use AI to compose their songs.

As long as the AI in those contexts is not creating the art without the artists and cutting them out of the process, I can live with it. I just believe AI should not replace people.

I suspect you are in for some disappointment then.

[ab_grp]

I was just listening to a Cautionary Tales episode talking about the extent to which Andy Warhol actually contributed to much of "his" art.  Not much or at all, in some cases! They brought up other types of provenance such as "circles" of artists or from "the studio of" (or "in the manner of") artists in history and the categorizations of art authenticity used by auction houses.  It was all pretty interesting, and I was expecting the path to lead to a discussion of AI in generation of art, but there was barely a glance at it.  When I think of this topic, I am also reminded of the book The Emperor's Soul, which brings up the idea of what makes art valuable.  Is it the artist? Is it that the artist completed the piece from start to finish? Did some of it? Inspired it? Conceived of it? Or is it the art itself? The technique? The execution? How novel or clever or representative of the times it was? Is a perfect copy as valuable? If not, then maybe the artist (or the scarcity) is the important factor.  Of course, I guess I'd also have to define what I mean by value.  And I think there's a difference in perspective of value between the artist and the consumer (not just how much it's worth, but value in authorship or creatorship for the artist as well). 

All of this to say that I guess I sort of see AI art generation as somewhere on a spectrum.  I am not an artist, but I don't think it's okay for AI to be used in place of an artist without their consent (but I also don't think it's okay for, e.g., people other than Warhol to create "Warhol" art with his consent).  At the same time, I don't know that I could really distinguish between the original or a knock off in most cases and am glad to have access to quality replicas (with the artist's consent).  I think this is a really interesting topic in the abstract so am glad to be able to read about it from multiple perspectives here, and I can appreciate that the topic is not at all abstract for some.