Is AI Artwork 'Real Art'?
Not that we'll settle this debate, but it's still a worthwhile discussion.
I post a lot of AI artwork that I come up with to my Facebook page (and some also to this newsletter) and my Instagram page. Occasionally I’ll post some of it on Twitter/X. Mostly I post to Facebook, however, where I have the most active followers (thanks y’all!) and have sort of established a near-daily routine of mixing up my writing with this artwork—or “artwork” depending on how you view AI, which is divisive to say the least.
Mostly, I get a lot of positive feedback. Sometimes, I get people who are very angry or dismissive or who simply stop following me because they find AI art so offensive, which I understand, though I have not profited off any of this and do find major corporations using AI artwork instead of paying artists to be rather greedy and lazy.
That being said, I think I come up with some pretty good stuff! I’ve made it a pretty obsessive hobby of mine and images like the one above—of a sleeping troll inspired by the Pathfinder campaign I’m playing with some friends at the moment—I think turned out really neat! I certainly love that I have the ability to instantly visualize the troll from our campaign. Nor do I believe it’s somehow put an artist out of work, as I never would have commissioned a piece of art for that purpose—though, if I were writing my own RPG and publishing a book for money, I’d pay actual artists to come up with the artwork.1
A troll napping in a witch’s lair might have been done before, but it’s likely never been done quite like the image above. And yes, the AI combs the vast trove of images out there and tweaks and combines and alters them in order to get this image, but then so do artists. No artist exists alone in the universe coming up with wholly unique artwork that’s never been done before. Even masters like Picasso studied the artists and styles and techniques that came before him, all of which led to his distinct style.
As a writer, I certainly didn’t learn how to write in isolation. Everything I’ve read and years of study and practice have allowed my craft to become what it is today. I couldn’t have done it without everything that came before. Writers, like artists, steal and borrow constantly—not plagiarism, mind you, but we do copy off others. How could we not? The struggle is always trying to hone your craft while also finding your voice and telling your unique stories.
In any case, I posted some musings on my Facebook page and a commenter offered up this excellent, insightful comment:
Hi. I'm a real artist. I have a real university art degree. Why isn't your AI art 'real art'? I say that it is. I've been enjoying it for months. AI is an artist's tool. A brush is an artist's tool. A pencil is an artist's tool. AI is an artist's tool AI is allowing you to make the ideas in you mind visible to others, just as a brush, a pencil or stone and chisel or a lump of clay would.
The objections to AI are pretty much the same objections the arts community had to photography. It was too easy. But as the tool matures, human minds will find new ways to express themselves with the tool that become more specialized. We'll begin to appreciate more universally that it is a tool. I think that some artists using more traditional media are afraid of loosing their livelihoods. I can appreciate that.
But all kinds of workers have lost their livelihoods as the result of technical advancements in their fields. There is no reason why the arts should be sacred and immune to this risk. The challenge becomes to find another way to make your livelihood. You grow in the same field in a new direction, or you change fields.
Keep making your art, Erik. Figure out how to tolerate the naysayers with kindness, they're just feeing threatened.
I think this is a pretty cool—and definitely unusual—perspective from an artist. I tend to agree. These are new tools and artists will be at the forefront of using AI to get the most out of it. I suspect that traditional art and AI art will hybridize to some degree, with artists making use of programs like Dall-E and Midjourney alongside Photoshop, Blender, Illustrator and whatever other software artists are already using on top of ink, paint, photography, etc.
Another point: Music is constantly being mixed and repurposed. Electronic music is wildly popular and DJs are always taking tracks and beats from other songs and mixing them into new sounds and forms. That’s not the same exact thing as AI—which is also coming to music—but it’s not wholly dissimilar, either. Electronic music and DJ mixes haven’t killed music, either.
As for writing—another commenter mused that someday TV critics like yours truly might be replaced by AI—that’s certainly possible, though I think perhaps less likely. It’s remarkable what ChatGPT can come up with, and as a writer (or as a D&D DM) I certainly love to use it to come up with ideas or test out ideas, but until AI can really find its own voice and opinions, it’s going to have a tough time not producing utterly generic material. That might work for very dry summaries, but there’s a distance between that and compelling opinion pieces.
In any case, I’m not sure there’s an answer to be had, or at least not one that’s going to satisfy everyone. The reality is that AI is here to stay, and just like the myriad technologies that came before, this one will be disruptive and create painful change that will someday just be the new normal. Hopefully creatives across art, writing, film, animation, music, etc. can find ways to adjust and to harness this increasingly powerful software to create even better material. Whether or not it’s truly art—well, who’s to say? Roger Ebert is one of my all-time favorite movie critics, but he was vocal about his disdain for video games, which he didn’t think qualified as art. I think they do!
Perhaps we don’t have to agree.
What do you think?
If I were publishing a free book or anything out of my own pocket that wasn’t earning a profit, however, I might just make my own artwork via Dall-E or Midjourney. Indeed, if I self-publish some of my stories I will use this artwork. I am not against earning money from AI artwork, but for something like a book I would want artists involved.
I totally agree with you, sir. I will quote this article and another one you wrote in a defence I'm preparing against an artist who has commited defamation against me (she claims that I do not paint my paintings, but the AI does with I do no know what in hell plugins from Photoshop and other silly things -even if I record myself painting and have other proof that I did everything myself). As an artist, I kinda think a lot like you. Keep the good work, sir. I enjoy your articles a lot (and your Facebook posts), but never told you anything before.
I think we need more people like you, less polarized and more open to change and to adapt.
My two cents: "but for" your input to the AI intermediary that "makes" your art, but for your experiences and the furnishings of your mind, this image of the sleeping troll would not exist. Is that art? Well, yes. You were instrumental in causing it to happen. My inputs would generate a different picture. I think you can call that art - you are just another example of homo sapiens using tools.