How can you tell this picture is AI?
It appears like a normal photo with a passing glance, if a slightly bizarre one, like the surreal photoshoots of the high fashion world, to be found on the pages of a fashion magazine or in the adverts of a new clothing line. There appears to be real people though, wearing real clothes in an normal setting, just posing for the camera.
But something appears off.
An eye is out of place, clothing folds illogically, too many similar face shapes are in the same frame. In fact, their faces- the more you look at them- don’t appear real, but are unsmiling and it seems impossible that they exist out of this photo, that they will move after the camera’s click and go about their day.
The texture itself of the piece portrays hints at its AI origins as well: overly smooth and unvaried. Overall, unrealistic.
There is this possibility, this fear, that one day we will not be able to distinguish between what is a real and what is a unreal online. The fear that a human could blur these boundaries is lesser only in the face that a robot could do it.
But did not Plato theorize that the aim of art was to imitate life as closely as possible? Is this not what AI art is doing here? But has it reached the point that our views of the world are no longer bought into question, but the very world itself?
These fears are not entirely unfounded, but have been largely steered by some exaggerated and pessimistic narratives that ignore the many complexities of the debate.
The Good
New tools for art have been introduced throughout history. The printing press, acrylic paint, the camera, all of which changed the way art was made and how people interacted with it, not dissimilar to the effects of AI art.
For example, lets look at the camera’s influence on the purpose of art. Art no longer needed to capture the world around it in acute detail so as to preserve events for future generations, this task fell to the hands of the photographers. Impressionism and its following movements was introduced, leading many painters to hope to capture the reality that cannot be seen by the physical eye. The world around them was viewed with a new light through their art.
AI art, in this way, is currently changing the possibilities of what art can be as well as changing our view of the world itself as we see how artificial intelligence is having a larger presence in our lives. In short, AI art “permit[s] the vivid realization and expression of ideas and complex scenarios that are impossible in other media and reality.”
AI art is a creative tool that the artist can control using a mixture of technical skill and creativity, just like a paintbrush.
There is also another similarity between AI art and traditional art, in that both rely on this element of unpredictability. There are many ‘pathways’ in which the AI software can go down, only somewhat guided by the artist via text prompts or code. This degree of unpredictability makes it “a meta-tool” or “creative partner,” as Hollie Humphries suggests.
Whilst some would argue that this “humanizes” the medium, I would say that it instead highlights its artificiality. Because, here, the strange or the unrealistic elements are introduced, bringing a mix of the uncanny and the downright weird elements that cannot be achieved in traditional mediums.
But, in the end, this makes A.I art- that with photographic leanings in particular- just another artistic medium which can change art in many ways: its process, how we understand and how we understand the world around us as well.
The Bad
“Painting was done for long ago, and the artist [themself] is a prejudice of the past”- Malevich.
There’s the same doomsday bell ringing in this quote that there in several voices from every generation of artists and movements, except this time Malevich specifically highlights painting as medium finally going out of fashion decades after its relevancy, turning painters into a desperate group clinging onto the edge of their art so as to not drop into that which Malevich deems they are fated to.
AI art can be seen as taking painting’s place, picking up its purpose, with the ability to blend realism and fantasy to uncanny effect.
But is it taking artist’s jobs?
This is automation anxiety that we’re talking about, with the same fears that robots are taking jobs once in the hands of the human that dates back to the Elizabethan ages. Queen Elizabeth I refused to patent a knitting machine for fear that it would take the jobs of “young maidens who obtain their daily bread by knitting."
The understanding of computers, coding and artificial intelligence of these works suggests that those who use it are not artists but programmers, therefore more scientifically leaning than artistic. But this idea, though common, is unfounded considering that, like all other artistic mediums, the one using the AI art software must have a creative eye and an understanding of aesthetics, making those who use it artists as well.
Surrounding this is the threat of the impersonal replacing the personal in art, highlighted by Bois where he goes to the extent of saying that “industrial capitalism banished the hand from the process of production.” AI can be seen as extending this into art, with the human elements of personal experience and touch being replaced by algorithms.
But it is not as straight forward as it appears. In fact, there’s a variety of complicated arguments surrounding this question of A.I art and the impersonal:
To what extent can the artist impose their feelings onto the work they create through AI, specifically if it is a “meta-tool” and if the process itself is random and influenced by pieces made before? But surely, as ideas do not exist in vacumme and traditional artists are always influenced by the work of others, art- no matter human or AI made- will always be influenced by previous art? Can the A.I “partner” impose its own feelings or experiences onto the work? Does it have these? If no, then who is the art personal to? Surely, with the A.I’s consideration of universal imagery or previously used images then it can be personal and relevant to a large amount of people? But, if this is the case, does that mean the art is no longer personal?
The blend of the creative personal and the scientific impersonal is denied by Humphries, who instead emphasizes the use of the latter with their statement that computer art as a whole is “an intangible collection of numbers organised in computer code and manipulated according to computer operations and algorithms”- a statement I would disagree considering how AI art evokes individual effects on everyone, much like any other mediums does. Could painting not be said to be a mess of carefully organised lines and dotes of chosen pigments arranged to create a recognized pattern?
Art itself can be seen as a mix of the personal and impersonal, and A.I art is simply an extension of this.
But could AI art be lesser? There is the question of whether or not AI art is simply a novelty whose appeal will wear off, or that the impersonal elements of the media make it one of purely aesthetics rather than ‘substance’ of normal art. It also, with its reliance of images already made, be art that is as unoriginal as it is impersonal.
Lastly, one of the major flaws of AI art is its racism. This, however, is not down to the fault of the software itself, but of those who program it and the information that the AI feeds off of. If these 2 components are racist then the AI will exhibit racial bias. Joy Buolamwimi, whose work centres around these issues, calls this the “coded gaze.” This coded gaze manifests itself in how AI depicts racial stereotypes or fails to include a variety of racial backgrounds at all. But there are many artists who are exploring this issue or are even looking for ways to overcome it, as we will see in the final part of this essay.
The Beautiful
Computer art can be seen as early as the 1960s with work such as Fireder Nake’s ‘Hommage a Paul Klee’ and ‘Schotter’ by Georg Nees. These works of repetitive pattern and simplistic forms mimic line art of the more traditional medias. Here the waters were just being tested.
On ‘Schotter,’ the Victoria and Albert Museum writes that “he was interested in the relationship between order and disorder in picture composition. Here he introduced random variables into the computer program, causing the orderly squares to descend into chaos.” As you can see, this new form of computer-generated art with its balance between control and the uncontrolled, decided and the random became the perfect medium to explore what had yet to be explored.
A similar investigation can be seen in Vera Molner’s ‘(Des)Ordres’ from 1974. But Molner takes it further.
What first appears to be sequence of squares set inside each other, creating a mosaic of creams is actually, upon closer inspection, a series of yellow irregular squares with the pinks and blues outlines of squares within. The effect is one simplistic overall but intricate upon closer inspection.
We previously looked at the unoriginality of AI, which leads to the question of: is AI art of the future? After all, if it is only drawing on past images, then surely it is not creating anything new. But, taking a look at contemporary artists using the medium or exploring the idea of it, we can see that the AI itself is becoming increasingly an artistic theme, a subject to explore, leading to come beautiful effects.
Contemporary artwork concerning AI has taken a more figurative turn with the new ability to now create life-like figures and realistic landscapes and objects.
One artist who I particularly admire for his work into this realm is Luke Nugent.
The capabilities of AI software to realize fictional worlds and their peoples are exploited by Nugent in Tim Walker-esque approach. Interestingly, Nugent prefers to leave in the ‘mistakes’ of the AI, such as flaws in the figure’s faces or illogical elements partly to show that these are, in fact, computer generated pieces. But this practise also lends itself a certain character to his work, one that is surreal and strange, and defintiely not found in the real world.
The possibilities of AI art are limitless it seems.
Other artists to take a look at:
Sougwen Chung
Sarah Meyohas
Refik Anadol
Here are some questions to consider:
Do you think AI art is ethical?
What place will AI art take in the future?
and
Who should have ownership over AI art?
Further reading:
Currently reading: Legend by Marie Lu
Random Recommendation: VENUSSTADT on Youtube
Have a good day! (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ)