There has been a huge wave of AI generated art in the last few months. I'll be the first to say it does incredible things and I've seen some amazing results people have shared. I've tinkered with it myself on an image or two and I've been on the whole impressed by what these AI packages have been able to produce. The question... is what an AI creates, art?
Of course it is. Art can be achieved by all manner of methods and media and this software is creating images that explore all manner of subjects, forms and expressions. The more apt question... if someone is using an AI to create art. Should they claim it as their own?
No.
In my mind, the AI software is the artist, not the person who gave it the parameters to use as a guide. In a very real sense, AI software fills the role of a Virtual Commission. Just like a client commissioning a human artist, they tell us what they want. They give us parameters and descriptions of what they'd like us to create. We may do a few revisions to narrow it down to what they're wanting, but eventually the artwork in done and they take possession, but they merely told us what they were hoping to have created. It is our skill and imagination that creates the art. Following the client's guidelines, yes, but the creation is borne from the artist, many times in ways the client didn't expect, but they enjoy none the less. That is exactly what role AI software is fulfilling. A person using it is not creating art, but directing the AI to create art for them. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. The only caveat to that is when someone has a beautiful piece of AI generated art and says 'look what I made.' That person provided the criteria, but just as sure as if it were a human artist they hired, the AI is the one that went through the creative process. I've seen people posting all manner of wonderful images, and I've enjoyed seeing each and every one. Sometimes in the description they will mention it is AI created or give it an AI tag, but not much more than that. Others will post, claiming as their own. In my mind that's a misrepresentation. Whether it's not considered or deliberate, that's on the individual. I just wanted to bring up what I see is as the distinction of not whether or not it's art, but who the real artist is, and who should be credited as such.
Thank you for your time and I hope your consideration,
John