I can relate. As someone who earned a BFA in graphic design and illustration in the 70s, I had to “keep up with technology all my career. Today, I look back and realize how tech gobbled up so many viable jobs ever the years. I have a real problem with ai illustration. It’s too slick, too perfect, yet fine artists are trying to imitate it. Why? Why are we imitating something designed to streamline and homogenize art? For that reason, I have made a personal vow to create art that can’t be confused with ai generated, complete with mistakes, layers, brush strokes and even metallic paint.
Yes! I think leaning into our quirky human way of doing things is the answer to relate to other humans. As a writer, I see this in writing as well. And I wonder why writers try to make their voice “slick” like AI. I would much rather just read something that says the think with the unique personality of the person.
AI makes everything the same, while Art makes everything beautifully different.
An insidious trend I’m noticing is that as people use AI more and more, sometimes they start writing like AI unintentionally. They start picking up AI type phrases like “and I sat quietly with that information..” Or “this really landed with me.” Nobody overused “quietly” or “landed” in that way before AI. But now it’s becoming a common idiom. I won’t let AI make me the same as everyone else. I’d rather say things full of mis-spellings and curse words than turn into a robot that sounds like all the other robots.
And I say this as someone who is not anti-AI completely. I think of AI like junk food. Sometimes it tastes good, but it’s not nutritious and you certainly don’t want to make it your entire information diet.
Huh, that's really interesting about people picking up AI phrases. You're right about AI making every the same.
I was reading an art magazine article where two gallery directors described their artists' work. When I read the first director's description, I thought.. "Wow, this person has an amazing vocabulary and way of saying things." Then a page later, I read the other director's description, and it had the same articulate voice. I said to myself, hmm... they both seem so flowery and perfect.. and "the same".
Although I have no way of proving that AI was used for these quotes, I came away suspicious of quotes that are overly descriptive- that use words we wouldn't use in a live interview.
All technology shapes us. We make our tools and then our tools make us.
There is no such thing as a neutral tool. As more people use AI, more people will start to sound like AI.
This is why jazz is such a great example of true art. It’s the opposite. AI makes everything the same. Jazz takes the same things, the “jazz standards” and makes each performance of the “same song” different.
I believe you're right Clint. This has me thinking about how I write my blogs, which are mostly just thoughts I share with artists. I can get a lot more of them done if I just write like I'm having a conversation. I'll try that.
I know of an *arts* organization that is using AI art for their catalog and posters. They are obviously (and glaringly) machine produced. Real artists put "meaning" into their images. There is no extraneous "stuff" that isn't part of the message. There is no originality of thought in machine-produced images because AI simply scours the internet for what is already there. And from that, it creates an amalgamated image.
I questioned why this organization would use AI-created "artwork," especially in a city filled with artists. The person making the final decision told me that my comments were "just a difference of opinion."
Why would AI make your art worthless? I've found it to be the exact opposite! My sales have picked up doublefold because collectors DON'T want AI "art" - they want the real deal.
I find that my photography is harder to sell not only because of AI, but also because everyone with a camera in their phone thinks that photography is easy.
Yes. AI is just extending this same dynamic to all mediums. It’s not really AI threatening artists it’s non artists underestimating the difficulty of creating great art now that they have easy tools to mimic it. A great artist could use AI to do something the world has never seen. The average joe just types a prompt and calls himself an artist. Just like people with phones thinking “photography is easy you just push a button.”
A machine can replicate to some degree a Rembrandt, a Stradivarius, a poem, maybe even a meal, but I want things that are made by people. Even if AI can write a novel, it’s just words, there isn’t a soul there who shares my fears, longings, regrets, gets cold or hungry, and wonders what happens to our spirits when we die.
I had the privilege of reading an unpublished novel script recently by a local author. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. Not just because it was a good story but I kept thinking "I can't believe someone from my suburb wrote this, it's amazing", "I can't wait to meet the author and discuss this", and "It's funny how there are still typos and spelling mistakes and grammar errors, this is so human it's great". None of those were me celebrating AI. Art is like that too, revelling in the brushwork, specific pigment choices, blending and edge decisions, abstraction and simplification choices, etc. it's all like "wow, there is a real person behind all of this"
Thank you for this thoughtful post. This artist’s fears are real and your graceful and honest response is a terrific reminder of the value artists bring to our world. Making a living as an artist is hard and also enormously satisfying. Cheers!
I’ve been saying that for a while now. When the world is saturated with AI generated “art”, fine art rendered by a seasoned human artist will be worth even more. Just give it a little time…
I fear you are overly optimistic. Soon, AI will be generating images with real brushstrokes. Sort of like 3D printing, except on canvas. It's already happening in film, where central human characters are created with AI.
Is it true that AI can now reproduce just about anything an artist creates? Well, yes, and as a working artist, I felt concerns. Even before AI, there were real concerns in the art world. I was an illustrator for many years, and I had these discussions within illustration. Now indeed, commercial illustration has gone digital and is easily replaced with AI. With that, I left illustration years ago and started painting for the gallery. Could AI reproduce my artwork? Of course it can, but I'm also finding that imagery alone is not why serious collectors buy art. Collectors who pay considerable prices for artwork want just that - original art, produced by real artists. Further, the two galleries I've sold through don't sell prints; they only sell originals.
I ran a gallery for nearly 20 years. Whenever someone was interested in a particular work the first question was always the same: "who's the artist?" The who matters. When we buy art we aren't just buying the image, we're buying into the story of the artist as well. I enjoyed The Brothers Karamazov. It matters to me that it was written by Dostoyevsky and not a computer.
Agree with Clint. Artists panicked during the 1980s when Apple computers got more capable graphics, claiming that their jobs were at risk. The opposite happened. So here we go again. The most important thing I’m doing about AI scraping my images is to apply a software filter to all my art on FASO and elsewhere. These filters do not change the way we see the art, they make it impossible for the machines to see it properly, so they can’t mimic your style and offer that for use or sale. That is the real threat and this is the solution. Then we go on about our unique work without getting robbed by machine “intelligence”.
Thank you for your comment. I haven’t looked into such filters; however, just to let you know, FASO blocks all AI bots. Now, there are probably bad actors who try hard to get around such blocks but our blocker is built with AI so it does block all the big guys, the good actors, and most bad actors.
Look at all the fine artists that you follow - don't they each have something that makes them unique? And the physical item of let's say a painting will never get accurately translated from a printed version of the real thing. There's nothing like the tactile object of a painting which can't be provided by AI.
You are correct and I think people want human art. I agree with you. However, technically, it's probably only a matter of time before AI can paint onto canvases. It's probably already happening.
I have to wonder if artists painting landscapes and portraits might have felt threatened by photography and cameras at one time. AI can't conceptualize what a human brain can. You have to give it a lot of prompts to create anything.
Yes. I'm pretty sure they were. I think the whole impressionist movement was born out of a reaction to cameras. I kind of move of "if a machine can capture the image, then we'll change and capture the FEELING."
Precisely. In fact, that's exactly what catalyzed impressionism. No more were artists judged simply by how accurately they could reproduce a perfect portrait or landscape or still life. With impressionism, it turned the tables and started creating emotion or the "feeling" of being there. The camera and paint tubes... both brought in a revolution.
AI can only mimic what it sees. The art that is created by a human has one thing that AI will never ever have. It is call a heart and soul. That is only a human trait, PERIOD. Heart and soul allow humans to create on a moment in time and change the creative direction as we see fit with no rhyme or reason. That is the wonderful part of being human that can never be duplicated. So keep at it with our human flaws and produce something that is uniquely yours.
Art in all its forms is best when it is made with head , hands and heart. A.I. lacks at least 2 of these basic ingredients the same way that TV dinners can’t replicate any meal made from scratch. The reproduction of great art eg The Mona Lisa and Monetization of images has been happening for decades now . The history of classical music and popular composers is similar. For example , composers like Bach or Mozart have been monetized in elevators waiting devices on phones and Advertisements on TV .
Most listeners have little or no trouble identifying the beautifully played music from the synthetic sounds on badly performed records, CDs or otherwise.
We live in an age of consumer products and convenience
Wallpaper is rare as decoration in homes but even rarer is original crafted wood or fabric or paintings
Minimalism is some a style , a trend and slowly people will tire of it . Think of the decorative arts silently wedging their way into our dining rooms with raw edged tables and hand made rugs.
We need to work towards recovering the art classes in schools here in Canada. Rather the death of art classes . All has been proven at Stanford a university to enhance scholastic performance. over 30,000 members of the Stanford Based studies has clarified the Gavin .
Funny you mention that. I consider AI (and social media) to be "junk food" for attention. Sometimes I allow myself a little. Sometimes it even "tastes" good. But I wouldn't rely on it for nutrition. My soul needs...well...true and soulful things.
I/we as fine artists, can only hope you're right....that the more the world relies on technology to homogenize our lives, the more humanity will need us to communicate. Fingers (and brushes) crossed!
I know the AI challenge is real and will not be avoided, however, I do agree that this will make true skilled artists even better. Remember "the only constant in life is change". I know, I'm soon to make my 73rd rotation of our sun! So, we improvise, we adapt, we overcome...life is, has been and always will be a tough nut to crack...but, that's when the rewards of persevering happen! So, all you struggling artists out there...keep doing what you do, and we will see you down the trail. A quote from a long time friend and fellow artist/sculptor Lyle Bates said to me over 40 years ago "Life is art, and art life!"
Clint, your words of encouragement ring true and you answered eloquently. This post has many take-a-ways that are worth writing down.
I'm seeing strong art sales - collectors seem more interested in going to gallery openings and shows where they see art in real life and experience it fully. They also get to meet the artist in some cases.
Thank you Clint for taking the time to explain how FASO uses AI and when it does not. We artists appreciate FASO to handle AI in an ethical way.
I can relate. As someone who earned a BFA in graphic design and illustration in the 70s, I had to “keep up with technology all my career. Today, I look back and realize how tech gobbled up so many viable jobs ever the years. I have a real problem with ai illustration. It’s too slick, too perfect, yet fine artists are trying to imitate it. Why? Why are we imitating something designed to streamline and homogenize art? For that reason, I have made a personal vow to create art that can’t be confused with ai generated, complete with mistakes, layers, brush strokes and even metallic paint.
Yes! I think leaning into our quirky human way of doing things is the answer to relate to other humans. As a writer, I see this in writing as well. And I wonder why writers try to make their voice “slick” like AI. I would much rather just read something that says the think with the unique personality of the person.
AI makes everything the same, while Art makes everything beautifully different.
An insidious trend I’m noticing is that as people use AI more and more, sometimes they start writing like AI unintentionally. They start picking up AI type phrases like “and I sat quietly with that information..” Or “this really landed with me.” Nobody overused “quietly” or “landed” in that way before AI. But now it’s becoming a common idiom. I won’t let AI make me the same as everyone else. I’d rather say things full of mis-spellings and curse words than turn into a robot that sounds like all the other robots.
And I say this as someone who is not anti-AI completely. I think of AI like junk food. Sometimes it tastes good, but it’s not nutritious and you certainly don’t want to make it your entire information diet.
Huh, that's really interesting about people picking up AI phrases. You're right about AI making every the same.
I was reading an art magazine article where two gallery directors described their artists' work. When I read the first director's description, I thought.. "Wow, this person has an amazing vocabulary and way of saying things." Then a page later, I read the other director's description, and it had the same articulate voice. I said to myself, hmm... they both seem so flowery and perfect.. and "the same".
Although I have no way of proving that AI was used for these quotes, I came away suspicious of quotes that are overly descriptive- that use words we wouldn't use in a live interview.
All technology shapes us. We make our tools and then our tools make us.
There is no such thing as a neutral tool. As more people use AI, more people will start to sound like AI.
This is why jazz is such a great example of true art. It’s the opposite. AI makes everything the same. Jazz takes the same things, the “jazz standards” and makes each performance of the “same song” different.
I believe you're right Clint. This has me thinking about how I write my blogs, which are mostly just thoughts I share with artists. I can get a lot more of them done if I just write like I'm having a conversation. I'll try that.
I know of an *arts* organization that is using AI art for their catalog and posters. They are obviously (and glaringly) machine produced. Real artists put "meaning" into their images. There is no extraneous "stuff" that isn't part of the message. There is no originality of thought in machine-produced images because AI simply scours the internet for what is already there. And from that, it creates an amalgamated image.
I questioned why this organization would use AI-created "artwork," especially in a city filled with artists. The person making the final decision told me that my comments were "just a difference of opinion."
As they say in tech, "Garbage in, garbage out."
Why would AI make your art worthless? I've found it to be the exact opposite! My sales have picked up doublefold because collectors DON'T want AI "art" - they want the real deal.
I see this result being more common too.
I find that my photography is harder to sell not only because of AI, but also because everyone with a camera in their phone thinks that photography is easy.
Yes. AI is just extending this same dynamic to all mediums. It’s not really AI threatening artists it’s non artists underestimating the difficulty of creating great art now that they have easy tools to mimic it. A great artist could use AI to do something the world has never seen. The average joe just types a prompt and calls himself an artist. Just like people with phones thinking “photography is easy you just push a button.”
A machine can replicate to some degree a Rembrandt, a Stradivarius, a poem, maybe even a meal, but I want things that are made by people. Even if AI can write a novel, it’s just words, there isn’t a soul there who shares my fears, longings, regrets, gets cold or hungry, and wonders what happens to our spirits when we die.
Absolutely.
I had the privilege of reading an unpublished novel script recently by a local author. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. Not just because it was a good story but I kept thinking "I can't believe someone from my suburb wrote this, it's amazing", "I can't wait to meet the author and discuss this", and "It's funny how there are still typos and spelling mistakes and grammar errors, this is so human it's great". None of those were me celebrating AI. Art is like that too, revelling in the brushwork, specific pigment choices, blending and edge decisions, abstraction and simplification choices, etc. it's all like "wow, there is a real person behind all of this"
Thank you for this thoughtful post. This artist’s fears are real and your graceful and honest response is a terrific reminder of the value artists bring to our world. Making a living as an artist is hard and also enormously satisfying. Cheers!
We work on the art, and to bless us in return, the art works on us.
Great response written by a real person. Very uplifting. Thanks.
Thank you! I am a real person!
I’ve been saying that for a while now. When the world is saturated with AI generated “art”, fine art rendered by a seasoned human artist will be worth even more. Just give it a little time…
Yep.
I fear you are overly optimistic. Soon, AI will be generating images with real brushstrokes. Sort of like 3D printing, except on canvas. It's already happening in film, where central human characters are created with AI.
Is it true that AI can now reproduce just about anything an artist creates? Well, yes, and as a working artist, I felt concerns. Even before AI, there were real concerns in the art world. I was an illustrator for many years, and I had these discussions within illustration. Now indeed, commercial illustration has gone digital and is easily replaced with AI. With that, I left illustration years ago and started painting for the gallery. Could AI reproduce my artwork? Of course it can, but I'm also finding that imagery alone is not why serious collectors buy art. Collectors who pay considerable prices for artwork want just that - original art, produced by real artists. Further, the two galleries I've sold through don't sell prints; they only sell originals.
I ran a gallery for nearly 20 years. Whenever someone was interested in a particular work the first question was always the same: "who's the artist?" The who matters. When we buy art we aren't just buying the image, we're buying into the story of the artist as well. I enjoyed The Brothers Karamazov. It matters to me that it was written by Dostoyevsky and not a computer.
Agree with Clint. Artists panicked during the 1980s when Apple computers got more capable graphics, claiming that their jobs were at risk. The opposite happened. So here we go again. The most important thing I’m doing about AI scraping my images is to apply a software filter to all my art on FASO and elsewhere. These filters do not change the way we see the art, they make it impossible for the machines to see it properly, so they can’t mimic your style and offer that for use or sale. That is the real threat and this is the solution. Then we go on about our unique work without getting robbed by machine “intelligence”.
Thank you for your comment. I haven’t looked into such filters; however, just to let you know, FASO blocks all AI bots. Now, there are probably bad actors who try hard to get around such blocks but our blocker is built with AI so it does block all the big guys, the good actors, and most bad actors.
Bless your heart! Thank you.
Look at all the fine artists that you follow - don't they each have something that makes them unique? And the physical item of let's say a painting will never get accurately translated from a printed version of the real thing. There's nothing like the tactile object of a painting which can't be provided by AI.
You are correct and I think people want human art. I agree with you. However, technically, it's probably only a matter of time before AI can paint onto canvases. It's probably already happening.
Yup. Like 3D printing.
I so agree with her. As a photographer who does digital cameras, every photo processing software is rife with Al.
I have to wonder if artists painting landscapes and portraits might have felt threatened by photography and cameras at one time. AI can't conceptualize what a human brain can. You have to give it a lot of prompts to create anything.
Yes. I'm pretty sure they were. I think the whole impressionist movement was born out of a reaction to cameras. I kind of move of "if a machine can capture the image, then we'll change and capture the FEELING."
Precisely. In fact, that's exactly what catalyzed impressionism. No more were artists judged simply by how accurately they could reproduce a perfect portrait or landscape or still life. With impressionism, it turned the tables and started creating emotion or the "feeling" of being there. The camera and paint tubes... both brought in a revolution.
AI can only mimic what it sees. The art that is created by a human has one thing that AI will never ever have. It is call a heart and soul. That is only a human trait, PERIOD. Heart and soul allow humans to create on a moment in time and change the creative direction as we see fit with no rhyme or reason. That is the wonderful part of being human that can never be duplicated. So keep at it with our human flaws and produce something that is uniquely yours.
Art in all its forms is best when it is made with head , hands and heart. A.I. lacks at least 2 of these basic ingredients the same way that TV dinners can’t replicate any meal made from scratch. The reproduction of great art eg The Mona Lisa and Monetization of images has been happening for decades now . The history of classical music and popular composers is similar. For example , composers like Bach or Mozart have been monetized in elevators waiting devices on phones and Advertisements on TV .
Most listeners have little or no trouble identifying the beautifully played music from the synthetic sounds on badly performed records, CDs or otherwise.
We live in an age of consumer products and convenience
Wallpaper is rare as decoration in homes but even rarer is original crafted wood or fabric or paintings
Minimalism is some a style , a trend and slowly people will tire of it . Think of the decorative arts silently wedging their way into our dining rooms with raw edged tables and hand made rugs.
We need to work towards recovering the art classes in schools here in Canada. Rather the death of art classes . All has been proven at Stanford a university to enhance scholastic performance. over 30,000 members of the Stanford Based studies has clarified the Gavin .
Funny you mention that. I consider AI (and social media) to be "junk food" for attention. Sometimes I allow myself a little. Sometimes it even "tastes" good. But I wouldn't rely on it for nutrition. My soul needs...well...true and soulful things.
I/we as fine artists, can only hope you're right....that the more the world relies on technology to homogenize our lives, the more humanity will need us to communicate. Fingers (and brushes) crossed!
Agree.
Spot on Clint,
I know the AI challenge is real and will not be avoided, however, I do agree that this will make true skilled artists even better. Remember "the only constant in life is change". I know, I'm soon to make my 73rd rotation of our sun! So, we improvise, we adapt, we overcome...life is, has been and always will be a tough nut to crack...but, that's when the rewards of persevering happen! So, all you struggling artists out there...keep doing what you do, and we will see you down the trail. A quote from a long time friend and fellow artist/sculptor Lyle Bates said to me over 40 years ago "Life is art, and art life!"
TW 'Pops' Vanya
Clint, your words of encouragement ring true and you answered eloquently. This post has many take-a-ways that are worth writing down.
I'm seeing strong art sales - collectors seem more interested in going to gallery openings and shows where they see art in real life and experience it fully. They also get to meet the artist in some cases.
Thank you Clint for taking the time to explain how FASO uses AI and when it does not. We artists appreciate FASO to handle AI in an ethical way.
Thank you! I'm glad to hear collectors seem interested and that you're seeing strong sales!