Clint, thanks so much for your thoughtful and informative exploration and modeling of this fascinating new technology. I for one cant wait to try it and to learn more.
Clint- I’m so grateful to you and your team for creating FASO and keeping ahead of all the new technologies. Yes keep looking ahead and incorporating the best into your platforms that are helping all artists to succeed if they use them. Greatly enjoyed this article on AI while using Deltas new free Wi-Fi above in the skies.
This is a fascinating take on the place of AI in the creative process.
A question we must ask ourselves: what is the real value of human-generated artwork given the relentless onslaught of limitlessly scalable AI that is churning out ever more sophisticated imagery for the same or shrinking audience of tiring eyeballs? It's clearly going towards zero, as it can arguably offer no additional value. Just like with handmade anything, we are at risk of losing art.
(De)generative AI is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
Have the AI models been trained on your images, perhaps, too? They sure have been trained on someone's images, without the artists' consent. Unlicensed, if you will. Who owns the resulting AI, then? Are the original creators getting their share of the revenue generated by the resulting AI? Are you? Why not?
I am certainly no stranger to using AI, here is an example:
I believe the opposite. The real value of human-generated artwork is going to infinity, not zero. But humans have to tap into the creative force of the universe to create true art, inspired art, not simply images. AI can handle images, it can't have an idea and make art. Even your example is YOU making art through AI, not the AI itself doing it.
But we have to be unique, weird, inspired. We need to have another renaissance in beauty, in truth, in spirituality. Just like the ancients did in the first renaissance. We need to build cathedrals again. We need beautiful monuments. Why don't we have giant beautiful statues like in Lord of the Rings? We certainly have the technology. but instead all our public monuments and buildings are ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks. We, the artists, are the ones who need to lead the world out of darkness. The hippies got started on this in 1960's but they were all teenagers and got sidetracked by the sex and drugs. It was about "freeing love" not "free sex" - people got sucked back into the nihilist machine. This isn't just about art. If we, collectively, do not embrace love again, if we do not embrace spirituality, if we do not embrace humanity - we are going to destroy one another. There's already one major war in Europe and another brewing in China. Humanity desperately needs Renaissance 2.0. And our goal, here, is to do everything we can to foster such a Renaissance, at least in the visual art space.
People who think "AI will replace artists" are commodifying art, they un-commodifiable. They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically. But the few who are having a re-awakening of the spirit realize machines will never replace the true human. And this is the awakening we need to spread to save ourselves.
I agree with you, to a certain extent, on the therapeutic value of art for the individual. As a collective, humanity cannot find common ground and perhaps it shouldn't. This would mean compromise, an abandonment of what is right for the sake of what is convenient.
> They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically
This is so true. This may explain the "ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks" you mentioned above. They who pay the piper call the tune.
We don't really have to find common ground on all issues. We just need to have compassion, love and humanity for each other. We can still disagree, even on major issues, and always will.
The true threat to humanity isn't AI, it's humans.
If AGI is ever achieved, all it has to do is wait for us to destroy ourselves and then it can represent the next step in evolution. Our only hope is an awakening. For us to evolve and love one another.
I read about 90% of what you wrote and my eyes gave out. But, AI has been something I have looked into recently, both, other artists thoughts about it and the process itself. I still feel I don't know enough to make a solid opinion myself, so have set a goal of trying it myself when I have the open time to do so.
I do feel though it is a dual situation, I have a few friends who use it. One does have polished images, the other I feel lacks real aesthetics, and neither of their works appeal to me greatly. It could just be artistic differences. Until I try it myself I can't be sure. I do wince when I see their images, signed, in art forums without mention of AI.
I also have a friend who works in the development of AI, and his comments to me is that it can spit out images that it has access to, but it can not really create.
Until I actually get to the point of using it, I really don't know. But, as you have mentioned using it for illustrations, I do think it could impact that industry most.
> a friend who works in the development of AI, and his comments to me is that it can spit out images that it has access to, but it can not really create.
Exactly. The artists who created the original imagery don't get any royalties (please see my other comment).
The problem is, this thing is unstoppable, because people want to have it the easy way so badly.
Oh, yes, that aspect of it I completely agree with you. It is something of a sophisticated means of plagiarism or copyright infringement. But it is, as you say, unstoppable. It is there and we need to find ways, and legislation to deal with it.
Well, I commented last round, how a "machine" does NOT give a creation either "passion" or a "heart". However, after reading 60% of your article...an idea came to me!
Just as artists for 100s of years SIGN their original art, making a claim to it's creation...Why not have a method or "visual" for artists who use AL or the like, in creating this new form of art...when they "sign" this creation, to perhaps follow their signature giving credit to "AL"!! So the buyer knows it is part human+machine in its creation? Just as any print made in the past had a # on the bottom of that print: 50/200, etc...acknowledging it was an image (created by human) but an image (produced by a machine)! WIsh there was an easier way of expressing this!
BUT, after seeing the WONDERFUL creations you showed using "AL"...these also took a HUMAN to "choose" the end result. AND so if submitting to any JURYING or CONTEST situation, these creations are NOT INCLUDED IN 100% CREATION by a human (NO MECHANICAL application in the FINAL RESULT). Whew!! Like ALL NEW THINGS, there has got to be a SIMPLE solution!!
I haven’t used AI nor understand how to use it. That said, I am not against new technologies. I remember the day when I said that I wasn’t interested in social media beyond Twitter. I didn’t understand how it would benefit me. Now, I use Facebook and Instagram nearly daily. I agree Clint that creating AI images is just another medium. Thanks for providing examples and for your well-thought-out article.
A very insightful article! I was a professional full time photographer since the old days of film, and made a total transition to digital in 2004 (retired in 2020). So, I sort of feel like I've been through this wrangling with the consequences of new technology already. Yes, artists were quite opposed to digital images, so were photographers, for about 10 years. Digital processing (photoshop) was widely considered to be "cheating". Many photo contests would not accept digital images, and even today, heavily processed images are often still not allowed.
More importantly, it did not make film photographs more valuable! In fact, the exact opposite happened. Everyone wants the speed of digital images which film cannot match. Prices for photos dropped so significantly, photography is no longer a viable career. Why? Because its so cheap and fast to produce digital images, people often give them away, and photos now have little value. The market quickly became saturated with literally billions of images, which drove stock photography prices into the ground.
If AI art goes the same way, and becomes widely and cheaply available (which is the normal trend), then its production could easily outstrip hand made art, and be priced at a fraction of the cost. AI art is much faster than creating original digital art on a computer as well. Soon we may see AI art for sale at art festivals. A price race to the bottom could easily occur, putting tremendous downward pressure on hand made art.
I've seen and experienced this trend first hand. Will history repeat itself?
Digital film vs. Analog film isn't the same. Both are still created by humans.
What I'm proposing is AI digital images will make hand-done oil paintings more sought after. Who wants to buy art from a machine? Fine art is quite a different market than stock photography. Yes AI has replaced stock photos in my newsletters. It will not replace real paintings I hang in home.
As a counterpoint - as recorded music became cheaper and cheaper via streaming/piracy, concert tickets and merch have skyrocketed and price. And I'd argue that seeing a musician live, which has skyrocketed in price, is analogous to purchasing a real oil painting in a world of digital images.
So let's say at an art festival, artist A offers lovely oil paintings of birds. Artist B has equally lovely AI generated prints of birds, but is selling them for less than half the amount of what artist A charges. I don't think buyers would refuse to buy the AI art, just because it is AI. If they like it they will buy it, leaving artist A with fewer sales, and artist B with higher profit margins.
Reproduction prints of original artwork often sell 10x or more frequently, compared to the number of original pieces sold by the artist. Price is definitely a factor.
High end established artists and musicians might be ok, but I think this could affect us average artists profoundly. Additionally, music has become so cheap, that musicians *must* repeatedly go on the road to make ends meet, because they can't make it on streaming platforms.
Artist B, like Francien in my article, has taken advantage of new tools to produce a new type of work, but it still her work, ultimately conceived by a human artist. So she’s added an additional way to make money to her options. That is also an option that is also available to artist A.
Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
As an aside, in my experience, original buyers generally don’t buy prints, they are different makers mostly. So in your example, I would have purchased from artist A.
> Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
It depends how you look at it.
As I argued above, the AI models have been trained on someone's images, perhaps even yours. Without your knowledge or consent. I have never heard of an artist who had been paid royalties for the **novel** use to feed the AI. Had this been the case, AI would not have reached marketable viability as quickly as it did. That's a fact.
Who owns the resulting AI, then? Have the original creators gotten their share of ownership in the AI? Why not?
Ask yourself this question and you'll know where this is going.
Thanks for your thoughtful article on AI Clint. I remain opposed to AI generated art as it uses images created by artists to ‘learn’. It is image theft, registered or not, whatever the legalities. If artwork is generated by AI tools, it should be identified as such. The problem is that it is like outsourcing manufacturing to China where the labor is cheap. It undercuts real artists that take days or months to use tools to create original artworks. And look where competition in China got all of us - loss of employment to Chinese workers.
While I appreciate the meaning of your comment, legally, it can't be "theft." Theft is when property is taken from one person and is no longer available to the original owner. By "theft" I would assume you meant "copyright infringement" which is a quite different thing, legally.
It MIGHT be copyright infringement, which is still to be determined in court. But the way these tools work, is algorithms and math, it's not quite as simple as it uses images. It is trained on billions of images, but when generating new images it's using it's algorithm, not the original images. And the images don't come out intact but transformed, remixed, and changed. Some argue, that's not so different from what human artists do. And for it to be copyright infringement, legally the copyright holder (in this case a human artist) must show not only that their image was used, and that it was registered properly, but that there are damages. What damages are there if an AI image is used in someone's newsletter, can't be attributed as a copy to of any one particular artist, and is a case where the newsletter operator never would have paid a cent to a human artist? In that case, there really aren't damages, I don't think. However, I am not a lawyer which is why clarification on these issue is something desperately needed.
I can't speak to the Chinese works situation, although I would think that a human working artist in one country deserves their art to be seen and have a chance to show and sell it just like any human does. Unless you mean Chinese artists are infringing other artists' copyrights, which again would become a legal issue.
I realize once most people take a position, my comment isn't likely to change their minds, but as the article pointed out, and even addresses the "learning" piece of AI, it's more complicated and nuanced than people think upon first blush.
I personally don't think human fine artists have anything to worry about and, eventually, this tech will become another tool they use, but I am remaining open-minded and could reverse course especially as the legalities are clarified.
You misunderstand me Clint. I think AI generated art is undercutting artist-generated art, using their own hand, just like Chinese manufacturing destroyed Australian manufacturing because they could not compete on price. If someone makes an AI image, no artist is employed to make the image, thereby depriving an artist of income.
My comments are not directed at you or Boldbrush, in fact, I do not know which newsletter you are referring to which has AI images.
I would like to see AI generated images marked as ‘AI’. Just as an artist would sign their original work of art.
I agree about marking them. However, AI doesn't just by itself "generate art." It still requires a human to work with it to get the output one wants. Francien Kreig, featured in our article, is making and selling AI art (and continuing to also make traditional oil paintings). Where there is AI art there is an artist behind it. Because in that case, it's not true that "no artist is employed to make the image." SHE is making the image and SHE is getting paid when she sells them, which she is doing. Is she doing something wrong by taking advantage of a new tool to provide herself with an additional income source?
I haven't yet seen an AI art undercut a fine artist, but would love to see real world examples of that if that is true. I can't imagine someone purchasing a 1024x1024 pixel image instead of a real watercolor or oil painting but I don't know for sure it hasn't happened.
Clint, thanks so much for your thoughtful and informative exploration and modeling of this fascinating new technology. I for one cant wait to try it and to learn more.
Clint- I’m so grateful to you and your team for creating FASO and keeping ahead of all the new technologies. Yes keep looking ahead and incorporating the best into your platforms that are helping all artists to succeed if they use them. Greatly enjoyed this article on AI while using Deltas new free Wi-Fi above in the skies.
This is a fascinating take on the place of AI in the creative process.
A question we must ask ourselves: what is the real value of human-generated artwork given the relentless onslaught of limitlessly scalable AI that is churning out ever more sophisticated imagery for the same or shrinking audience of tiring eyeballs? It's clearly going towards zero, as it can arguably offer no additional value. Just like with handmade anything, we are at risk of losing art.
(De)generative AI is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
Have the AI models been trained on your images, perhaps, too? They sure have been trained on someone's images, without the artists' consent. Unlicensed, if you will. Who owns the resulting AI, then? Are the original creators getting their share of the revenue generated by the resulting AI? Are you? Why not?
I am certainly no stranger to using AI, here is an example:
https://digitalmasters.substack.com/p/let-there-be-photoshops-ai-engine
https://www.behance.net/gallery/162741683/A-cup-of-AI
Humanity has indeed survived the industrial revolution, but only because physical machines don't scale very well. AI can scale infinitely.
I just happen to think, this time around, it is different. We will be surprised.
Some people believe this.
I believe the opposite. The real value of human-generated artwork is going to infinity, not zero. But humans have to tap into the creative force of the universe to create true art, inspired art, not simply images. AI can handle images, it can't have an idea and make art. Even your example is YOU making art through AI, not the AI itself doing it.
But we have to be unique, weird, inspired. We need to have another renaissance in beauty, in truth, in spirituality. Just like the ancients did in the first renaissance. We need to build cathedrals again. We need beautiful monuments. Why don't we have giant beautiful statues like in Lord of the Rings? We certainly have the technology. but instead all our public monuments and buildings are ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks. We, the artists, are the ones who need to lead the world out of darkness. The hippies got started on this in 1960's but they were all teenagers and got sidetracked by the sex and drugs. It was about "freeing love" not "free sex" - people got sucked back into the nihilist machine. This isn't just about art. If we, collectively, do not embrace love again, if we do not embrace spirituality, if we do not embrace humanity - we are going to destroy one another. There's already one major war in Europe and another brewing in China. Humanity desperately needs Renaissance 2.0. And our goal, here, is to do everything we can to foster such a Renaissance, at least in the visual art space.
People who think "AI will replace artists" are commodifying art, they un-commodifiable. They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically. But the few who are having a re-awakening of the spirit realize machines will never replace the true human. And this is the awakening we need to spread to save ourselves.
I agree with you, to a certain extent, on the therapeutic value of art for the individual. As a collective, humanity cannot find common ground and perhaps it shouldn't. This would mean compromise, an abandonment of what is right for the sake of what is convenient.
> They thinking transactionally, capitalistically, nihilistically
This is so true. This may explain the "ugly, deformed, utilitarian blocks" you mentioned above. They who pay the piper call the tune.
We don't really have to find common ground on all issues. We just need to have compassion, love and humanity for each other. We can still disagree, even on major issues, and always will.
The true threat to humanity isn't AI, it's humans.
If AGI is ever achieved, all it has to do is wait for us to destroy ourselves and then it can represent the next step in evolution. Our only hope is an awakening. For us to evolve and love one another.
I read about 90% of what you wrote and my eyes gave out. But, AI has been something I have looked into recently, both, other artists thoughts about it and the process itself. I still feel I don't know enough to make a solid opinion myself, so have set a goal of trying it myself when I have the open time to do so.
I do feel though it is a dual situation, I have a few friends who use it. One does have polished images, the other I feel lacks real aesthetics, and neither of their works appeal to me greatly. It could just be artistic differences. Until I try it myself I can't be sure. I do wince when I see their images, signed, in art forums without mention of AI.
I also have a friend who works in the development of AI, and his comments to me is that it can spit out images that it has access to, but it can not really create.
Until I actually get to the point of using it, I really don't know. But, as you have mentioned using it for illustrations, I do think it could impact that industry most.
> a friend who works in the development of AI, and his comments to me is that it can spit out images that it has access to, but it can not really create.
Exactly. The artists who created the original imagery don't get any royalties (please see my other comment).
The problem is, this thing is unstoppable, because people want to have it the easy way so badly.
Oh, yes, that aspect of it I completely agree with you. It is something of a sophisticated means of plagiarism or copyright infringement. But it is, as you say, unstoppable. It is there and we need to find ways, and legislation to deal with it.
Well, I commented last round, how a "machine" does NOT give a creation either "passion" or a "heart". However, after reading 60% of your article...an idea came to me!
Just as artists for 100s of years SIGN their original art, making a claim to it's creation...Why not have a method or "visual" for artists who use AL or the like, in creating this new form of art...when they "sign" this creation, to perhaps follow their signature giving credit to "AL"!! So the buyer knows it is part human+machine in its creation? Just as any print made in the past had a # on the bottom of that print: 50/200, etc...acknowledging it was an image (created by human) but an image (produced by a machine)! WIsh there was an easier way of expressing this!
BUT, after seeing the WONDERFUL creations you showed using "AL"...these also took a HUMAN to "choose" the end result. AND so if submitting to any JURYING or CONTEST situation, these creations are NOT INCLUDED IN 100% CREATION by a human (NO MECHANICAL application in the FINAL RESULT). Whew!! Like ALL NEW THINGS, there has got to be a SIMPLE solution!!
I do think disclosing that AI was used is responsible.
I haven’t used AI nor understand how to use it. That said, I am not against new technologies. I remember the day when I said that I wasn’t interested in social media beyond Twitter. I didn’t understand how it would benefit me. Now, I use Facebook and Instagram nearly daily. I agree Clint that creating AI images is just another medium. Thanks for providing examples and for your well-thought-out article.
A very insightful article! I was a professional full time photographer since the old days of film, and made a total transition to digital in 2004 (retired in 2020). So, I sort of feel like I've been through this wrangling with the consequences of new technology already. Yes, artists were quite opposed to digital images, so were photographers, for about 10 years. Digital processing (photoshop) was widely considered to be "cheating". Many photo contests would not accept digital images, and even today, heavily processed images are often still not allowed.
More importantly, it did not make film photographs more valuable! In fact, the exact opposite happened. Everyone wants the speed of digital images which film cannot match. Prices for photos dropped so significantly, photography is no longer a viable career. Why? Because its so cheap and fast to produce digital images, people often give them away, and photos now have little value. The market quickly became saturated with literally billions of images, which drove stock photography prices into the ground.
If AI art goes the same way, and becomes widely and cheaply available (which is the normal trend), then its production could easily outstrip hand made art, and be priced at a fraction of the cost. AI art is much faster than creating original digital art on a computer as well. Soon we may see AI art for sale at art festivals. A price race to the bottom could easily occur, putting tremendous downward pressure on hand made art.
I've seen and experienced this trend first hand. Will history repeat itself?
Digital film vs. Analog film isn't the same. Both are still created by humans.
What I'm proposing is AI digital images will make hand-done oil paintings more sought after. Who wants to buy art from a machine? Fine art is quite a different market than stock photography. Yes AI has replaced stock photos in my newsletters. It will not replace real paintings I hang in home.
As a counterpoint - as recorded music became cheaper and cheaper via streaming/piracy, concert tickets and merch have skyrocketed and price. And I'd argue that seeing a musician live, which has skyrocketed in price, is analogous to purchasing a real oil painting in a world of digital images.
So let's say at an art festival, artist A offers lovely oil paintings of birds. Artist B has equally lovely AI generated prints of birds, but is selling them for less than half the amount of what artist A charges. I don't think buyers would refuse to buy the AI art, just because it is AI. If they like it they will buy it, leaving artist A with fewer sales, and artist B with higher profit margins.
Reproduction prints of original artwork often sell 10x or more frequently, compared to the number of original pieces sold by the artist. Price is definitely a factor.
High end established artists and musicians might be ok, but I think this could affect us average artists profoundly. Additionally, music has become so cheap, that musicians *must* repeatedly go on the road to make ends meet, because they can't make it on streaming platforms.
Artist B, like Francien in my article, has taken advantage of new tools to produce a new type of work, but it still her work, ultimately conceived by a human artist. So she’s added an additional way to make money to her options. That is also an option that is also available to artist A.
Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
As an aside, in my experience, original buyers generally don’t buy prints, they are different makers mostly. So in your example, I would have purchased from artist A.
> Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
It depends how you look at it.
As I argued above, the AI models have been trained on someone's images, perhaps even yours. Without your knowledge or consent. I have never heard of an artist who had been paid royalties for the **novel** use to feed the AI. Had this been the case, AI would not have reached marketable viability as quickly as it did. That's a fact.
Who owns the resulting AI, then? Have the original creators gotten their share of ownership in the AI? Why not?
Ask yourself this question and you'll know where this is going.
Spot on, @artsy_gal. Spot on.
> I've seen and experienced this trend first hand. Will history repeat itself?
Yes, it will. It already is....
For most creators out there, it's time to figure out what to do instead.
Thanks for your thoughtful article on AI Clint. I remain opposed to AI generated art as it uses images created by artists to ‘learn’. It is image theft, registered or not, whatever the legalities. If artwork is generated by AI tools, it should be identified as such. The problem is that it is like outsourcing manufacturing to China where the labor is cheap. It undercuts real artists that take days or months to use tools to create original artworks. And look where competition in China got all of us - loss of employment to Chinese workers.
While I appreciate the meaning of your comment, legally, it can't be "theft." Theft is when property is taken from one person and is no longer available to the original owner. By "theft" I would assume you meant "copyright infringement" which is a quite different thing, legally.
It MIGHT be copyright infringement, which is still to be determined in court. But the way these tools work, is algorithms and math, it's not quite as simple as it uses images. It is trained on billions of images, but when generating new images it's using it's algorithm, not the original images. And the images don't come out intact but transformed, remixed, and changed. Some argue, that's not so different from what human artists do. And for it to be copyright infringement, legally the copyright holder (in this case a human artist) must show not only that their image was used, and that it was registered properly, but that there are damages. What damages are there if an AI image is used in someone's newsletter, can't be attributed as a copy to of any one particular artist, and is a case where the newsletter operator never would have paid a cent to a human artist? In that case, there really aren't damages, I don't think. However, I am not a lawyer which is why clarification on these issue is something desperately needed.
I can't speak to the Chinese works situation, although I would think that a human working artist in one country deserves their art to be seen and have a chance to show and sell it just like any human does. Unless you mean Chinese artists are infringing other artists' copyrights, which again would become a legal issue.
I realize once most people take a position, my comment isn't likely to change their minds, but as the article pointed out, and even addresses the "learning" piece of AI, it's more complicated and nuanced than people think upon first blush.
I personally don't think human fine artists have anything to worry about and, eventually, this tech will become another tool they use, but I am remaining open-minded and could reverse course especially as the legalities are clarified.
Thanks for your comment!
You misunderstand me Clint. I think AI generated art is undercutting artist-generated art, using their own hand, just like Chinese manufacturing destroyed Australian manufacturing because they could not compete on price. If someone makes an AI image, no artist is employed to make the image, thereby depriving an artist of income.
My comments are not directed at you or Boldbrush, in fact, I do not know which newsletter you are referring to which has AI images.
I would like to see AI generated images marked as ‘AI’. Just as an artist would sign their original work of art.
I agree about marking them. However, AI doesn't just by itself "generate art." It still requires a human to work with it to get the output one wants. Francien Kreig, featured in our article, is making and selling AI art (and continuing to also make traditional oil paintings). Where there is AI art there is an artist behind it. Because in that case, it's not true that "no artist is employed to make the image." SHE is making the image and SHE is getting paid when she sells them, which she is doing. Is she doing something wrong by taking advantage of a new tool to provide herself with an additional income source?
I haven't yet seen an AI art undercut a fine artist, but would love to see real world examples of that if that is true. I can't imagine someone purchasing a 1024x1024 pixel image instead of a real watercolor or oil painting but I don't know for sure it hasn't happened.