AI and the Artist
A conversation with The Conversation
Artificial intelligence and open-source AI platforms like ChatGPT, Dall-E and MidJourney are buzzing all over the internet. Designers and Artists across the globe are indulging in conversations around AI and how these platforms either hinder or expand the creative process. One such article was recently presented by The Conversation.
The article titled ‘ChatGPT, DALL-E 2 and the collapse of the creative process’ discusses the negative impact of AI in the world of art and design. While the article begins by suggesting AI’s potential to aid invention and design, it soon diverges and expresses the author’s apprehension towards AI. In this post, I critique the ideas posed by the article.
The author believes that Art “is the work of making something real and working through its details.” They also mention that “artistic works are lauded not merely for the finished product, but for the struggle, the playful interaction and the skilful engagement with the artistic task.” While I do not completely disagree with their understanding of art, I do think that platforms like Dall-E and MidJourney, allow for this ‘playful interaction’ and ‘skilful engagement.’ The author themselves give an example of the Midjourney art piece that took approximately 80 hours of human intervention in tweaking and correcting the prompt for the art to be generated. This human intervention clearly signals the effort and skillset required by the artist to generate the desired art and meets the description of ‘Art’ as presented by the author. The author’s obsession with skill and labour also seems nostalgic. This is similar to the critics’ nostalgia during the advent of photography that believed that art was ‘beyond mere mechanism.’ This apprehension towards the investment of technology in art is not new, but like the growth of photography and its acceptance in the world of art, I am optimistic, that AI will make its way too.
The article also mentions the ‘state of flow’ achieved by artists while creating art. It suggests that AI hinders this state of ‘flow.’ But as you might have guessed, I disagree. AI platforms allow this state to be achieved. When artists are creating art using these text-to-image platforms, they are constantly tweaking their prompts and engaging with the platform. Here, the artist is almost in a feedback loop with the platform, where, they input a prompt, and if they are not satisfied with the output, they keep tweaking the prompt until the desired output is generated. This continuous back and forth puts the artist in a state of flow, and hence, negates the argument by the author.
The article refers to the work of philosopher Michael Sandel and the need for ‘natural gifts’ to create art. This obsession with ‘innate talent’ or what philosophers discuss as the ‘genius’ is controversial. In the book, ‘The Creative Curve,’ Allan Gannett, discusses the flawed notion of innate talent, and creative genius. Gannett also busts the myth of Mozart - the creative genius. He explains that Mozart was not necessarily born a genius, instead, he was a great artist because of ‘diligent effort’ and relentless practice. One of the main points of the book by Gannett is that deliberate and constant practice can help achieve creative success. He calls this the power of ‘iterations.’ The artists that use AI platforms like MidJourney and Dall-E2 also go through these iterative processes before reaching the desired image.
The author worries that these AI platforms are the ‘end results of the artistic process’ and is less concerned if they are ‘tools’ to provoke ‘creative thinking.’ I would like to reassure the author of the article, and my readers, that these AI platforms are exactly that. They are tools that we as artists and designers can collaborate with to create art that our minds cannot fathom. For example, designer Tucker van Leuwen Hall, in his course, ‘Impressions of the Near Future on Labor’ uses text-to-image AI platforms to create ‘worlds’ of the near future, and then models them in 3-D modelling software to create simulations. Here, AI is not the end result, but instead, a means to an end.
The article also mentions that these AI platforms can prevent “artists from thriving,” as it may take away their jobs. This apprehension towards upcoming technology was also seen during the industrial revolution when critics expressed similar concerns over the loss of jobs. But as we know, the Industrial Revolution created more jobs in the long run. According to an article by the Built In, since the year 2000, AI and robotics have taken away around 2 million jobs, but it also predicts that the AI sector will create around 97 million jobs by 2025. So while AI might take away jobs in the short run, it could create more jobs in the long run.
The author, and many others, are sceptical about AI and its unethical implications. AI discredits the work of ‘underpaid’ artists, and often ‘replicates the dominant incentives’ and biases of the internet and our society. AI platforms use data gathered from our society, and hence this data is innately biased. These AI platforms exaggerate these biases instead of trying to negate them. This is why AI platforms like the Lensa App, have generated overtly sexualised avatars of women. This bias in AI platforms is also discussed in my article ‘AI and the Feminist City’. Companies like Google and OpenAI which are heavily investing in AI platforms also need to facilitate ways in which upcoming and small artists can be recognised for their work that is used as data in training the machine.
Overall, I think AI has seen both an embrace and a push away from artists and designers across the globe. The ones who embrace it, see it as a tool that they can collaborate with and the ones who push it away worry about it taking their jobs away, or it not being able to generate art. This fear and dismissal remind me of a similar kind of pushback received by the advent of technology during the industrial revolution and the rise of photography. AI platforms also need to focus on their ethical implications and work on the problems of the bias in datasets. The optimist in me would like to believe that AI platforms will course correct and deploy more ethical approaches to creating datasets, and can further become a tool that can be used by artists and designers to create art like never before!