On the surface, AI-Generation software appears to be a tool capable of creating a work of art without human intervention. If so, who then is the artist? Is it the tool or the person who operates the tool[i] or should authorship be shared?
Generally, we view a tool as being under the control of the author. We don’t say a camera is the artist; we don’t say the pen is the author, so why should this AI tool be any different? The difference lies in the extent of the work it does. It removes many of the technical skills and craft traditionally required and expected in the creation of a work art. As Martin Zeilinger, researcher, practitioner and curator at Abertay University notes:
“… when an AI system isn’t just understood as a tool used by human artists, but as an agential entity (or an assemblage of such entities) capable of “creative” expression, this then problematizes not only aesthetic assumptions regarding the nature of creativity and authorship, but by extension also socio-economic and legal assumptions regarding the ownership or, indeed, the very “ownability” of such expressions.”[ii]
How we answer this question of authorship might lie in our point of view on whether we see AI as a creativity-enhancing tool (i.e., as a transhumanist) or whether we see ourselves as co-creators (i.e., as a posthumanist).[iii] I expect that if we fall into the former camp, the human will take full credit regardless of the contribution of the tool.
Regardless of our point of view, some human intervention does remain. The first is selecting terms that are used to drive the AI Generation process. The second is the selection of an image from possibly hundreds of results. Third is a contribution common to both traditional and AI-Generated art: the formulation of an idea; the design of the meaning that the work is intended to convey.
If we put these observations into the context of a multi-media work, one that uses say text and images, then, let us say, the role of the imagery and its contribution to the overall work is its ability to express more convincingly than words our thoughts and emotions. The process used to create an image, whether painted, photographed or generated, becomes subservient to its contribution to the overall narrative. In this context, the role of the artist is broadened to the orchestration of the parts into a whole. One might argue that the ability to leverage an AI-Generator enables the artist to overcome a skills gap that would have otherwise limited the multi-media work.
So, do we look at AI-generation as a tool to replace the artist or do we see it as a tool to extend the capabilities and scope of the work they undertake?[iv] [v] Did photography kill painting? No. It caused that art form to evolve from a representational form to one more conceptual, more abstract. It enabled artists to explore new forms of representing ideas; the exploration into the subconscious; a means to express the emotional turbulence of the industrial revolution and the emergence of new societies resulting from rapid technological change.
Is AI-generation a threat to artists? Current AI-generation tools do draw from the Internet images created and possibly copyrighted by other artists without any means of recognition or compensation.[vi] While the generation process might mediate original works such that they become unrecognizable, the style may be identifiable as belonging to a specific artist, impacting their ability to control their own expressive personality embedded in their works.[vii] As well, any technology change usually results in displacement, and thus there will be some who are unable or unwilling to transition.
However, AI-Generation also opens new fields of endeavour and new processes of creation. The ability to quickly generate an image could, for example, open art to a prototyping process, where tens or hundreds of images are created using the tool, and then the artist paints an image from one or more of these generated pieces (how different is that from a painter painting a landscape from a photograph) or merges them in photoshop. The ability to generate images from text enables one to experiment, for example, with merging multiple genre or styles into otherwise inconceivable combinations. The tool then becomes a means of pushing the boundaries of art. Combined with a prototyping process the artist can test which limits are worth pushing. Art then is less constrained by the expertise in a particular craft, rather it is nudged towards the experimentation of the expression and composition of ideas and concepts. A push in the direction of imagination; a composer rather than a widget builder.
[i] Gill, Joanna. 2022. AI-generated art is booming – but who really owns it? World Economic Forum. September 12 2022. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/artificial-intelligence-ai-generated-art-ethics-copyright/
[ii] Zeilinger, Martin. “Tactical Entanglements: AI Art, Creative Agency, and the Limits of Intellectual Property (OPEN ACCESS)”. 2021. meson press. Lüneberg, Germany.
[iii] Yenidogan, Buket. 2021. “How to Talk About AI Art and Music.” Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/80863332/How_to_Talk_About_AI_Art_and_Music .
[iv] Bogost, Ian. 2019. The AI-Art Gold Rush is Here. The Atlantic March 6, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/ai-created-art-invades-chelsea-gallery-scene/584134/
[v] Wong, Matteo. 2022. Is AI Art a ‘Toy’ or a ‘Weapon’? The Atlantic September 23 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/09/dall-e-ai-art-image-generators/671550/
[vi] Ibid, Gill
[vii] Esposti, M. “The Use of Copyrighted Works by AI Systems: Art Works in the Data Mill.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018.
Leave a Reply