Weeping Over AI Images
Hi, I’m Gabrielle Blair and this is my newsletter. It’s completely free to access and read, but if you feel so moved to support my work, please consider a paid newsletter subscription: just $5/month or save money with the $50/annual sub. You can also go way above and beyond by becoming a Founding Member at $75. Or, some of you have let me know you’d rather send money directly via Paypal and Venmo (@gabrielle-blair). Thank you! Seriously, thank you. Support from readers keeps this newsletter ad and sponsor-free.
AI Artwork Heartbreak
I started crying today when I read this tweet about AI images. The tweet shows four crops of AI images that show the remains of an artist’s signature. How is there a remnant of an artist’s signature? Because the AI imagery isn’t created from a blank canvas.
No one taught the AI how to draw. No one taught the AI how a sharp HB pencil feels different depending on the weight and texture of paper. No one taught the AI to look for the negative spaces as it draws a portrait or a still-life. No one taught the AI how to clean the brushes after using gouache, or acrylics, or oil-paint. No one taught the AI which glue works best for collage, or what eventually happens when you don’t use an archival glue. No one taught the AI that you can’t use the same scissors for textiles that you use for paper, because if you do, pretty soon you won’t be able to cut textiles anymore.
No. Instead, the programmer feeds the AI existing art. All of the art on the entire internet, which is very nearly all of the art in the world. And so many of those pieces of digitized art have keywords attached — specifying dates, artists, artistic styles, eras, trends, colors, concepts, etc. After being fed millions (billions?) of pieces of art, the AI learns what Animé is, what Impressionism is, what Pop-art is. The AI learns what an Andy Wharhol-style painting is like, what a Vermeer-style painting is like.
And then an AI software user, perhaps you or I, requests some art, using keywords and prompts, and the AI looks at every related piece of artwork it has access to, and it samples from a piece of art here, and rearranges a certain piece of art there, and voila! it has created “new” art. New art that often looks awfully similar to the work of actual living working artists, because the AI used the work of the actual living working artists, as a base for the “new” art.
I started crying because I had this chest-crushing feeling that for 15 years, artists and creators have all been tricked, have been fooled. We’ve put our photos, essays, designs, artwork, recipes, creations on the internet. Sometimes we’ve done it because we had no choice and had to create a portfolio — because digital portfolios are required these days; a paper portfolio is currently unheard of. Most often we’ve done it for free, with the implied or overt promise that if we share enough of our work for free, it will eventually turn into paid work.
But it turns out we were just teaching an AI how to replace ourselves; how to replace writers and artists and designers and creators.
(To be clear, I’m not excused from any of this. I’ve taken part in this as much as anyone else. I’ve created and shared free art/content, and I’ve consumed and used free art/content.)
I started crying as I pictured what it must be like for an artist to see their work repurposed by AI; to see a piece that took the artist hours and days and weeks to create, instantly reimagined by a computer, but still totally recognizable in style and technique and color palette. And the artist receiving zero acknowledgement, zero credit. It’s disheartening and sad.
But maybe I’m overreacting.
Maybe this will become a new tool for artists. I’ve seen some AI portraits that looked good to me, but I haven’t yet seen AI concept art that I liked enough to pin or save or bookmark. Maybe it will be artists that learn how to prompt the AI to create actually great art. Maybe the AI will just be another type of brush for an already excellent artist to wield; another useful tool.
Maybe the AI will create first drafts and then artists will build on those drafts, refine and edit them, to create a finished piece.
Maybe the AI will produce a new wave of creativity. Maybe people who don’t consider themselves creators or artists will become creators and artists. Similar to the wave of creativity we’ve seen from the Apple Pencil paired with the Procreate app.
Maybe original, one-of-a-kind, in real life art works will become more and more valuable. Yes, an AI could digitally copy a Rothko, but could an AI create a compelling Rothko-style piece on a huge piece of actual canvas in real life? Layering on the colors with a brush? Managing drips? Mixing the pigments? (Not yet at least.)
Related, maybe fashion will become the last non-AI art form, both because it’s so tangible, and because the canvases (the human body) are so varied.
Even if it’s unfair, and even if people point out that AI is stealing from artists, I don’t believe for a second that these AI instances are going to go away. I also like to think that I’m pretty good about embracing change. So I suppose part of my sadness today is just me mourning for something that is gone now, something that has been lost.
Honestly, as I type this, I feel more angry than sad. My anger is not directed toward people who are using AI to generate art. My anger is directed at the non-creators of the world who make their fortunes on the backs of creators. There’s a not-artist out there right this minute, who is making $5 every time someone downloads an AI app. But the artists who created the work that feed the AI are making $0. And remember: that non-artist did not get permission to use the artworks that they fed to the AI. That sucks on every level.
I grew up with the idea that computers, robots, AI would eventually relieve us of the oppressive tasks of living. But computers can’t do the dishes or the laundry or plant or harvest food or build houses.
Instead, we’ve taught them to do what humans already excel at and take joy in: creation.
It feels so backwards that art and writing are the first compelling AI examples. Why would we ask them to takeover the creative tasks that fulfill us?
Lately on Design Mom
My most requested gift guides are up on my blog. I shared them on Instagram and have had so many DMs that they’ve been super helpful. I love hearing that! Hopefully they’ll be helpful to you too.
38 Awesome Gift Ideas For Teens
34 Terrific Gift Ideas for Tweens
Handmade Gifts — 15 Very Cool Projects
That’s all for now. Feel free to comment on anything I mentioned above, or whatever’s on your mind. I hope you’re having a good first week of December.
kisses,
Gabrielle
I haven't heard this argument before (sheesh, I just saw the AI profile trend a few days ago...welcome to under my rock!) but I agree with your statement here, especially:
"But the artists who created the work that feed the AI are making $0. And remember: that non-artist did not get permission to use the artworks that they fed to the AI. That sucks on every level."
Ouch.
Can we also talk about how creepy it is that the female portraits created by this ai are way more sexualized than the male images? Is ai sexist? Is ai learning and all the bad things it is gleaming from our culture?