AI Art - Tool or Trash?
It's about time I posted about this polarizing topic of AI “Art”: What it is, some of the ways it's used in the community, and what it means for artists along the way. And some stuff in between. I've recently had numerous discussions about AI “Art” in general, especially while the hubs and I attend events to showcase our book, The Chimera Snare. The conversation is triggered in multiple ways, from seeing someone bring a trove of AI-generated art prints to sell at a maker’s event to seeing AI “Art” on T-shirts, totes—even on the cover of books. You can even find it on graphics used to promote artisan events and concerts. And the crazy thing is, some people may not even know they are using AI “Art.”
So, what is AI "Art"
First, as a creative, calling "AI Art" art is a stretch. In my opinion, anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment. It's not true art. Art has many definitions, but it is essentially a tangible creation from an artist's imagination. It is something beautiful or meaningful that is created from the ground up through human expression, emotion, and experience, utilizing learned techniques. It takes skill, passion, and dedication. Check out Thought.Co and ArtGoda for some additional depth.
AI is considered a tool. AI "Art" is a tool that "studies" and mimics (hijacked) art existing in the world now, and uses those works to spit out images—generated from text prompts given by a user. Over time, this tool has rapidly developed, and now users can self-indulge in a myriad of possibilities and create some pretty interesting things.
But if you think feeding ideas into a machine makes you an artist, well, many would disagree. Myself included. Having a computer puke out a graphic from text direction bypasses all the fundamental challenges and experiences of creating art—the things that make the finished result so special: The struggles. Getting doped up on instant gratification and round after round of whatever your mind cooks up devalues the entire process of creating work from the ground up. And instant gratification seems to be a more worrisome topic in the modern world.
—I'm going to add that I hate that "AI" is even part of the phrase “AI Art”. There's nothing artificial about it. This tool would not exist if it didn't have the hundreds of millions of artists' works to learn from—
How do people use AI Art?
From the personal thrill of “gen-ing” a smooth cheeseburger and other outlandish ideas to businesses using them on flyers, print goods, and even album and book cover art, AI "Art" has eked its way into virtually every creative space. Even music, FFS! And all of it is very concerning. Yeah, it can have its laughs, but at what cost in the long run?
—Fingers crossed that this is just a fad that will die out when trolls and other dopamine addicts have lost their fun and moved on to ruining something else—
What does this mean for artists?
Humans get replaced with AI
Well, frankly, in a world where support for creative paths is cut and defunded from youth, at least here in the States, the livelihood of artists is even more threatened. The last thing anyone wants is another unpaid robot or computer filling their rightful spot of employment, but it's happening. And with the rise in popularity of AI "Art," artists are being significantly impacted—their skills are being replaced by someone who thinks that putting their prompts into a computer can create a piece of suitable art for their project. And AI takeover isn’t limited to the arts. It’s affecting job markets across a gamut of industries. But relax, right? I mean, machines already took our jobs.
Artists' work is hijacked without their permission
AI isn't well-regulated, currently. It is a machine that feeds on whatever it can, sweeping what already exists for free, often regardless of copyrights. Though there are things artists can do to protect their work from training the algorithm, AI continues to learn, and companies continue to scrape creations from artists, whether they are aware of the potential or not. And I’m hard-pressed to believe these companies will ever ask permission to study artists’ work and/or offer compensation in exchange for bolstering their product with things that don't belong to them.
The complete artistic process gets devalued
I've mentioned it above, but it's worth highlighting again. Instant gratification bypasses the experience of creating art and learning. You essentially skip to the benefits of the process without all of the struggles it took to get there. Sure, no artist wants to feel the negative aspects that go hand in hand with creating art—the sleepless nights, that second eye you can never draw right the first twenty times, learning struggles, improving through practice, the TIME it takes to create something. But those are the requisites for art made from the heart, imagination, and human experience.
Will the younger generations be able to appreciate the importance of human-made art?
Ooof… Well, this is a scary question IMO. If, circling back to the points made in the artistic process, one does not experience what it takes to truly create art, I fear the value and perception of what art is will slowly decline. That, and if creative avenues in schools continue to be hacked away, the notion of probability becomes incidental. Think about it: unless HUMAN ARTS are preserved, generation upon generation of people could wind up settling for some status quo of an algorithm's output, trained on less and less human art. We'll see copy after copy of whatever whimsical idea someone had but couldn't create on their own, flooding the digital space with endless static.
As a species, we tend not to appreciate what we have until it is on the verge of collapse. And we've already seen what happened when the Writers Guild went on strike in 2023.
"But I Don't Use AI Art"
I've heard this quite a bit lately, and it put the fire under my butt to write this post—finally. I started this on October 8, 2024, for transparency. Anyway, when I heard this statement most recently, I discovered I need to be more patient in trying to understand what someone means when they say this. And how to ask the right questions when the tell-tale signs of AI "Art" are right in front of my face.
The most important question to ask is: Did you personally create the art from scratch? If the answer to this is a full stop, ‘no’, then there’s a chance AI “Art” could be used without realizing it.
Here's an example: You’re creating a graphic by using stock photos, and you pick something that looks good to you. Case in point, this image here:
Hot Ghoul Summer Graphic used for a local maker’s market
Pretty neat concept, right? At first glance, sure. But if you look hard enough, you'll see the tell-tale signs of AI garble:
The Hair - This has been something I came to tell relatively easily. When hair has exceedingly odd or nonsensical layering and curls, chances are that AI is behind it.
The Hands (and Feet) - Often the first thing people look for, the hands are the most revealing giveaway. Look at the fingers, count them, and see if the placement makes sense. Also, check if they have proper connecting lines and don’t overlap. Even badly drawn hands by an artist are better than AI hands. This goes for feet as well.
Nonsensical Objects - In this example, the obvious nonsensical objects are: a) the book at the corner, which has a random ribbon popping out of the side, and a half-ribbon bound side adjacent to the spine. b) the tattoo of nothingness. c) The next most obvious thing is the wine glass with a lemon; the lemon is just kinda floating there. And whereas a wine glass is a seemingly inappropriate choice for a cocktail-type beverage, a computer won't know that, either. d) Also, notice the little dark blue blotch by the floating lemon slice? That’s the computer trying to mimic the floating objects occupying the background.
If you aren't taking your time and scrutinizing premade art thoroughly, you might fall victim to using AI "Art" when you otherwise wouldn't mean to.
Spoiler alert: If you don’t create your own artwork from the ground up, these topics are exceedingly common to ignore/overlook.
What can you do to check if something is truly AI “Art”?
I still maintain my first suggestion. LEARN. Learning is an asset. But another helpful tool is to drop the file into Google Image Search, which will do one of a couple of things:
1: It can connect you to the original file, where you can learn more information.
2: When you drop the image into Google Image Search, it will display an array of similar images, like this:
From there, look at the variations. The following images are painfully, obviously AI. Look at the hands, eyes, limb confusion (dark grey shirt), and the crummy image isolation job for some of the t-shirt prints. It’s also worthwhile noting that some people do gen and edit the result to make a hybrid combination as well.
What did you learn? That endless static is a consequence of generating images. AI “Art” users can wind up creating endless copies of a gen from a prompt, and/or hijacked art. This devalues the final result.
NOTE: You might not find the source image in Google Image search. In that case, search on stock sites, such as Adobe Stock or iStock. I had to search Adobe Stock to find the image. Even with the AI filter turned on. This means AI content can sneak through, making it even more important to know what to look for before committing to using an asset in your work.
So, what the hell does this have to do with makeup?
Makeup and photography are other forms of art. AI infiltrated one of the collaboration groups I was part of. The theme: do a look inspired by an "art" account. Only the "art" was all gen'd. My eye twitched a bit, and instead of dismissing the idea gracefully, as I had intended to, I decided to pursue it because I had an idea: take the image and make it real. As well as create the look.
Meet my choice:
An AI-Generated graphic of sparkly donuts on a glass platter
These glittery donuts, lovingly dubbed as having 'space measles' by Fam, appear whimsical, neat, and orderly at first glance. But like any other gen, the more you look at it, the more things kinda suck: proportion, shading, nonsensical patterns mimicked from prompt directives.
So, I made my own Space Measel Donuts.
Here's me. I woke up early (from a night of little sleep) to decorate my donuts and take shots at the perfect moment: when the sun crept through the upstairs window, bounced off the holographic film on the wall, creating an ethereal rainbow reflection on the fabric.
And here is my finished shot:
Regardless of whichever image is perceived as "better," the fact remains that I was able to eat mine when I was done.
Oh, and here’s the makeup look I created
Final thoughts
If you care about preserving human art, train yourself to know what to look for. Study the image for a few minutes. AI "Art" can pass if all you do is glance at it. And RESEARCH.
AI "Art" can distort the perception of normal textures, proportions, color, light, and more. Again, take your time and refer to elements of the real world.
Hyper detail and perceived perfection, often an attribute of gens, can cause one to lose touch with what things look like in real life. When analyzing your work, don't get wrapped up in obsessing over this misconstrued sense of 'perfection'.
Want more views on AI’s impact on the creative world from creative professionals? Check out more here.
