AI art generators are the latest craze and we are seeing their visual productions all around. In that way, AI art affects all of us. But does that mean AI art is a threat to artists? Some have already raised concerns that AI will take over and replace artists. Others simply see it as a tool to bring art-making to the masses. So why is it that some people are against AI art? Let’s get into it with this blog post!
The danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads, by a lot. Mark my words, AI is far more dangerous than nukes.
ELON MUSK
If this is how Elon Musk, the father of brain-machine implants, feels about artificial intelligence, we should give it a serious thought. Look at it this way: if artificial intelligence is really able to outperform us at every mental and physical level, we will have rendered ourselves redundant!
What motivation will we have to do anything if we know that robots will outpace us anyways? Why should we put any effort into learning something that AI can do better, faster, and at a fraction of the cost?
In recent months, we’ve seen an explosion of readily available AI art generators, but does this mean that AI is a threat to artists?
AI art generators make it super-easy to create new artwork from a photo or text in just a couple of seconds. Text-to-image generators like Midjourney, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion let you enter a few descriptive text prompts and immediately spit out an image that visually matches your input. With the Lensa AI art app, you upload a photo of yourself and the program will replicate it in various artistic styles.
So far so fun, you might think. Is there anything wrong with it? Besides that people have raised ethical concerns and claimed that AI art is stealing from artists, there is still the financial threat to artists. Image synthesis models (ISMs) produce imagery ‘good enough’ for various purposes in just a matter of seconds, and for a tiny fraction of what it would cost to pay a human designer.
Even if AI art cannot replace human creatives in the next couple of years, many believe it to be a threat to artists.
In any case, AI art will affect all of us – whether artists or non-artists. If the AI generator trend goes on like it is at the moment, the majority of art we will see in the future will inevitable be AI generated. Do we want that?
There is a big AI art controversy going on in the art world, and it is important that we talk about it. Because, as I said above, AI art will affect us all. That’s why I decided to start a series of blog posts addressing the AI Art vs. Human Art topic, with the first post on whether AI art can be considered real art. As usual, I invite ya’ll to join the discussion and share your thoughts and feelings in the comments. In this blog post, we are going to talk about whether AI is a threat to artists. Let’s unpack it!
Why are people against AI art?
If you are a little bit involved with the art community, you know that many artists are against AI art. Why? Well, there are multiple reasons.
First of all, there is the way that AI happens to be able to ‘make art’ at all. Because AI itself is totally incapable of genuine art-making. Before any artificial art generator can ever spit out a single new artwork, it must have been fed with the artworks of humans.
All image synthesis models (ISMs) rely on huge online databases, such as the LAION-5B, that have assembled millions and millions of human imagery. Such databases pull publicly available images from websites like DeviantArt, ArtStation, Getty Images, Pinterest, etc. and include them in their datasets.
While AI adds its own modifications and variations, it wouldn’t be able to create any piece on its own if it didn’t have access to the creations of both dead and living artists. Without this rich source of human art, AI would be lost at creating such awe-inspiring fakes of Picasso and Van Gogh paintings that we can now see everywhere online. That’s why some people say AI art is stealing from artists.
AI's ability to replicate the style of any artist, including both alive and long-dead artists, is another reason why people are against AI art.
Example of an AI painting showing van Gogh in Rembrandt’s signature style. This is one of the less fortunate results that Midjourney produced. Things aren’t quite right. The eyes don’t match, ears and beard are off, and there’s even an extra ear on the jacket. (Image via DeviantArt)
Many people have raised concerns about whether AI art is ethical if it makes it so easy for anyone, without any artistic skills, to generate hundreds of images in any artist’s style in a matter of minutes. If you are an artist yourself, you know how much time and effort go into creating such works. You need countless hours of dedicated practice and persistence to hone your skills and develop a unique art style.
Are you worried about your creative future with all the machine-made imagery swallowing up the market?
So how do AI-based tools actually manage to achieve aesthetically appealing images? The answer is pretty simple. The algorithms have learned the principles and elements of design that already the old masters knew of. Applying those principles, AI recreates compositions that appeal to human aesthetics.
But any artist can learn these principles! It’s no rocket science. Just head over to the Freebie Library and download your copy of the Secrets of Good Composition in Art.
Free Download: Secrets of Good Composition in Art –
If you haven’t tried out an AI art generator yet, you might not know how those systems work. Well, the process couldn’t be any easier. All you need to do is type in some text (prompts) that describes the idea you have in mind. A few seconds later, AI will come up with a set of images that it thinks matches the prompts. Depending on whether or not you like the images, you can make further modifications or upscale and download the ones you like.
I tried out Midjourney myself and the first image I generated was already good enough to use it in one of my surreal creations.
This brings us to reason #3 why people are against AI art. AI art generators are so easy to use that virtually anyone can use them, without any artistic skills whatsoever.
People argue that entering text prompts is so simple that the user can neither take credit for the production nor the aesthetic appeal of the generated image.
The AI art controversy flared up again when an AI-generated piece won first place in a 2022 US-state fine art competition. Jason Allen had created his submission ‘Théâtre D’Opéra Spatial’ using Midjourney. Even though Allen explained that he had spent hours figuring out the right prompts, artists were outraged. I talk more about that in my first post of the AI Art vs. Human Art series.
It’s one thing to celebrate the best AI art in the realm of artificial intelligence. But it’s another thing to rank it among the best human art. That was the actual bone of contention. Artists spoke out against AI art because it is completely missing the human element. It has no sentience and imagination itself. Admitting an AI-generated image to a traditional fine art competition demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for real art, in their opinion.
Matthew Dryhurst helped put things into perspective. He is a member of the artist collective that recently released Have I Been Trained? , a tool to check if your images were included in the LAION-5B AI database. According to Dryhurst, a state fair is not exactly a prestigious forum. “They were giving out prizes for canned fruit,” he says. “What annoys me is that there seems to be this kind of thirst to scare artists.”
In fact, the language that AI art enthusiasts tend to use feels like a threat to many artists.
Jason Allen, for example, was quoted saying:
“Art is dead, dude.”
shortly after he came out as the state fair winner. On a similar note, Emad Mostaque, founder of Stability AI, described the purpose of Stable Diffusion as follows:
“So much of the world is creatively constipated, and we’re going to make it so that they can poop rainbows.”
Understandably, this flowery language doesn’t appeal to a lot of artists. (°͡ʖ̯°͡)
- Stay in touch!
Our Newsletter is packed with creative tips, free tutorials, art tool reviews, and looaads of inspiration!
Statements like those above create the impression that both generative AI enthusiasts and developers don’t have any respect for genuine creativity. To me, it seems like generative AI users like Allen virtually celebrate the loss of ‘real art’. They trample on the creative achievements of generations of artists whose artworks are important testimonies of time. It is these artworks that helped shape our societies and cultures since their early beginnings.
Many creatives claim that AI art generators were specifically designed to take over artists. When I read Mostaque’s comment, I can easily agree with that. In my view, his words show a lot of contempt for creative work and dedication.
What is your impression? Are you one of those people who are against AI art or supportive of it? And most importantly, why? ಠ_ಠ
Will AI art take over artists?
Let me start with the bad news. Since 2000, almost 300,000 jobs have been lost to automation, mainly in accounting and bookkeeping. Because those areas involve dealing with numbers and calculations, they can be easily replaced with artificial intelligence.
Only a few months ago, nobody thought that artificial intelligence would also be able to replace creative jobs. While generative AI technology is still in its infancy, it is developing at fast pace.
But does that mean that AI art will take over artists? No, surely not. The last word is not said yet.
Nevertheless, the future looks gloomy, especially for small-scale creative work. Because AI can produce ‘good enough’ results, less demanding companies might just go for the more cost-efficient option. That means entry-level illustration and design jobs could potentially be outsourced to AI.
In June 2022, the Cosmopolitan was the first magazine to publish an AI-generated cover, a space normally reserved for photos or artwork (that humans made and got paid for). At the bottom they write: “And it only took 20 seconds to make.” Can you make it any clearer that you care more about speed and cost than about actual human work? (Image via Cosmopolitan)
However, while it is easy to make an impressive-looking artwork in a couple of seconds using AI, it’s difficult to create a specific piece. It is practically impossible to make the art that is meaningful to you. You’ll never be able to tell the story you want to tell.
The reason why so many people are currently flocking to image generation platforms is because they’ve suddenly found a tool to ‘become artists’ themselves. Without learning any digital art skills, and without training their imagination and creativity. Those who got into AI art early enough were still able to bedazzle their friends with stunning paintings they allegedly created on their own.
However, that masquerade will soon be over. As more and more AI-generated images are flooding the web, people get more sensitive to what’s going on. Do you still remember how Beeple was able to amaze people with his Cinema 4D creations that looked like digital paintings à la Simon Stalenhag? Same thing with AI art.
How will AI art affect artists?
As it stands, generative AI art will not only affect artists, but the value of art in general. As art is increasingly becoming a matter of mass-production, all art is devalued. Not only real art.
While AI art enthusiasts might still be thinking they got a leg-up on artists, they miss seeing the long run. Since anyone can generate AI art by just getting together the right prompts, those new ‘creative jobs’ will be even easier to replace in the coming years.
As AI is getting into more creative areas, the same will happen to professions like writers, architects, composers, and musicians. In fact, it is much easier to artificially generate music than visual art. AI has already created music based on Bach’s compositions.
So isn't AI a threat to artists of all spheres of life?
Soon everyone will be able to create a pop song ‘in the style of Beyoncé’ or a rap song ‘in the style of Eminem’. But do you think these industry giants will sit and watch their work get exploited? Do you believe the labels behind them will watch their money go down the drain? I highly doubt it.
Fact is that not even the most famous visual artists have their billion-dollar power to push for legal regulations. Visual art is only the test run because it is easier to exploit. However, I strongly believe that it will quickly come to copyright claims once the more cash-strong sectors are threatened.
How do you see it? Do you think there is still hope for artists to have their intellectual rights protected?
Can AI art replace artists?
Creativity is something innate to humans. It cannot be separate from us. In fact, it has been with us since the early cave drawings and we cannot live without art. Every one of us is creative in some way or another. Everyone is an artist in their specific area of interest.
As it happens, automated creative processes like generative AI can never replace artists.
Because artistry involves many more skills than AI will ever be able to develop. Creative decision-making and self-expression are two of those skills. Creating art is about making choices. You choose the materials you want to use, the techniques you want to apply, and the message you want to convey through your work.
More importantly, there is a connection between the artist and the selected media. After all, there is a reason why an artist chooses a brush or digital art tools.
Indisputably, art is a reflection of the artist’s personality and identity. It evolves in the context of their culture, society, and community. Oftentimes, it is a reaction to political or societal conditions.
AI might replace artists in smaller design and illustration jobs to a certain extent. BUT, a machine will never be able to replicate real art that conveys a meaning. It will never be able to give rise to new art movements. It is not possible because a machine lacks sentience, emotion, critical thinking and life experience.
In conclusion, is AI a threat to artists?
In the end, do I think that AI art is a threat to artists? In the short run, AI-generated works might be competing with human art. It’s new, it’s exciting. But novelty soon wears off. In the long run, AI art will fall short against human art. Let’s look at it this way:
Art is our innate human way to communicate with each other and share experiences. If we took away all the human visual arts, music, and poetry, what would we be left with? Mere cold technology.
On that note, AI art will never be able to take over. Human-made art will always stand out and be superior to what machines can produce. The latest tech craze tends to die down quickly. While people might still be looking in awe at the apparent artificial miracles, they will soon come to realize that not everyone who uses AI to create art is an artist.
If someone can type in a few words to mimic an artistic style, so can heaps of others. At the end of the day, AI images that once blew people’s mind will end up getting lost in a sea of similar products and become meaningless. On the other hand, human art might become more scarce, and more valuable.
What’s your opinion? Do you think AI art is a threat to artists? Has it affected your artistic career? Or do you see it as just another tool to help you make art faster? Please leave comments and questions below or reach out to me directly. I’d love to hear from you! Make sure to sign up for my email list below so you don’t miss out on new blog posts and other cool stuff. ♥
For more about the topic, check out the other posts from my AI Art vs Human Art series:
