Social media platforms have long been used by artists to exhibit their work and creative ideas. However, one may need to examine the photographs they view on their Twitter and Instagram feeds.
Sometimes these pictures look like a computer painting of a vibrant environment, while other times they resemble an artwork of Walter White from “Breaking Bad” on a Starbucks barista apron. The only thing these photographs have in common is that they were produced using code rather than a brush or pen.
In a nutshell, someone provides a prompt, and the program searches the internet for photographs with identical text to make something unique. For many, this is a magnificent achievement that overcomes the divide between art and technology, although a dispute concerning the employment of AI art has steadily evolved.
While it started as a fun way to generate weird graphics, other artists are voicing issues about the technology, with some even referring to AI artists as “nightmare consumers” when attempting to pass their work off as “genuine” art.
This heat comes on the heels of an AI artist winning a fine arts competition. Even though the judges permitted him to keep the money, the event received condemnation. Now, a steady trickle of AI-generated pictures has begun to cross the internet, with some applauding them and others challenging their classification.
The continuing issue is whether AI art is “real” art.
The first question is, of course, what art is. To some, it is a technique of expression, while to others, it is only a means of bringing human creativity to life.
Some persons think that art is largely utilised by artists to transmit their ideas, sentiments, passions, politics, and culture. But, on the other side, I would add that there is art that isn’t intrinsically expressive or passionate, such as corporate art or art on billboards or Coca-Cola bottles.
This raises the question, can this be termed art? On the one hand, it could be called that because of its style and its roots in history. But these robots still have flaws that make them different from what humans can make and make them easy to take advantage of.
Regardless of the answer, it appears that AI art will continue to exist in our increasingly digital environment.
I believe that normal artists have a valid reason to dislike it, and I believe that there must be some way to persuade them to accept it, or to create tools that are not intrusive and abrasive, and that do not tout their revolutionary nature, etc., that would actually help ordinary people create art.