Unless you assume the artists are the hundreds of stolen art works utilized as AI material.
The photographs do not originate from anywhere: the results derive traits and aesthetic elements from an infinite bank of data on the internet, virtually all of which is gathered without consent.
However, ArtStation states that they take copyright infringement “extremely seriously.” The whole remark reeks of dishonesty and apprehension about the repercussions. Artists responded by submitting the same artwork, made by artist Alexander Nanitchkov, with the words “SAY NO TO AI-GENERATED ART.” Some created the picture in their own ways, filling ArtStation’s algorithm and making AI art search incredibly tough. The community believes that the act will draw ArtStation’s notice and cause them to reconsider their position. Other demonstrations began on other platforms as well, with hashtags such as #NoAi dominating.
The simple idea of AI art as a tool conceals the underlying hideous, capitalistic initiative of theft, disdain, and commodification that it delivers.
These pictures are far from capable of replacing the human hand. AI-created books lack critical details and have messed-up elements that demonstrate the work is plainly generated: additional fingers, mismatched eyes, buildings that abruptly terminate, landscapes that seem to glitch out like a video game, and many other faults.
Not only that, but the claim that it makes art more accessible is absurd. Art has always been and will always be accessible: anything may be art if you believe it to be so. You may spend millions of dollars on your craft, or you can make items out of mud or by cutting into objects; the only limit is your own imagination. The fact is that AI does not make art more accessible; rather, finished creations may now be produced with little effort.
The community has noticed an upsetting but not entirely surprising pattern: the virtual art world’s juggernauts, such as Adobe and DeviantART, are the ones promoting AI-generated art: companies and programs known for their artistic exploitation in favor of generating the most income are pro AI, while smaller companies, such as the art program Krita, have followed the protest in vowing to protect human artists.
Another disturbing example was the shocking emergence of AI-generated paintings in artist lanes at events such as Anime Expo. Fortunately, two of the largest conventions in the United States (Anime NYC and Anime Los Angeles) prohibited the sale of AI-generated art in artist alleys, with Anime Los Angeles stating, “If, in the future, such a program is created that allows only specific images the artist owns to be sourced from, it will be the artist’s responsibility to provide proof that the pieces were not created from stolen images.”
Places like these, in my experience, are highly important for the selling of local work, as well as people engaging with artists and other art lovers and sharing their beautiful armament of ideas and specialized personality. AI has no place here.
You are not reinventing the art game; instead, you are insulting hard work, passion, livelihood, and the joy of creativity. Not to mention the funds that artists need to survive. AI is reducing art to a commodity, a worry that has persisted since the advent of NFTs and even the first kinds of printmaking. Despite everything, art has always existed.
We will always be here.