Pixel Gallery - Is it Art?

It's interesting ... it's thought-provoking ... but is it art?

The masthead graphic for this gallery was deliberately chosen for one reason - the goddess figure has one eye open and one eye closed.

With this simple gesture, she encompasses the debate that is currently raging around AI (artificial intelligence) graphics. From one point of view they are definitely not art, and from another point of view, they are.

Defining art has always been a process similar to finding your way through a swamp. You are more likely to get caught up somewhere murky than you are to reach your destination.

But growth in art is something that has also been deeply embedded in Hegel's dialectic, in which a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, and, over time, this results in a synthesis which is a higher truth. There have been plenty of artists who have challenged the prevalent notion of what constitutes art - I will mention Vincent Van Gogh, Pablo Picasso, Wassily Kandinsky, Salvadore Dali and Jackson Pollock, and I am sure you will immediately think of many more.

One thing that all of these challenges to the existing concept of art had in common though, is that they all came from people, human beings who had a vision for how art might change, and who persisted in their endeavors as they used real media to express new concepts in a new way.

So, are AI graphics from a machine source, rather than a human one? Well, not exactly. They are, in fact, created from data that is all human - the work of artists in conventional media.

The data set can be seen as the most comprehensive view we have of creativity in human beings. As DavidH, of Midjourney, said as he introduced Version 5 of that graphics generator, "Midjourney hopes that users will feel the progression of something deep and unfathomable in the power of the tool leveraging our collective human imagination."

So ultimately, the source is of AI graphics collectively human, and the machine only serves to deliver selected parts of human inspiration.

Ok, so let's get back to the question. Are AI-generated graphics art?

The question can only be answered, of course, if you explain your criteria for judging whether something is art or not, and those criteria as almost always subjective and variable from person to person. Art is not a concept with a fixed, shared meaning for everyone.

If you think the work I do, as represented in this gallery, is art, then, for you, I am an AI graphics artist. If you think that it is not art for any reason, then you are welcome to call me by any other name you choose. Pixel-bender is one of my favorites.

The advent of AI generated graphics is brand new to the human experience, and it is going to take some time for us to figure this out. Meanwhile, there is nothing to be gained by standing on one side of the fence in this controversy, throwing mud at the other side.

***

Confession time. My title of this article and including the question "... but is it art?" was only click-bait. I wanted you here because there is something much more important for all of us to discuss.

Until we have court judgments about the debate over copyright infringement vs. fair use of material publicly available on the Internet, and the results of inevitable appeals on those judgments, we should let our our gut reactions and sense of fair play act as guides for our current actions.

DeviantArt is already making the "noai" or "noimageai" directives the default option for submissions, marking the files with an X-Robots-tag, but they acknowledge that they cannot control artificial intelligence or other machine learning systems, so this is a signal to the companies collecting data and it remains to be seen if the intention will be honored.

If decisions are made that copyright has been broken and that damages are payable to artists, that will raise a whole new set of questions - who is to be paid, by whom, and how much? This would likely lead to the bankruptcy of some companies, but not to the end of AI. It will come back and continue to grow, though perhaps in a more disciplined fashion.

Before that guidance from the courts comes, let's do some sensible things. AI graphics generators should immediately agree not to allow searches based on the prompts which reference the names of living artists, whose work, reputation and livelihoods could be negatively affected by AI products made "in the style of" their names.

We already have guidelines in copyright law as to when works by artists transition from being copyrighted to being in the public domain. I see no harm in asking an AI generator to produce content in the style of Shakespeare, or in the style of Rembrandt, because no harm will result to their work, reputation or livelihood. I do see a problem with living artists trying to sell their work amid a flood of copy-cat material, especially since this is something we could fix.

As a first step of reconciliation between those who love AI and those who hate it, can we at least agree on this one step? Let's make it clear to all AI graphics services that, if anyone earning a living as an artist requests that their name not be used as a prompt in searches, that request should be honoured.

I know that such searches are popular, and AI services will be reluctant to move in this direction without being directed to do so by the courts, but isn't this just the right thing to do?

Bob Foster at PixelGallery.ca

(Rob Fossett in Second Life)

Return to Home Page