This question has been rolling around in my mind for awhile, and there are a few parts to this question. I will need to step through of how I got to these questions.
I have used AI as a tool in my own art pieces before. For example, I have taken a painting I had made more than a decade ago, and used a locally hosted AI to enhance it. The content of the final image is still my original concept, just enhanced with additional details and also make it into a 32:9 ultrawide wallpaper for my monitor.
From that enhanced image, I sent it through my local AI again (different workflow) to generate a depth map, and a normal map. I also separated the foreground, midground, and background.
Then I took all of that and loaded it into Wallpaper Engine (if you don't know what that is, it's an application that can be used to create animated wallpapers). I compiled each of the images proceeded to manually animate, track, and script it to bring the entire thing to life. The end product is something I really enjoy and I even published it on the wallpaper engine steam workshop for others to enjoy as well.
However, with all the AI slop that is being generated endlessly and the stigma that AI has in the art community as a whole, it brought the following questions to mind:
-
Is the piece that I painted and then used AI to rework, and then manually reworked further, still my art?
-
One step further, I didn't build any of the tools to make the original painting, I didn't create the programming or scripting languages. I didn't fabricate the PCBs or chipsets that I built my computer with to run all of those tools. The list can go on and on for how many things I use that were not created/generated by me nor would it be possible/feasible to give credit to every single person involved. So, is any artwork that I make actually mine? Or does it belong to the innumerable shoulders of giants of which we all stand upon?
-
Those questions led me to the main question of this post. Say that a real human grew up with only the experience of seeing AI slop and, as such, can only reference that AI slop experience they had learned; if that human creates something with their own hands, is that piece they create still art? Is it even a piece that they can claim they made?
I'm curious to see what thoughts people have on this.
Yes it's your art, you used AI as a tool to create your concept, from your original ideas. If the tool is trained to reproduce others' work (such as generative and LLM), it's another story.
A painting doesn't belong to the brush factory nor pigment maker, but neither is the brush or the paint the artistry of it. The greys of AI tool usage is when the tool takes away the art, statement, concept and/or craftsmanship. A photographer can create art with a camera, but they can also be used for stuff that is clearly not art.
To my mind, the art comes not from the school or medium, but from the artist challenging, provoking and/or expressing something human. With skill you can delve deeper within the human condition, conceptualise deeper truths, and with mastery of tools and/or craft become the better at conveying it.
An AI, not having an understanding of human-ness can never create art, only mimic it. Studying AI art can thus surely be used as an inspiration for technique and/or reflection, but trying to replicate generated images will probably be a difficult path towards creating art.
Then again, I would contrast art and creatives. Many ad creatives, fonts, decorations, and even wall paint swatches have very little artistic value to them, even though they require creativity and craftsmanship to realise.
On a related topic.
If we ever develop AI sentience, I fully expect them to develop their own humor and art, which will by necessity be incomprehensible and alien to us.
If they keep/rediscover the same concept of art as we do, it will need to challenge AI-ness, which need not even be detectable by us.
Maybe there are jokes than conflate binary 0 with syn/ack delays, or are built around the non-linearity of RAM? More probably they won't have the wiring for it like we do, where it works as emotional regulation, chemical proxy, and/or social markers.