By Caitlin Corll
Can artificial intelligence, or AI, create artwork that captures human emotions? Are AI creations “real art”? Is using AI image generators unethical?
These questions are currently causing much debate in the creative community and society at large. This controversy stems from a few places. First of all is how the art is made.
Image by Caitlin Corll, created in Canva
To the individual, AI art is created by simply typing in a prompt and the application generates an image for use. Further prompts and critiques can be added to refine the image to match the individual’s idea.
However, there is much more going on behind the scenes to create these images. As the California Learning Resource Network explains, the first step in the generation process is data collection.
The developer of the AI generator has to give the AI model an immense amount of data. This data can consist of images, videos, and text. The model will use this data to learn patterns between different types of artwork, what makes art appealing to humans, and how to replicate different styles.
This is where it gets controversial. This data that the AI models are trained on has to come from somewhere. Usually, it is gathered from databases on the internet. This has sparked debate as to whether the ways certain models gather data violate current copyright laws.
As “Smithsonian Magazine” explains, StabilityAI, an AI image generator, has been the defendant of two lawsuits thus far. Both allege the way the model scrapes the web for images harms artists by using their work without crediting or compensating them.
Viewpoints seem to be split as to the legality of AI models’ process of finding and using images. The class action lawsuit against StabilityAI clearly states it as a violation of artists’ legal rights.
Image by Caitlin Corll, created on Canva
“The harm to artists is not hypothetical—works generated by A.I. Image Products ‘in the style’ of a particular artist are already sold on the internet, siphoning commissions from the artists themselves,” said the lawsuit.
However, representatives of StabilityAI and proponents for AI generated art see it as no different from human artists seeking inspiration and learning from other artists.
“Anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology and misunderstands the law,” said a spokesperson for StabilityAI.
David Holz, the CEO for Midjourney, another AI image generator, shares this mindset.
“Can a person look at somebody else’s picture and learn from it and make a similar picture?” Holz said. “Obviously, it’s allowed for people and if it wasn’t, then it would destroy the whole professional art industry…To the extent that A.I.s are learning like people, it’s sort of the same thing and if the images come out differently then it seems like it’s fine.”
As it becomes increasingly clear current legislation will have to evolve to meet the concerns of a society grappling with AI for the first time, there are other concerns artists and consumers alike share about AI art.
Some argue that art is a uniquely human pursuit and AI couldn’t possibly replicate it or create “real” art. This is an interesting question with many potential angles to examine.
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines art as “a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination.”
By this definition, it would appear that AI artwork could not be “real” art as AI arguably possesses neither consciousness nor imagination.
However, artists have always held closely to their own philosophies of what defines art. The advent of AI has not changed this and the artistic community is as diverse in their opinions on the new technologies as in their myriad mediums.
The Harvard Gazette shares interviews with several artists from different disciplines exploring their views on the topic.
“Art means what we ascribe to it,” said Matt Saunders, a mixed-media artist. “It can be a provocation, but it is essentially always part of a conversation. Many artists are already using the inventions (and provocations) of AI in works of great substance, but of course the artists are still the ones bringing it into the room.”
If we view art through this lens, defining it as part of a conversation, AI art certainly fits the definition.
“Art has an element that is spiritual, emotional,” said Moshe Safdie, an architect and urban planner. “In terms of art created by AI, I don’t think we can call it art…I can see that it composes a piece of music, but I don’t think it could create Beethoven’s last sonatas on its own. AI can imitate something that’s already been created and regurgitate it in another format, but that is not an original work.”
Again, this brings up the opinion that the emotional aspect of human art is what defines it. Emotion is something that as of yet, AI can imitate, but not authentically produce.
Like these creatives, WPU students agree emotion is unique to human artwork and a defining feature of what constitutes “art”. Though, as in society at large, there are diverse viewpoints.
Image by Caitlin Corll, created in Canva
“I feel like with human art, you can actually see the emotion behind it,” said Aileen Arellano, a junior business major. “I don’t know about you, but I believe in human art, you put your emotions into it, and with AI it just feels blank.”
For some students, it’s also the effort humans put into the work and the deprivation of this opportunity by AI that creates a feeling of inadequacy in AI artwork.
“To a certain extent, I guess it could be called real art depending on the way that it’s used,” said Kaylan Logan Bouknight, a sophomore business administration major. “Like as inspiration, or if somebody copies it exactly…But in a way, it’s not really artwork, because it’s taking away from people that are actually putting time and effort into the thing that they love to do.”
Some of those in the WPU community simply disagree with these stances and do view AI artwork as real art, the creation of it by an algorithm not diminishing its authenticity.
“Not only is it convenient, but it also takes up less time,” said Jadon Roberts, a junior simulation and game design major. “It’s just designed by AI.”
Despite potential controversy, WPU students are incorporating AI artwork into their projects as well as creating it themselves.
Roberts uses ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and AI Art Generation to create artwork, characters, and avatars. Bouknight searches the web to find specific images generated by AI and occasionally uses a generator when she wants a specific type of image for a project.
While concerns abound concerning AI art, there are also many benefits it presents, such as helping artists and graphic designers work more efficiently, allowing artists to explore a new medium, and allowing students to find highly specific images to enhance their projects.
“I’m hopeful that AI artwork can help some people get a jump start or with content creation and monetization,” said Roberts.
Apart from strictly practical uses, some WPU students create AI art for the fun of it.
“I used it for the fun of it,” said Arellano. “For my background on my computer, I did rocks and a waterfall…I would use it if it’s for a funny art piece.”
AI artwork heralds a slew of potential issues and benefits for artists and consumers alike. While there are questions regarding copyright issues, fair compensation for artists, and what constitutes “real” art, WPU students are also exploring the benefits of the technology.
Featured photo: A laptop is surrounded by tubes of watercolor paint and paintbrushes on a wooden table. The advent of AI art combines traditional artistic venues with the digital realm, posing both benefits and challenges to artists. Photo courtesy of Unsplash