Creation is difficult. Conceptualizing a creative expression and actually bringing it to fruition is undeniably challenging and time-consuming, and for many, it seems unreasonable to pour so much time and effort into one artwork.
But rather than simply harassing and insulting independent artists over their commission prices “being too high!” like the good old days, many people have resorted to removing artists’ value entirely, turning to generative AI to create art for them in a matter of seconds. What used to take an artist weeks or months can now be completed with a couple of keywords typed into an app like ChatGPT, which can spit out almost exactly what you’re looking for. Minus the “art” part.
This isn’t a holier-than-thou sermon. I’ve used AI to create pictures before, back when generative AI still felt novel and exciting, and it really did seem innocent and breezy. Without any artistic inclination whatsoever, anybody can throw some ideas into the pot and generate something new and fun. Landscapes, portraits, abstract art, anime drawings, all things that used to take energy and skill to create, suddenly became accessible to everybody. You didn’t need to pour years into refining your craft before you could create the art you wanted to see in the world. You could just make it happen instantaneously.
But therein lies the issue. Art is largely valuable because of the time and commitment it requires, not despite it. An illustration is more than just a picture; it’s a reflection of someone’s dedication to their work. It’s years or decades of labor put into refining their creativity and producing something meaningful to both them and the people who see it.
Artworks are love letters to late evenings spent hunched over your desk, hours spent crying over a botched piece and time spent sitting in classes or studios.
All of that care is ripped away when people begin treating generative AI images as genuine artworks. They, too, are a reflection of labor, but not the AI’s.
Artists are having to be increasingly wary of “scraping”, the practice of AI programs scouring and stealing art from the Internet, which is then used to train the program. Say you request a particular art style, period or general vibe for your AI image. The program needs a reference point for these prompts, as it is not a creative machine itself. This reference point comes from scraped images, which the generative program is then able to incorporate into its product.
For example, in a recent, hugely controversial online trend, people would use generative AI programs to produce images that looked like screenshots from a Studio Ghibli movie. The Japanese movie studio has a distinctive, soft, striking, magical art style, and the allure of the trend was to apply that same look to other things. A selfie, a screenshot from a live-action film, a popular meme, or a famous photograph could all be input along with a prompt to “make it Ghibli!” and there it would be.
Hand-drawn animation like Studio Ghibli’s takes years of work. According to CBR, a four-second shot in the 2013 film “The Wind Rises” took animator Eiji Yamamori a year and three months to complete, as intricate and methodical the studio’s work is. An AI program can generate a still in the same style in a matter of seconds, stealing the painstaking labor of genuine artists to throw out a cheap copy.
There is no thought or love put into the image, just an amalgamation of decades of work stolen and reduced to a low-quality redraw of a meme. Not only does it produce an inferior product, but it insults every artist who’s ever put actual time and focus into refining their work.
AI art is an issue that also plagues smaller artists, especially independent artists. Not only are they also at risk of scraping, but AI art is in direct competition with many freelancers or artists who are trying to break into industries that are becoming more saturated with generative AI.
If you go on pretty much any social media with image sharing, you’ll find artists selling commissions online. Prices range greatly depending on the artist, their experience level and the scale of the commission itself. These artists charge based on their skills and the time spent on their craft, much like any independent contractor. When AI-generated images are put on the table, it threatens this revenue stream for artists who rely on incoming commissions by taking away potential work with the promise of quick results and a low or nonexistent price tag.
Supporting AI over an actual artist is inherently destructive. It takes away from people who have spent time — and money, especially if they’ve pursued higher education in art — on their craft. It replaces them with a digital corporate entity that will continue to soullessly spit out lackluster products, all while padding their executives’ pockets.
Art is challenging, and it’s meant to be. I understand that it can be daunting to dedicate yourself to such a complex skill, or that maybe you just want a silly picture right now and don’t have the time or money to spend sourcing it from an artist. But is your convenience really more valuable than the preservation of real art and its creators? If we look back decades from now and we can’t find genuine creativity anymore, will it be worth it?
Julia Kolman can be reached at [email protected].