Tech companies have their AI's "train" on existing materials, which basically means plagiarism. Digital artists might have trouble defending their works from outright theft. Those who work in oils, watercolor, charcoal etc. may also be vulnerable to plagiarism if they post their work online to sell it or just show it off, but they still have the originals, which exist in physical space.
Can we extrapolate from this? Should writers be using 1945 Smith-Coronas? Will musicians start recording on wax cylinders again? It's hard to say what lies in the future. The government seems disinclined to put more than fig leaf restrictions on Big Tech, and the tycoons object even to that. At some point it might be worthwhile to give up the instant gratification of going viral in order to have something of your own.
1 comment:
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'art' as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.
I haven't had any interest in how AI image art is made but since you've written about the consequences to artists who use traditional forms I thought I'd investigate a bit. The one thing I've noticed about contemporary AI art is that most of it looks machine made and it turns out I'm right about that. The idea is you choose an AI program online, free or paid, and then pay for AI computing time.
The visual art is made by giving it suggestions - prompts: a car on a country road - a red car - an old red car - very old red car with peeling paint - at night - a rainy night - there' s a cow on the road - a black and white cow..... You get the idea. The thing is there may be some gratification and even money deriving from art made by someone very good at prompts, digital inpainting and editing but it doesn't give an image intrinsic value any more than NFTs provided longterm monetary value to anyone who bought one.
With painting the artist is the sole creator of the final product. They have pretty much full control over it, and made it from scratch. They didn't edit an existing image, they filled an empty canvas with their own brushstrokes. And you're right that no matter who downloads or makes a physical copy of the work the artist continues to own the original.
I suppose when the whole AI thing seizes up because there isn't enough energy or water in the world left to feed the computers then art will have to return to the artists, illustrators, writers, musicians and performers of every kind. I think a lot of deep enjoyment would be revived. Meanwhile, the results are for cartoons - even CGI in movies got boring.
Post a Comment