Full confession- There’s smarter folk than me to write about AI art, and wiser practical experience behind it to discuss its pro and cons. I was offered to try Midjourney AI and ended up not bothering with it. Just zero interest in playing with that particular tool, not out of some grandiose ethic, but for the same reason I don’t use an intuos device, or drawing on my iPad: I just don’t dig MAKING digital art. At all. For me it lacks the haptic responsiveness with the material I find I adore, doesn’t let me import some other wild idea in material or substance that it doesn’ already have in its digital toolbox. It always feels to me like experiencing the world like John Travolta did when he was that little bubble boy, or watching a game instead of playing in it. I also find it limiting within its sphere as to what can be done with it in order to support my ongoing effort to make more unique work. I use photoshop copiously to edit and manage my work, to color it as well. I take no issue with blurred lines, but there’s a different thing to crafting art digitally and making it practically I can’t step past. But because I don’t like coffee ice cream does not mean you shouldn’t either. Some friends and colleagues like Tommy Arnold, Cynthia Shepherd and Karla Ortiz make some of the most blow-your-hair-back art I’ve seen and they do it digitally. *(NOTE no art here presented was created using AI in case you were wondering)
At first it caught me by surprise as I first behold it on my tiny phone screen… but then at work on my desktop computer I saw it as the blurry unresolved fuzz that it actually is. And then the internet was flooded with AI art, and all of it looked exactly as empty and similar as you’d expect when an artist surrenders their needed work so an AI could draw for them. It’s gotten better and smarter… I saw some pieces over a few days hanging out with some art friends and we bandied about the idea of AI from our various camps- I was certainly the more had-pass person in the room, but I learned a lot about why that might not be a tenable position from some brilliant quarters.
Secondly there’s a whole host of other considerations around copyright, and other matters I won’t touch on here.
AI IS JUST A TOOL
And not a great one at that, at least right now. But wait, it’s getting smarter by the day.
I’m not super old but old enough to remember the advent of photoshop ringing the death bell for photography and illustration as an art form. I remember that 8-tracks were going to kill the LP, cassette tapes killing them, CDs and then MP3s…. I remember reading victorian era articles proclaiming the death of painting at the hands of this new camera device, raging against this dark of published books and a terrible future in the home where whole rooms of people sit silently reading. I recall how stock photography would destroy all the illustration jobs in books, movie and other media. This surprise/shock/terror/winking/acceptance cycle goes round and round, and we’re on the early days of it for AI. Which means we’re getting most of it wrong, and we don’t really know where it’s going… but like the promise of the internet in the 90’s to the shopping mall it’s actually become, AI likely won’t destroy everything, but is also probably a tool that’s here to stay.
There’s arguments that it’s a tool like any other, and those that say it’s a LOT more and I think I’m in the middle on that one. And like any hammer or iPhone, it’s a thing that can be used for good or evil I suppose- but in the end the bit that’s going to effect us as artists, is how it’s desired and received by the public, and how much our editors, ADs and clients want to get behind it.
AI THREATENS YOUR WEAKNESS NOT YOUR STRENGTHS
First of all definitionally, Art is an enterprise solely in the purview of humans. Lighting striking a tree in a beautiful way, or a sideshow elephant making a painting, a thousand monkeys on typewriters… none of this is or ever can be, art. Computer cannot make art either- people using them cam of course, but despite the argument that a prompt is the same as an active hand- I don’t think it is. SO it’s already operating at a steep deficit. But what it does attack as any automated shortcut tool in art does, is lazy art-making. If your work, your approach and style is truly under threat by this Midjourney thing, rather than gnashing your teeth agains the unjust world we live in, find a mirror and ask yourself WHY it threatens you, and change, get better and grow out from those pitfalls. I promise you, the AI cannot follow you in this.
Lazy editors, publishers and art directors at publishing houses who see we artists as tolerable pains in the ass will love this. I mean the ones who for them this is as much a job as pumping gas or filling our quarterly action reports. These folk will love not paying some artist who could threaten their deadlines, get their feelings hurt or talk back against a bad idea. It also won;t pollute their day with new approaches they may not have considered, unique perspectives and work that the process alone fosters, or surprise anyone. AI art will make the budget folk super happy, and probably a general public audience that doesn’t really regard book covers, posters, music art or any kind of professional level illustration as much to think about in the first place. For them the work you’re doing when you’re making real work is a lot of tsuris, pricey and a pain in their keister. And if their audience doesn’t;t care also then it’s a win/win for them so expect to see a lot of this happening at that level of publishing.
And as a colleague and friend who I think is right about a lot of things said, she worries it will gut the low budget entry level illustration assignments that we all rise up to and from when we’re just starting out. That’s valid to be worried about. A lot of publishers simply don’t have the budgets to hire legitimate artists nominal rates of pay to work for them- Midjourney might be a lovely solve for those places at the expense of being opportunities for new artists to get their teeth cut in the real world.
But simply put, if a robot is threatening your job, your job was already in a weakened state to begin with and it was just a matter of time. The fight against this is as old as this work: get better, find your voice, bring a unique vision and ability to your work. Essentially make yourself indispensable. There is no better shield against hack work like a Midjourney can produce. Remember you can think of things that it cannot, solve things in ways impossible to it, import experiences ideas and basic tweaks in the editing process it can never achieve.
The mechanism literally builds from the online-available work of others. It doesn’t create, it copies. And while we assure students that copying work is a healthy process towards decoding how something was done to build from in creating something new in your own work, this is not that.
To date the kind of work it seems to visually threaten the most is High Fantasy and Sci-Fi art in terms of style. And let’s face it there’s a LOT of derivative stylistically overused tropes and tricks already at use in these areas of our work. These genres suffer a bit from an agreed upon limited style of approach that leaves them more vulnerable to being bot-replaced than others, but its a vulnerability created by that choice. There are scores of brilliant artists working in fantasy and sci-fi who push beyond those limited arenas- be one of them yourself, because AI won;t get you there. If this AI thing takes over that stuff and pushes its genre artists to greater heights… despite the immediate hurt it may cause, I don’t think it’s going to do everything but force others towards better work in the future. We all win from that enterprise.
WHAT AI CAN AND LIKELY THREATEN
The biggest immediate and perhaps long term threats are to jobs that are already weird for not being automatic. I lean a lot on the analogy of the poor cop who went all the way through training at the police academy that is now standing at a roadside construction project flipping a stop/go sign back and forth for cars- essentially being a traffic light. Think Ice Merchants of the 1800’s, or comic book letterers, concept artists for film or a dozen other jobs… Offhand if your work is largely fulfilling a technical duty, like a storyboard artist might, then this could be coming for your job. Not today but in a few years, very possibly.
The question you should ask yourself is whether or not the work your making NEEDS to be excellent by its own merits and seen as such by your clients and audience, or whether that group is perfectly fine with “good enough”. If it’s the latter, “good enough” is what AI art does best and you need to think about how to make what you do more valuable or start branching into areas of work where its regarded and needed in a more valuable way. This is also not new and a basic tenant of the functioning, stable freelancing table: the more legs of the table the safer you are against collapse. If ALL your eggs are in a concept design basket, or even say in Children’s Picture books alone, you’re at risk to the tidal ebbs and flows of that market. You’re a hardcore dragons fantasy person, there’s going to be periods where that work is hotly desired and others where it’s cooly shrugged at. You can branch out into other areas to stabilize your table, or make something new and utterly valuable to the genre your steeped in so that its impossible to dismiss. These principles apply as well to how you navigate the coming AI landscape.
I largely work in a more insulated bubble where the things I do work for a lot these days, film posters, key art packaging for films and soundtracks, are literally ABOUT the art and an esthetic-based experience. A field literally as a polar response to the kind of work AI art is. Is the rise of LPs as a response to the flat sounding non value mp3s are to music listeners? Of course it is. I myself at any point in my life to now would have never expected to be doing so much work in a thriving and growing LP industry, but here we are… and we have digital music and streaming to thank for it. So while your today job might be under threat from AI art, your tomorrow work may well be even more interesting in being a part of a counter response to it.
WHAT AI CAN’T DO
It can’t really be responsive the way you as a human artist can with your editor or art director. It can’t truly invent, because it’s core ability relies upon it standing on the shoulders of other human artists’ work. It can’t instigate change and growth in you as an artist the the process of working through work. It prevents discovery and truly incapable of the necessary accidents real and actual art making grows from. It cannot bring any sense of joy the PROCESS of making art gives. Dave McKean recently called it poorly for being “all final and no process”. I’m not interested in that as a value either. The finish is always weaker without the process behind it. Just look at anyone who simply traced another artist’s work as an exercise or used photoshop to swipe another artist’s work for whatever purpose they’re after. It can’t teach you how to make good work, only to direct the AI to crib the work of others. It can’t impart a sense of naturalized character and humanity to the artwork it creates. That empty flat feeling you get when you look at it? That’s the same part of your brain that vurps at the Uncanny Valley of something like The Polar Express movie, or weirdo Japanese robots with lipstick serving you coffee. It’s not people, and so can’t do one of the most important things people do to distinguish themselves from the surround flora and fauna: it cannot make art. (Key proof in the fact it literally can do nothing unless you prompt it to do anything).
AI simply lacks voice and personal vision, which is more and more the essential coin of our thing as a value. It’ll speed date you right to a seemingly solid near finish you think you can complete and give value to to wrap the piece up. You can get close, but never all the way simply due to the another old adage of tech- garbage in/garbage out. The problem with AI taking the reins of the work, despite your participation in prompts is that it removes that essential process from your road to finish, that Dave McKean was bemoaning. Its the process where you find your way, discovers new ways and hear your artistic and stylistic voice. Without it, that part of you doesn’t develop. You become a wrangler of limited enterprises, not a creator of worlds. Zeus serving waffles at IHOP as a value.
AI is a tool, and perhaps an dubious tool because it’s overly seductive. Like any quick drug that makes you feel better for a little bit… it’s not really a thing of good news if the good news fails when the high passes. It’s just distraction. YES, it might be useful and valid as say, a sketching tool on the way to a finish. I suppose it could be utilized well as say building up a reference piece you might otherwise make like the cityscape models our friend Dan Dos Santos makes with cardboard boxes, paper towel rolls and tape that he then transmogrifies into his spectacular landscapes and fantasyscapes.
Use Midjourney and whatever else that will assuredly come as a prompt (pun intended) to get you OUT of your safety zone and IN to your better stronger unique voice to make good and better work. Work that cannot be, by any legitimate professional who would hire you, or the audience the work is intended to inspire towards grabbing that book, playing that record or seeing that movie. This is just Monkey vs Sabertooth Tiger all over again: the monkey can’t win on speed and brutal strength, but our Monkey is smarter and can outthink, out invent, and as a result, outmaneuver the Tiger. If you use this AI stuff for anything at all, use it to shore up your weak areas, and bring you to a place like any other negative force, that you can be better in. We often define ourselves by Hegel’s determinate negation principle: “I am defined by what I am not”. It’s in there you as an artist can experience first hand why art is a distinct and exclusively human enterprise, no matter how fancy the copy machine you use to short cut your way to work.
You’re bigger than any potential AI to make good work- it requires you to forget this in order to be a thing. Don’t let it. I recognize my age and type of career position do not really put me in a vulnerable path of AI Art’s rolling out, but I also think the time in seeing these digital revolutions rise and then inevitably fall into a more settled niche, grants some measured perspective to the current freaking out. Again it’s only a tool, and like a hammer can be used to build or kill- the real agency of it is going to be in how it’s abused, how it’s used, and who does what with it. But here speaking to you, my fellow art-folk, I would suggest you ignore it and get back to doing what makes your work actually better. Practice, process, work and time. When cd’s came out in the 80’s I never imagined that 40 years later I’d fill a year with copious LP projects. ( I suspect this return is a direct response to techy replacements). Survive whatever storm this brings, and grow your work in the human way and you can be around when the pendulum inevitably swings back. If making AI art makes you a better artist I’d be the first to cheer for it, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how it does.
The hard way is the better way for a reason, and a Big Mac will never be a Wagyu steak. If your work is replaceable, it’s already running at a deficit and AI art is just the latest predator chasing down your lagging leap with the herd fleeing doom. But the predator gives a gift for the doom it brings to some by forcing the survivors to evolve to be faster, more clever and harder to catch. The act of predation is also a process of growth, for the survivors of an attack. It’s not now a case of surviving the bear by only having to run faster than the guy next to you, but making sure if it’s just you and the bear, you alone can survive or even counter an attack with victory. Grow forward, use it as a goad to change the way you work, to make your work more valuable. Keep a weather eye out for the counter responses to this kind off turn and be ready to surf the advantage it can bring. It’s a big complex world, but freaking out over new tech as world eating forgets this. Tech wants everything to be reducible to simple binary choices by its design, don’t fall for that brand of limited thinking. Really if you lean on tech too hard for your work, your work is going to be vulnerable. If you can still do your thing with a pencil and paper you’ll be able to weather tech’s evolution, if not, you’ll be anchoring yourself to tech’s ongoing cycle of obsolescence. Recognize you have the potential to be superior to that trap, do the hard work and you’ll be fine.
AI art is at its most basic, fast-food art. Don’t be the Big Mac.
(None of the above work was created using AI btw. )
Greg Ruth has been working in comics since 1993 and has published work for The New York Times, DC Comics, Fantagraphics Books, Dark Horse Comics, Harper Collins, Hyperion, Macmillan and Simon and Schuster amongst many others.
He has shown his paintings in New York, Houston, and Baltimore, and exhibited a series of murals at New York's Grand Central Terminal.
He has also helped craft music videos for Rob Thomas, and Prince, and has illustrated children's pictures books including; Our Enduring Spirit (with President Barack Obama), A Pirate's Guide to First Grade (with James Preller) and Red Kite, Blue Kite (with Ji Li Jiang), as well as many illustrated novels.
Greg currently lives and works in Western Massachusetts.
This is the best article I have read regarding the perceived threat of AI to professional artists! I agree that only the lowest level artist gigs are in danger at this time. Frankly, I don’t think AI will ever be able to create art on the level of your great work Greg.
I was granted beta access to DALL-E 2, and frankly was disappointed with its performance. It lacked thought and understanding of anything but very basic text prompts. As a test, I tried imputing some book descriptions, like an illustrator would interpret, and the results were miserable failures. So the “intelligence” part of AI is not there yet. It basically just kluges together bits and pieces of images from the internet. Like a sophisticated collage. And copyright of AI images is certainly a big issue. Still, the technology is amazing and will get better over time.
And yes, there is something about the passion, the experience, and getting in the zone working with real, physical materials. AI can make images, but only with pixels. Two very different things.
Right. I think this is what’s behind Dave’s comment about it being all finish and no process. Process is EVERYTHING, and when that gets entirely sublimated by any tool, it weakens the work, the artist and I think down the road our ability to value the art we want to see.
The main reason why artists fear AI art so much is because a lot of the stuff coming out of MidJourney and other platforms is actually… good. In fact, they’re not just good, they are pretty incredible. Especially considering this is the infancy stage. I am certain there isn’t an artist among us that hasn’t seen at least one Midjourney image and thought, wow I wish I made that – or, I am going to steal that color palette. If it was terrible, nobody would care.
Another thing to consider is that ordinary people (non-artists) are not going to analyze the pros and cons of an image made by AI vs human. People just want to digest content, plain and simple. They do not care where it comes from or how it was made. Just serve it up, and as much as possible. Soon, nobody will even know whether an image was created by AI or a person. And many artists may even lie about how an image was created – if any one still cared in the first place.
I was recently “fooled” by Midjourney for the first time recently. Usually when I am looking at AI images, I am on a site knowingly viewing them. However, a friend of mine was going on and on about this viral video called “Hairy Pouter” that I absolutely needed to watch. They said how hilarious it was and that it had some of the most creative illustrations they had seen. So, I looked up the video and by mere accident I missed the first few seconds that state the entire thing was created by AI. I watched it and was really impressed by it. I thought it was great. When it ended, it went back to the home screen which had the AI “disclaimer.” I felt duped. I felt incredibly sad. I thought, wow, how many jobs did that take away from people? But I guess on the bright side – one has to also think, well if not for AI, Hairy Pouter would never have existed right?
Things will still get made. But fasten your seatbelts. There’s going to be a massive jostling in the creative industries.
I think you may be right. I don’t; particularly care for it myself, clearly… it’s close enough for most and that may be why it’s dangerous to others, but close enough isn’t a goal I personally chase as a high value. Feeling duped by that video, or that contest that awarded a gold medal to an AI piece unknowingly is a significant impulse to pay attention to. In the end I have to believe we want more from the art we see than a close copy of art.
Well said. I thoroughly agree on most of the points you brought up.
I hadn’t considered AI removing the lower rungs from the career ladder though. It’s a very valid and very concerning point. I feel like creative careers are already a hard climb, making those first steps even farther apart is a bad deal. Plus, it will disproportionately effect those already disadvantaged. I imagine it will exacerbate already existing socio-economic divides since those with the support and resources to ignore the lower rungs will primarily be the ones able to develop their chops enough reach the upper levels where hand crafted things will always have a home. Breaks my heart to think how many creative voices may just give up in the future when it’s too hard to get to where they can actually make a living from their work.
However, I really do see AI taking a similar path to photography, digital art, and other “new” tools that came before it. Some will ignore it entirely. For some it will become a supplementary tool in the toolbox of their chosen discipline (I think for most of us here, that’s drawing and painting). And for others it will become THE tool. Photography and digital art have both become their own art forms. I think AI has the possibility of branching off into its own new discipline (though I hesitate to call it an art form). Having experimented with it very briefly and hating the results, but loving the results I’ve seen other people get, I have to acknowledge that there is a skill to generating prompts that get decent results out of the AI.
That was a cost I hadn’t thought of myself until an AD friend expressed it to me. She sees it from their side of the industry as a real dubious challenge to the industry in this way. And she may be right. Printing work that isn’t great, but close enough might be fine for too many clients seeking to cut corners on package design, small press illos, magazine and book covers… In the end like all tools I think it’ll settle in to a place somewhere thats a bit smaller and more narrowed than the giant tidal wave it seems to promise. The eagerness to have a prompted bot actually make the work is distressing to me of course.
“First of all definitionally, Art is an enterprise solely in the purview of humans.”
Stopped reading at the horrible adverbial use (by definition) and “by definition” is also wrong because it’s been shown MANY ANIMALS ON EARTH exhibit artwork — NOT JUST HUMANS.
But your arrogance and bloviating wont stop you from going on and on.
Just stop at the first paragraph: Its a TOOL. Stop complaining about YOUR TOOLS — otherwise you just look like a TOOL.
“ART: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. “
The willingness to opine on an article you proudly refuse to read aside, Animals don’t make art. They might make a drawing or a beautiful sculptural form that we perceive as artistic, but they’re not engaged in the act of making art. Lightening isn’t making art when it draws a scorch across a mountainside, makes glass out of a sand dune’s crest. They can’t be. Definitionally.
This tool is going to gobble a lot of jobs in a way. A paint brush or hammer can’t. I’d dive deeper into this- and certainly encourage reading more about this whole thing from creatives far smarter and more articulate on the subject than myself.
In general this article was very encouraging, and presented some very thoughtful ideas I hadn’t considered. The parable of the Big Mac and the Wagu Beef will stick with me.
However the point at the end “Some of you may die, but that is to the benefit of those who survive” is so depressing it feels like it overshadows everything at the beginning.
As someone who turned 30 a month ago, and is currently living out of a hotel, the idea that the most basic of rungs on the ladder of artistic achievement is yet further away behind the walls of time, wealth, and social grace, pulls fellings of acidic defeatist out of my heart.
Yeah it’s going to be truly rough for many, and not in a sacrificial lamb kind of way. I don’t shrug off how this new tech is going to eat some jobs either- but I think we can be smarter than the bots chasing this work, pivot and steel ourselves against it. But none of this is new to the history of art making.
“Some of you may die – But that’s a price I am willing to pay!.”
Let’s assume for a moment that Greg is correct, and this will only impact the “low end” jobs. I disagree, but, sure, let’s go there. Let’s also assume that artists use this as a reason to “git gud”, and that they have the time, and ability to do so.
Well – At that point, you now have a smaller pool of jobs, and more artists trying to get them. This won’t just impact artists that Greg seems to say are beneath him, but will cause a chain reaction across the entire industry. The Huns attacked Rome because they were pushed from another group, further East.
Also – Not everyone has the time, money, ability or whatever to improve past where they are. They’ve worked their asses off, and risen to a level where they are making a living doing art. It’s NOT ok or somehow appropriate that they have that taken away from them. People should be worried about that.
Finally – Dear GOD Greg, did you really just (effectively) say “I don’t hate , I have friends”? That to me was the worst thing in the entire diatribe of privilege.
I think you. misunderstand my point, or I did a poor job of expressing it. I neither dismiss or look down on the digital artists whose jobs are threatened by this new AI bot thing- but pointing out if you make a particular type of work, or rely exclusively on a particular tool , you leave yourself vulnerable to being sublimated by the upgrade of that tool.
Personally I think AI is more than a mere tool upgrade, since unlike say procreate or photoshop or even zbrush, it MAKES the work rather than acts as an extension of the creative crafting it. Prompts are not process. Short cuts like this don’t make you a better artist, they don’t make better art overall and in the end, our inability to see that makes us vulnerable to bad, quickie art.
Again, not desiring to use a particular tool doesn’t require me to dislike the tool’s product. I don’t love carving marble but I greatly admire sculpture. We’re not talking about social issues here, this is art, a craft and a medium. I can love Cynthia Shepherd’s remarkable work without being of a mind to use those tools make my work. But it in no way means I disregard digitally crafted work- I just don’t have a lot of admiration for work crafted by an AI, and mistaking it for art.
I don’t love MAKING digital art, is not the same as being unwilling to admire it. One don’t need to love building their house from scratch to love living in it and respecting its quality, right?
Hey Greg! Loved all your thoughts and observations. I’ve been at this for far, FAR too long to not recognize obvious patterns associated with new tools, new tricks, and new fears about that newness.
Pattern recognition. Humans are excellent at this, but it takes time to fully understand how it works. It’s important for an artist to develop this skill as part of their own personal tools.
The pattern that jumps to mind immediately with all of this AI is that it exposes the problems inherent within artistic expression more so than hiding them. It reveals weakness almost instantaneously.
I love this discussion though because the conversation itself is a brilliant training tool for young artists, young painters.
And I say this after having just seen hundreds, HUNDREDS of examples of visuals made automatically with my own work as a major prompt.
The uncanny valley looks shallow, but is perceptively DEEP. One cannot shortcut depth of vision. One cannot learn to paint like me or compete with my vision without the process time.
Agree entirely. There’s a much greater depth in human perception and our seeking after art, either by making or observing it, than a lot of the conversation we’re having about AI currently.
Not what I was saying at all. There’s no direct correlation with shitty art and digital art, anymore than with oil painting or graphite drawing. I think my AD friend’s insight into this AI thing being a true threat to up and coming artists seems solid to me and deeply worrisome side effect of this new tech. The early jobs we all take, the small intro work is really important to us all as professional artists, not just for the chance to cut our teeth in its craft, but also to begin teaching us how to behave and interact professionally. Losing that step is as huge a gulf created as any art school that stops teaching foundation skillsets to its students.
I hope this isn’t true, and please note that me calling out who and why this might be a threat to, does not also mean I endorse it. Just pointing out that being overly reliant on a specific genre/style/tool, leaves you vulnerable to outside forces you cannot control and may not be able to defend against. Good or ill..
No one in this field is EVER shielded. No matter what skill level or exposure level. There’s no protective barrier for anyone of us in the work. Unfortunately, so many suffer from a lack of information about how skills are built, and so for ages we’ve all accepted the idea that one has a special gene or gift that makes us do what we do. Then we assume we’re “meant” to be artists and that’s when our confusion begins. It’s no longer viable.
Artists are built, not born. And no one in this field started out lower than I did. At no time in the art world has competition been a piece of cake. Not the early days of American Illustration and not now. AI will make it one step harder, perhaps, but getting good at a skill has never been easy. Especially in art.
Competition has always been fierce, yet our taste for quality has only grown over the centuries. Still, there will always be those that cannot develop a sense of taste, and for them, good enough will always be good enough.
But one doesn’t compete with ‘good enough.’ Merely acknowledging it is all that’s necessary. Building a career is the focus and should remain so.
Guarded? Protected? Shielded? Hardly. No one gets a free ride that doesn’t come due at some point.
Right, the tiger chases us all… and it’s not always a terrible thing, though it does make for a lot of anxiety fuel. We’re all sort of leaves drifting on an ocean we can’t control, and we can do some things to keep ourselves afloat, but in the end, the vast sea wins always. We can better arm ourselves against these ever increasing winds of change with the kind of practical training experience and skillsets but it’s no guarantee against getting swamped. The idea that quality always arises and is met with reward is a terrible falsity, and dangerous to hug. Very well said, fellow Greg!
I think pointing out the diminished education is EXTREMELY important, and a point IO walked right on by here. Not knowing what we don;t know is as bad as never knowing it at all. Or worse…because I think this latter effect comes from a place of arrogance and not listening. SO even when we do meet the method we’re skipping past, we don’t regard it anyway.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Greg. AI generated imagery seems like it’s going to have a big impact on all aspects of the commercial art world, and how we as artists are able to make a living within it. I have a feeling this might be closer to how photography impacted representational painting than how digital tools have changed illustration and concept art in the last few decades. Photoshop and 3D software all have significant learning curves, and you need a lot of the same core skills found in traditional media to do anything significant with them.
I know I’ll continue to make the art I want to make with the methods I want to use, whatever ultimately ends up happening with AI. It’s just disheartening to think that the opportunities for artists to make a living doing what they love are likely going to shrink.
Agreed. I don’t personally regard it in many ways due to my own more limited selfishness and ways of thinking, but I know it means I’m leaving the door unlocked in a dangerous neighborhood. I will say I think this dynamic is not new, but it might be new in how ferocious and frequent it’s coming at us as artists. I think the techie way overtaking our ability to absorb it in a way that affords us much agency. Art takes time, the process of art making, the endless sea of necessary failures is so important to the process of becoming a better artist, and all of this discards that utterly. That the audience we’re speaking to sides more and more with the hurried tech over us as creators, that a smaller and smaller number of that audience sees, understands and appreciates true human made art is distressing. Particularly ironic in a time where images are more dominant to our societal conversation than ever before int he history of our species does not escape me at all…
I am in agreement for most of your post, but there’s a disconnect when we get into how it can be a tool. it’s not just something lazy artists will use to skip a necessary process. It’s also a pair of glasses for the blind, in some cases.
“The hard way is the better way for a reason…”
“If making AI art makes you a better artist I’d be the first to cheer for it, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how it does.”
One artist’s perspective: AI helps counterbalance my struggles with Aphantasia. I cannot come up with visual imagery on my own in my head. I don’t “see” the apple. It takes literal days of thumbnailing, sketching, scouring Pinterest, taking in other art, just to be able to come up with “ideas” to incorporate into my work, and even then I need to know what to search to try to spark something. The art ends up being stiff and static. By the time I get to the part where I’m actually drawing/inking, my artistic balloon is a sad little lump of latex.
AI-generated reference brings forth shapes and shadows that my brain then recognizes as *something*, and I can springboard from there to create my work.
It has absolutely revolutionized MY process and for me, it is the hammer I needed when all I had was a flimsy plastic spoon.
Is it a threat for fast-turnaround concept style artists? Most likely. I guess I’m fortunate in that I decided long ago that being a hired hand for a corporate board of business suits wasn’t where I wanted to be. And yeah, I’m in a “lucky” position to be able to skip those low rung positions (which puts me in a category of “worthless opinion”) but also… I think artists forget that there are ways to get our art out to the general public directly WITHOUT taking low-paying, fast-turnaround jobs at companies that don’t value our time and skillset. That’s a conversation for another day, though. My compassion goes out to those artists, but for me… AI is essential to my creation process.
You make an excellent point Tawny- and yes of COURSE mine is a narrow perspective from a guy likely too old to appreciate the benefit of the new tech as a basic. Your personal condition is not something I was even aware of, and it strikes me as mighty beyond understanding you make art of the high quality you do without the internal visual cognition that I take for granted as a basic.
As a reference tool I get it. A friend recently described it similarly with regards to being a means to build visualized sets they’d have to hand make on their own which could take days and days. I get that benefit, but I still worry after how MUCH of the agency of making those choices, of lighting and composition, of perspective and point of view is controlled by the bot and not the artist. I feel like there’s an inherent kneecapping of possibility in that, and because it’s a binary system of creating, impossible to stumble into the kind of accidents that can transform one’s way of seeing and making work- like the fabled genesis of the Resse’s Peanut Buttercup… a new marvel born out of clumsy accident. Simply stumbling over your built set, bumping a light to fall in an unplanned but better place… a missed mark or spilled coffee. I confess I may work in a bugs bunny style clumsy way that is weird to others, but not having those outside influences would have stultified me by decades if they weren’t;t constantly there. But it sounds like you’ve made it work for you and your work. Just because I can’t seem to navigate the bike doesn’t;t mean there’s anything wrong with you riding yours, of course.
I will suggest again I think for all that AI will take away in terms of jobs it will also gift with responsive work in areas we cannot yet predict. In a factory system a robot that can weld a door to a building car faster and cheaper than a human worker is one thing, and an inevitability for sure I bet. SO I guess it’d be more accurate for me to point out ill jobs that are akin to that kind process as being legitimately and inevitably threatened. The flip side of it is the audience of course- studios don’t get enough people aside from the occasional social media backlash to dull head-clouded movie posters we see too much of. The audience just doesn’t;t mind them enough to make it worthwhile to do otherwise, or else I suspect they would.
Thanks for your insights and unique perspective. I was hoping for more of this, and it’s made me smarter about the subject to hear your take.
I’m loving the responses, fellow Greg! And of the last two, from Tawny and you, I’m realizing how much you are both describing the creative process from different angles, different lines of sight, but still the process we all work with.
My point is this: we are ALL looking for resolution in amorphous shapes. THAT’s the visual artist’s process. We search as we draw, like your Bugs Bunny approach, Greg, or your AI approach, Tawny–we READ INTO the images, the shapes, the forms and build a vision from there. It happens so fast in the beginning stages we take it for granted. But even as we proceed, our brains are studying the shapes and watching for information. Again, PATTERN RECOGNITION. Even as I work in my final oils, I’m looking to ‘read’ the shapes to tell my mind that it’s an eye, a bear, a boat, or a hand. Fingers may appear, but they’re built from shapes that sometimes fall into place, sometimes forced into shape by our training.
AI can help with that initial visualization, certainly Tawny, but at which point does the mind take over for the bot? Answer: at every point along the way. The process itself is tens of thousands of years old, and growing everyday. But there’s no competing with that kind of lengthy, DNA-building experience. The bots have a long way to go for that.
But we’ve managed to skip-gap the process to show a false visual that SUGGESTS to our eyes what we think we see. It’s not actually there. It’s illusion, and humans are supremely good at detecting illusion (even though we can fool ourselves at times as entertainment).
“It has absolutely revolutionized MY process and for me, it is the hammer I needed when all I had was a flimsy plastic spoon.”
Excellent! And it’s great that you’ve recognized its potential and put it to work. Your only goal now is to use that training for your brain to get better at. (there’s evidence in studies that the brain is plastic and CAN learn to do this) A student once asked me how to visualize things when they experienced that they couldn’t. I asked them if they could picture making love to their partner, and of course, they could, easily. In intimate detail.
There may be a difference, at first, in building a vision of an idea in 2D space in your mind, but this is part of the training as an artist. AI is already trying to do the same. Right now, it’s primitive to AI, but not to us as it gets closer to suggesting reality. But it still doesn’t understand it the way your brain is capable of in time.
“I feel like there’s an inherent kneecapping of possibility in that, and because it’s a binary system of creating, impossible to stumble into the kind of accidents that can transform one’s way of seeing…”
Well put. I agree, Greg. But Tawny’s case may be an illustration of the bot’s viability, too, that I’m certain you already see. So maybe our real mission is to return to its use as a tool AND as a training device for the species’ visual advancement.
If we don’t, it’s only so much garbage.
(And I say all this after seeing hundreds upon hundreds of paintings done with my name as a prompt. Some of them looking quite nice!)
If you think AI won’t replace you in the next five years you’re delusional. We are already at a point where AI is making better art than meatbag artists with big egos. But it does so in 5 seconds for a price of 5 cents. No complaints. No talkback. Just results. Client doesn’t like it? Iterate. We are already seeing magazines using these tools for illustration. Your movie posters are next. Soon enough it will make the images move and animators will be redundant. You can already ask for art in the style of any artist. You’re one data scrape away from art in your style. And maybe 36 months away from an AI that can make a painting in your style better than you can. For a fraction of the cost. With no one to sue. The wise thing to do now is to try and understand how to stay relevant. All this “I’m not threatened because I’m awesome” bravado is pointless. It’s like taking a hot dog to a light saber duel.
I’ve seen the point about “no complaints or back talk” come up a few times as a major advantage of AI generated images versus working with artists. The implication being that a client’s relationship with an artist is a combative ordeal that they just do their best to get through. I honestly don’t understand where that idea is coming from though, because it doesn’t characterize any of my experiences working with companies commissioning art.
When I’m doing work for a client I do my best to understand what they want, give them some options to choose from, and then follow their feedback to get to a final image they’re happy with. I’m doing a job for someone who’s paying me for a specific product. It’s not about trying to unilaterally impose my vision onto their project, it’s a matter of offering ideas and then trying to bring their concept to life.
It’s a professional relationship for both parties, with all of the norms of conduct that implies. I wouldn’t complain to or verbally abuse someone who hired me to do work for them. That’s not acceptable behavior in any work environment. In turn I wouldn’t tolerate a working relationship where expressing my concerns is dismissed as “back talk”. I’ve never run into anything like that with a client, but if I did I would finish the job they hired me for and then stop working with them. It’s not worth the trouble to deal with someone with an attitude like that.
I fully expect that the cost and convenience of AI generated images will dramatically reshape the way commercial art is made. People will need to adapt in novel ways to make a living through art. But I don’t think a willingness to deal with collaborators in a fair and professional manner has been the problem with commercial art up until now. I’m guessing it will still be a relevant part of the process of art making in the future, whatever else might change.
Well, I guess that didn’t take long to devolve. LOL!
You’re comments are quite sharp and have a humor all its own, Arnold. And I’m sure you didn’t mean them to come off that way, but they’re appreciated nonetheless. (outside of the snarky comment about “being awesome.”)
Still, they do sound like someone that runs into a burning building and screams, “Fire!”
It’s fairly the same thing I’ve heard all my life about illustration: “We’re ALL GONNA DIE!” I’ve been told illustration was dead for 45 years. I’ve been told painting itself was dead when I went to art school. I was told by very intelligent people that I could NOT oil paint any longer and still survive. That if I tried to freelance (when not many were freelancing in illustration) I would surely fail.
I think the best part of Erik’s comment is ultimately what Greg and I are trying to express: yes, it’s scary, but how do we adapt to this seemingly ‘new’ problem?
I’ve had to adapt throughout my entire career, when heads were falling and folks were leaving illustration in droves. Photography and even printing techniques bore a hole right into the field. I have many examples that spelled the death knell for artwork.
But hey, I see your point and appreciate your candor. I’m just not ready to throw in the towel.
Thank you for this thought-provoking perspective in an era of increasingly shallow takes. AI art is absolutely going to upend a great deal of the industry, but as you crucially pointed out, it is not the end of the world.
If I could offer a bit of constructive criticism: the points made in the post are fantastic, but the writing itself makes them difficult to immediately understand. I’m no stranger to meandering sentences, but I just feel it went a bit overboard, here.
I happen to do a lot of freelance copy/content editing if you ever want to have something cleaned up! (No charge; I’m glad enough to help out anyone writing long-form about….well, anything these days. =)
Such a great and nuanced article Greg. I’ve found the current conversation around this technology to be so divisive and insulting. Artists whose worked I’ve admired literally for decades are demonizing anyone who deigns to use Ai as unoriginal hacks with no vision. And while I understand their frustration with their work being used without consent and/or compensation, I don’t think saying horrific things about the USERS of the technology is the way to go. Take your frustration out on the company! STOP humiliating and repelling your own fans!
9 solid years of crazy expensive art school and 2 degrees later, I understand the fear of those just getting started in their careers, but I don’t think this is the boogie man so many established artists are making it out to be., Ironically, their constant comments about how this is going to kill art for junior artists is depressing said juniors before they even TRY to start their careers. They are killing the hopes of the young by CONSTANTLY telling them their jobs are gone or will be soon. I have yet to see anyone say what you did – innovate, work hard, make better art than the AI can!
For myself, I am much like Tawny; I look at a lot of different things to feed my creative projects (new art, classic art, movies, nature, etc). This is just a tool. To prove that to myself, I tried tracing an image directly from the output I got, and it was terrible! I had to start over, and my own skills and abilities took over. In the end, it vaguely resembled the image the AI gave me, but barely.
Last, despite what others are saying, I don’t think the bulk of AI users are selling what they’re making. For so many of us, it’s unlocked our creativity. We’re prompting things for the sheer fun of it; from the desire to see what’s possible, NOT – as SO many are saying – to profit from the output. OF COURSE some people are doing that very thing; that’s the unfortunate nature of capitalism, but I truly don’t think it’s the case for most.
I don’t understand what outcome is desired at this point from artists whose work is in the databases. I’ve seen the conversation move from their art being used without their consent to train the models to feeling as if their style as been stolen. If their desire is to completely get rid of all prompting art, I think they will be inadvertently destroying joy for millions of people. If their desire is to be compensated…. I still think that’s laudable and an outcome I can get behind. I would just say, STOP DEMONIZING YOUR FANS, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON YOUR SIDE! All you’re doing is pushing them away, and making yourselves (not the companies) the villains.
Great post. One thing that really bother me with the whole art conversation is that so many pro automation pro ai people seem to have such a lack of respect for the human value of artists and workers. They seem to have no sympathy for the idea that millions upon millions of humans can lose their livelyhood. It will create massive amount of desperate angry people and that is never good.
TerapevtonAnn TelnaesSince it’s Labor Day, I agree that watching Ann Telnaes' videos sounds great! Her work is thought-provoking, even if it's not exactly relaxing. I'm ex…
Very good article, Greg. I especially enjoyed the section about this attacking weaknesses, not strengths. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Happy to provide this old Gen Xer’s perspective on the madness swirling about.
This is the best article I have read regarding the perceived threat of AI to professional artists! I agree that only the lowest level artist gigs are in danger at this time. Frankly, I don’t think AI will ever be able to create art on the level of your great work Greg.
I was granted beta access to DALL-E 2, and frankly was disappointed with its performance. It lacked thought and understanding of anything but very basic text prompts. As a test, I tried imputing some book descriptions, like an illustrator would interpret, and the results were miserable failures. So the “intelligence” part of AI is not there yet. It basically just kluges together bits and pieces of images from the internet. Like a sophisticated collage. And copyright of AI images is certainly a big issue. Still, the technology is amazing and will get better over time.
And yes, there is something about the passion, the experience, and getting in the zone working with real, physical materials. AI can make images, but only with pixels. Two very different things.
Right. I think this is what’s behind Dave’s comment about it being all finish and no process. Process is EVERYTHING, and when that gets entirely sublimated by any tool, it weakens the work, the artist and I think down the road our ability to value the art we want to see.
The main reason why artists fear AI art so much is because a lot of the stuff coming out of MidJourney and other platforms is actually… good. In fact, they’re not just good, they are pretty incredible. Especially considering this is the infancy stage. I am certain there isn’t an artist among us that hasn’t seen at least one Midjourney image and thought, wow I wish I made that – or, I am going to steal that color palette. If it was terrible, nobody would care.
Another thing to consider is that ordinary people (non-artists) are not going to analyze the pros and cons of an image made by AI vs human. People just want to digest content, plain and simple. They do not care where it comes from or how it was made. Just serve it up, and as much as possible. Soon, nobody will even know whether an image was created by AI or a person. And many artists may even lie about how an image was created – if any one still cared in the first place.
I was recently “fooled” by Midjourney for the first time recently. Usually when I am looking at AI images, I am on a site knowingly viewing them. However, a friend of mine was going on and on about this viral video called “Hairy Pouter” that I absolutely needed to watch. They said how hilarious it was and that it had some of the most creative illustrations they had seen. So, I looked up the video and by mere accident I missed the first few seconds that state the entire thing was created by AI. I watched it and was really impressed by it. I thought it was great. When it ended, it went back to the home screen which had the AI “disclaimer.” I felt duped. I felt incredibly sad. I thought, wow, how many jobs did that take away from people? But I guess on the bright side – one has to also think, well if not for AI, Hairy Pouter would never have existed right?
Things will still get made. But fasten your seatbelts. There’s going to be a massive jostling in the creative industries.
I think you may be right. I don’t; particularly care for it myself, clearly… it’s close enough for most and that may be why it’s dangerous to others, but close enough isn’t a goal I personally chase as a high value. Feeling duped by that video, or that contest that awarded a gold medal to an AI piece unknowingly is a significant impulse to pay attention to. In the end I have to believe we want more from the art we see than a close copy of art.
Well said. I thoroughly agree on most of the points you brought up.
I hadn’t considered AI removing the lower rungs from the career ladder though. It’s a very valid and very concerning point. I feel like creative careers are already a hard climb, making those first steps even farther apart is a bad deal. Plus, it will disproportionately effect those already disadvantaged. I imagine it will exacerbate already existing socio-economic divides since those with the support and resources to ignore the lower rungs will primarily be the ones able to develop their chops enough reach the upper levels where hand crafted things will always have a home. Breaks my heart to think how many creative voices may just give up in the future when it’s too hard to get to where they can actually make a living from their work.
However, I really do see AI taking a similar path to photography, digital art, and other “new” tools that came before it. Some will ignore it entirely. For some it will become a supplementary tool in the toolbox of their chosen discipline (I think for most of us here, that’s drawing and painting). And for others it will become THE tool. Photography and digital art have both become their own art forms. I think AI has the possibility of branching off into its own new discipline (though I hesitate to call it an art form). Having experimented with it very briefly and hating the results, but loving the results I’ve seen other people get, I have to acknowledge that there is a skill to generating prompts that get decent results out of the AI.
That was a cost I hadn’t thought of myself until an AD friend expressed it to me. She sees it from their side of the industry as a real dubious challenge to the industry in this way. And she may be right. Printing work that isn’t great, but close enough might be fine for too many clients seeking to cut corners on package design, small press illos, magazine and book covers… In the end like all tools I think it’ll settle in to a place somewhere thats a bit smaller and more narrowed than the giant tidal wave it seems to promise. The eagerness to have a prompted bot actually make the work is distressing to me of course.
“First of all definitionally, Art is an enterprise solely in the purview of humans.”
Stopped reading at the horrible adverbial use (by definition) and “by definition” is also wrong because it’s been shown MANY ANIMALS ON EARTH exhibit artwork — NOT JUST HUMANS.
But your arrogance and bloviating wont stop you from going on and on.
Just stop at the first paragraph: Its a TOOL. Stop complaining about YOUR TOOLS — otherwise you just look like a TOOL.
Simple.
“ART: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. “
The willingness to opine on an article you proudly refuse to read aside, Animals don’t make art. They might make a drawing or a beautiful sculptural form that we perceive as artistic, but they’re not engaged in the act of making art. Lightening isn’t making art when it draws a scorch across a mountainside, makes glass out of a sand dune’s crest. They can’t be. Definitionally.
This tool is going to gobble a lot of jobs in a way. A paint brush or hammer can’t. I’d dive deeper into this- and certainly encourage reading more about this whole thing from creatives far smarter and more articulate on the subject than myself.
In general this article was very encouraging, and presented some very thoughtful ideas I hadn’t considered. The parable of the Big Mac and the Wagu Beef will stick with me.
However the point at the end “Some of you may die, but that is to the benefit of those who survive” is so depressing it feels like it overshadows everything at the beginning.
As someone who turned 30 a month ago, and is currently living out of a hotel, the idea that the most basic of rungs on the ladder of artistic achievement is yet further away behind the walls of time, wealth, and social grace, pulls fellings of acidic defeatist out of my heart.
Yeah it’s going to be truly rough for many, and not in a sacrificial lamb kind of way. I don’t shrug off how this new tech is going to eat some jobs either- but I think we can be smarter than the bots chasing this work, pivot and steel ourselves against it. But none of this is new to the history of art making.
“Some of you may die – But that’s a price I am willing to pay!.”
Let’s assume for a moment that Greg is correct, and this will only impact the “low end” jobs. I disagree, but, sure, let’s go there. Let’s also assume that artists use this as a reason to “git gud”, and that they have the time, and ability to do so.
Well – At that point, you now have a smaller pool of jobs, and more artists trying to get them. This won’t just impact artists that Greg seems to say are beneath him, but will cause a chain reaction across the entire industry. The Huns attacked Rome because they were pushed from another group, further East.
Also – Not everyone has the time, money, ability or whatever to improve past where they are. They’ve worked their asses off, and risen to a level where they are making a living doing art. It’s NOT ok or somehow appropriate that they have that taken away from them. People should be worried about that.
Finally – Dear GOD Greg, did you really just (effectively) say “I don’t hate , I have friends”? That to me was the worst thing in the entire diatribe of privilege.
I think you. misunderstand my point, or I did a poor job of expressing it. I neither dismiss or look down on the digital artists whose jobs are threatened by this new AI bot thing- but pointing out if you make a particular type of work, or rely exclusively on a particular tool , you leave yourself vulnerable to being sublimated by the upgrade of that tool.
Personally I think AI is more than a mere tool upgrade, since unlike say procreate or photoshop or even zbrush, it MAKES the work rather than acts as an extension of the creative crafting it. Prompts are not process. Short cuts like this don’t make you a better artist, they don’t make better art overall and in the end, our inability to see that makes us vulnerable to bad, quickie art.
Again, not desiring to use a particular tool doesn’t require me to dislike the tool’s product. I don’t love carving marble but I greatly admire sculpture. We’re not talking about social issues here, this is art, a craft and a medium. I can love Cynthia Shepherd’s remarkable work without being of a mind to use those tools make my work. But it in no way means I disregard digitally crafted work- I just don’t have a lot of admiration for work crafted by an AI, and mistaking it for art.
Should have been “I don’t hate (Digital Art), I have (Digital Art) friends.” It didn’t like the less than or greater than signs.
I don’t love MAKING digital art, is not the same as being unwilling to admire it. One don’t need to love building their house from scratch to love living in it and respecting its quality, right?
Hey Greg! Loved all your thoughts and observations. I’ve been at this for far, FAR too long to not recognize obvious patterns associated with new tools, new tricks, and new fears about that newness.
Pattern recognition. Humans are excellent at this, but it takes time to fully understand how it works. It’s important for an artist to develop this skill as part of their own personal tools.
The pattern that jumps to mind immediately with all of this AI is that it exposes the problems inherent within artistic expression more so than hiding them. It reveals weakness almost instantaneously.
I love this discussion though because the conversation itself is a brilliant training tool for young artists, young painters.
And I say this after having just seen hundreds, HUNDREDS of examples of visuals made automatically with my own work as a major prompt.
The uncanny valley looks shallow, but is perceptively DEEP. One cannot shortcut depth of vision. One cannot learn to paint like me or compete with my vision without the process time.
Agree entirely. There’s a much greater depth in human perception and our seeking after art, either by making or observing it, than a lot of the conversation we’re having about AI currently.
Glad you’re shielded, us mid/low tier sobs will be not. Serves us right for making shitty art!
and not beings friends with a hollywood star, of course. My fault!
Not what I was saying at all. There’s no direct correlation with shitty art and digital art, anymore than with oil painting or graphite drawing. I think my AD friend’s insight into this AI thing being a true threat to up and coming artists seems solid to me and deeply worrisome side effect of this new tech. The early jobs we all take, the small intro work is really important to us all as professional artists, not just for the chance to cut our teeth in its craft, but also to begin teaching us how to behave and interact professionally. Losing that step is as huge a gulf created as any art school that stops teaching foundation skillsets to its students.
I hope this isn’t true, and please note that me calling out who and why this might be a threat to, does not also mean I endorse it. Just pointing out that being overly reliant on a specific genre/style/tool, leaves you vulnerable to outside forces you cannot control and may not be able to defend against. Good or ill..
No one in this field is EVER shielded. No matter what skill level or exposure level. There’s no protective barrier for anyone of us in the work. Unfortunately, so many suffer from a lack of information about how skills are built, and so for ages we’ve all accepted the idea that one has a special gene or gift that makes us do what we do. Then we assume we’re “meant” to be artists and that’s when our confusion begins. It’s no longer viable.
Artists are built, not born. And no one in this field started out lower than I did. At no time in the art world has competition been a piece of cake. Not the early days of American Illustration and not now. AI will make it one step harder, perhaps, but getting good at a skill has never been easy. Especially in art.
Competition has always been fierce, yet our taste for quality has only grown over the centuries. Still, there will always be those that cannot develop a sense of taste, and for them, good enough will always be good enough.
But one doesn’t compete with ‘good enough.’ Merely acknowledging it is all that’s necessary. Building a career is the focus and should remain so.
Guarded? Protected? Shielded? Hardly. No one gets a free ride that doesn’t come due at some point.
Right, the tiger chases us all… and it’s not always a terrible thing, though it does make for a lot of anxiety fuel. We’re all sort of leaves drifting on an ocean we can’t control, and we can do some things to keep ourselves afloat, but in the end, the vast sea wins always. We can better arm ourselves against these ever increasing winds of change with the kind of practical training experience and skillsets but it’s no guarantee against getting swamped. The idea that quality always arises and is met with reward is a terrible falsity, and dangerous to hug. Very well said, fellow Greg!
I think pointing out the diminished education is EXTREMELY important, and a point IO walked right on by here. Not knowing what we don;t know is as bad as never knowing it at all. Or worse…because I think this latter effect comes from a place of arrogance and not listening. SO even when we do meet the method we’re skipping past, we don’t regard it anyway.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Greg. AI generated imagery seems like it’s going to have a big impact on all aspects of the commercial art world, and how we as artists are able to make a living within it. I have a feeling this might be closer to how photography impacted representational painting than how digital tools have changed illustration and concept art in the last few decades. Photoshop and 3D software all have significant learning curves, and you need a lot of the same core skills found in traditional media to do anything significant with them.
I know I’ll continue to make the art I want to make with the methods I want to use, whatever ultimately ends up happening with AI. It’s just disheartening to think that the opportunities for artists to make a living doing what they love are likely going to shrink.
Agreed. I don’t personally regard it in many ways due to my own more limited selfishness and ways of thinking, but I know it means I’m leaving the door unlocked in a dangerous neighborhood. I will say I think this dynamic is not new, but it might be new in how ferocious and frequent it’s coming at us as artists. I think the techie way overtaking our ability to absorb it in a way that affords us much agency. Art takes time, the process of art making, the endless sea of necessary failures is so important to the process of becoming a better artist, and all of this discards that utterly. That the audience we’re speaking to sides more and more with the hurried tech over us as creators, that a smaller and smaller number of that audience sees, understands and appreciates true human made art is distressing. Particularly ironic in a time where images are more dominant to our societal conversation than ever before int he history of our species does not escape me at all…
I am in agreement for most of your post, but there’s a disconnect when we get into how it can be a tool. it’s not just something lazy artists will use to skip a necessary process. It’s also a pair of glasses for the blind, in some cases.
“The hard way is the better way for a reason…”
“If making AI art makes you a better artist I’d be the first to cheer for it, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how it does.”
One artist’s perspective: AI helps counterbalance my struggles with Aphantasia. I cannot come up with visual imagery on my own in my head. I don’t “see” the apple. It takes literal days of thumbnailing, sketching, scouring Pinterest, taking in other art, just to be able to come up with “ideas” to incorporate into my work, and even then I need to know what to search to try to spark something. The art ends up being stiff and static. By the time I get to the part where I’m actually drawing/inking, my artistic balloon is a sad little lump of latex.
AI-generated reference brings forth shapes and shadows that my brain then recognizes as *something*, and I can springboard from there to create my work.
It has absolutely revolutionized MY process and for me, it is the hammer I needed when all I had was a flimsy plastic spoon.
Is it a threat for fast-turnaround concept style artists? Most likely. I guess I’m fortunate in that I decided long ago that being a hired hand for a corporate board of business suits wasn’t where I wanted to be. And yeah, I’m in a “lucky” position to be able to skip those low rung positions (which puts me in a category of “worthless opinion”) but also… I think artists forget that there are ways to get our art out to the general public directly WITHOUT taking low-paying, fast-turnaround jobs at companies that don’t value our time and skillset. That’s a conversation for another day, though. My compassion goes out to those artists, but for me… AI is essential to my creation process.
JMO.
You make an excellent point Tawny- and yes of COURSE mine is a narrow perspective from a guy likely too old to appreciate the benefit of the new tech as a basic. Your personal condition is not something I was even aware of, and it strikes me as mighty beyond understanding you make art of the high quality you do without the internal visual cognition that I take for granted as a basic.
As a reference tool I get it. A friend recently described it similarly with regards to being a means to build visualized sets they’d have to hand make on their own which could take days and days. I get that benefit, but I still worry after how MUCH of the agency of making those choices, of lighting and composition, of perspective and point of view is controlled by the bot and not the artist. I feel like there’s an inherent kneecapping of possibility in that, and because it’s a binary system of creating, impossible to stumble into the kind of accidents that can transform one’s way of seeing and making work- like the fabled genesis of the Resse’s Peanut Buttercup… a new marvel born out of clumsy accident. Simply stumbling over your built set, bumping a light to fall in an unplanned but better place… a missed mark or spilled coffee. I confess I may work in a bugs bunny style clumsy way that is weird to others, but not having those outside influences would have stultified me by decades if they weren’t;t constantly there. But it sounds like you’ve made it work for you and your work. Just because I can’t seem to navigate the bike doesn’t;t mean there’s anything wrong with you riding yours, of course.
I will suggest again I think for all that AI will take away in terms of jobs it will also gift with responsive work in areas we cannot yet predict. In a factory system a robot that can weld a door to a building car faster and cheaper than a human worker is one thing, and an inevitability for sure I bet. SO I guess it’d be more accurate for me to point out ill jobs that are akin to that kind process as being legitimately and inevitably threatened. The flip side of it is the audience of course- studios don’t get enough people aside from the occasional social media backlash to dull head-clouded movie posters we see too much of. The audience just doesn’t;t mind them enough to make it worthwhile to do otherwise, or else I suspect they would.
Thanks for your insights and unique perspective. I was hoping for more of this, and it’s made me smarter about the subject to hear your take.
I’m loving the responses, fellow Greg! And of the last two, from Tawny and you, I’m realizing how much you are both describing the creative process from different angles, different lines of sight, but still the process we all work with.
My point is this: we are ALL looking for resolution in amorphous shapes. THAT’s the visual artist’s process. We search as we draw, like your Bugs Bunny approach, Greg, or your AI approach, Tawny–we READ INTO the images, the shapes, the forms and build a vision from there. It happens so fast in the beginning stages we take it for granted. But even as we proceed, our brains are studying the shapes and watching for information. Again, PATTERN RECOGNITION. Even as I work in my final oils, I’m looking to ‘read’ the shapes to tell my mind that it’s an eye, a bear, a boat, or a hand. Fingers may appear, but they’re built from shapes that sometimes fall into place, sometimes forced into shape by our training.
AI can help with that initial visualization, certainly Tawny, but at which point does the mind take over for the bot? Answer: at every point along the way. The process itself is tens of thousands of years old, and growing everyday. But there’s no competing with that kind of lengthy, DNA-building experience. The bots have a long way to go for that.
But we’ve managed to skip-gap the process to show a false visual that SUGGESTS to our eyes what we think we see. It’s not actually there. It’s illusion, and humans are supremely good at detecting illusion (even though we can fool ourselves at times as entertainment).
“It has absolutely revolutionized MY process and for me, it is the hammer I needed when all I had was a flimsy plastic spoon.”
Excellent! And it’s great that you’ve recognized its potential and put it to work. Your only goal now is to use that training for your brain to get better at. (there’s evidence in studies that the brain is plastic and CAN learn to do this) A student once asked me how to visualize things when they experienced that they couldn’t. I asked them if they could picture making love to their partner, and of course, they could, easily. In intimate detail.
There may be a difference, at first, in building a vision of an idea in 2D space in your mind, but this is part of the training as an artist. AI is already trying to do the same. Right now, it’s primitive to AI, but not to us as it gets closer to suggesting reality. But it still doesn’t understand it the way your brain is capable of in time.
“I feel like there’s an inherent kneecapping of possibility in that, and because it’s a binary system of creating, impossible to stumble into the kind of accidents that can transform one’s way of seeing…”
Well put. I agree, Greg. But Tawny’s case may be an illustration of the bot’s viability, too, that I’m certain you already see. So maybe our real mission is to return to its use as a tool AND as a training device for the species’ visual advancement.
If we don’t, it’s only so much garbage.
(And I say all this after seeing hundreds upon hundreds of paintings done with my name as a prompt. Some of them looking quite nice!)
If you think AI won’t replace you in the next five years you’re delusional. We are already at a point where AI is making better art than meatbag artists with big egos. But it does so in 5 seconds for a price of 5 cents. No complaints. No talkback. Just results. Client doesn’t like it? Iterate. We are already seeing magazines using these tools for illustration. Your movie posters are next. Soon enough it will make the images move and animators will be redundant. You can already ask for art in the style of any artist. You’re one data scrape away from art in your style. And maybe 36 months away from an AI that can make a painting in your style better than you can. For a fraction of the cost. With no one to sue. The wise thing to do now is to try and understand how to stay relevant. All this “I’m not threatened because I’m awesome” bravado is pointless. It’s like taking a hot dog to a light saber duel.
I’ve seen the point about “no complaints or back talk” come up a few times as a major advantage of AI generated images versus working with artists. The implication being that a client’s relationship with an artist is a combative ordeal that they just do their best to get through. I honestly don’t understand where that idea is coming from though, because it doesn’t characterize any of my experiences working with companies commissioning art.
When I’m doing work for a client I do my best to understand what they want, give them some options to choose from, and then follow their feedback to get to a final image they’re happy with. I’m doing a job for someone who’s paying me for a specific product. It’s not about trying to unilaterally impose my vision onto their project, it’s a matter of offering ideas and then trying to bring their concept to life.
It’s a professional relationship for both parties, with all of the norms of conduct that implies. I wouldn’t complain to or verbally abuse someone who hired me to do work for them. That’s not acceptable behavior in any work environment. In turn I wouldn’t tolerate a working relationship where expressing my concerns is dismissed as “back talk”. I’ve never run into anything like that with a client, but if I did I would finish the job they hired me for and then stop working with them. It’s not worth the trouble to deal with someone with an attitude like that.
I fully expect that the cost and convenience of AI generated images will dramatically reshape the way commercial art is made. People will need to adapt in novel ways to make a living through art. But I don’t think a willingness to deal with collaborators in a fair and professional manner has been the problem with commercial art up until now. I’m guessing it will still be a relevant part of the process of art making in the future, whatever else might change.
Well, I guess that didn’t take long to devolve. LOL!
You’re comments are quite sharp and have a humor all its own, Arnold. And I’m sure you didn’t mean them to come off that way, but they’re appreciated nonetheless. (outside of the snarky comment about “being awesome.”)
Still, they do sound like someone that runs into a burning building and screams, “Fire!”
It’s fairly the same thing I’ve heard all my life about illustration: “We’re ALL GONNA DIE!” I’ve been told illustration was dead for 45 years. I’ve been told painting itself was dead when I went to art school. I was told by very intelligent people that I could NOT oil paint any longer and still survive. That if I tried to freelance (when not many were freelancing in illustration) I would surely fail.
I think the best part of Erik’s comment is ultimately what Greg and I are trying to express: yes, it’s scary, but how do we adapt to this seemingly ‘new’ problem?
I’ve had to adapt throughout my entire career, when heads were falling and folks were leaving illustration in droves. Photography and even printing techniques bore a hole right into the field. I have many examples that spelled the death knell for artwork.
But hey, I see your point and appreciate your candor. I’m just not ready to throw in the towel.
I hope you aren’t either.
Thank you for this thought-provoking perspective in an era of increasingly shallow takes. AI art is absolutely going to upend a great deal of the industry, but as you crucially pointed out, it is not the end of the world.
If I could offer a bit of constructive criticism: the points made in the post are fantastic, but the writing itself makes them difficult to immediately understand. I’m no stranger to meandering sentences, but I just feel it went a bit overboard, here.
I happen to do a lot of freelance copy/content editing if you ever want to have something cleaned up! (No charge; I’m glad enough to help out anyone writing long-form about….well, anything these days. =)
Cheers
Such a great and nuanced article Greg. I’ve found the current conversation around this technology to be so divisive and insulting. Artists whose worked I’ve admired literally for decades are demonizing anyone who deigns to use Ai as unoriginal hacks with no vision. And while I understand their frustration with their work being used without consent and/or compensation, I don’t think saying horrific things about the USERS of the technology is the way to go. Take your frustration out on the company! STOP humiliating and repelling your own fans!
9 solid years of crazy expensive art school and 2 degrees later, I understand the fear of those just getting started in their careers, but I don’t think this is the boogie man so many established artists are making it out to be., Ironically, their constant comments about how this is going to kill art for junior artists is depressing said juniors before they even TRY to start their careers. They are killing the hopes of the young by CONSTANTLY telling them their jobs are gone or will be soon. I have yet to see anyone say what you did – innovate, work hard, make better art than the AI can!
For myself, I am much like Tawny; I look at a lot of different things to feed my creative projects (new art, classic art, movies, nature, etc). This is just a tool. To prove that to myself, I tried tracing an image directly from the output I got, and it was terrible! I had to start over, and my own skills and abilities took over. In the end, it vaguely resembled the image the AI gave me, but barely.
Last, despite what others are saying, I don’t think the bulk of AI users are selling what they’re making. For so many of us, it’s unlocked our creativity. We’re prompting things for the sheer fun of it; from the desire to see what’s possible, NOT – as SO many are saying – to profit from the output. OF COURSE some people are doing that very thing; that’s the unfortunate nature of capitalism, but I truly don’t think it’s the case for most.
I don’t understand what outcome is desired at this point from artists whose work is in the databases. I’ve seen the conversation move from their art being used without their consent to train the models to feeling as if their style as been stolen. If their desire is to completely get rid of all prompting art, I think they will be inadvertently destroying joy for millions of people. If their desire is to be compensated…. I still think that’s laudable and an outcome I can get behind. I would just say, STOP DEMONIZING YOUR FANS, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON YOUR SIDE! All you’re doing is pushing them away, and making yourselves (not the companies) the villains.
Great post. One thing that really bother me with the whole art conversation is that so many pro automation pro ai people seem to have such a lack of respect for the human value of artists and workers. They seem to have no sympathy for the idea that millions upon millions of humans can lose their livelyhood. It will create massive amount of desperate angry people and that is never good.