Art is, by definition, “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.” AI art does not follow this definition, so it is not art.
AI art lacks the human touch that makes art interesting or authentic. Art takes much time and effort to become good at, and AI art devalues that effort. Early artists have to be okay with learning and overcoming obstacles when making art, and watching an AI make something so quickly that it would take an artist a long time to create can be crushing.
Additionally, the AI uses human-made art across the web to make its “original” pieces. An article I read titled “If it wasn’t created by a human artist, is it still art?” in the Harvard Gazette stated, “In terms of art created by AI, I don’t think we can call it art… AI can imitate something that someone has already created and regurgitate it in another format, but that is not an original work.” Original works are unique and different every time they are drawn. AI isn’t programmed to make little features that make something special. It is for this reason that AI art can not be copyrighted.
AI art is also closing the bridge between artists and non-artists. With the rising popularity of AI art, many people are more interested in using AI instead of paying for commissions– which are pictures that artists make for other people for a small fee. Most AI art apps still charge money to use them, so logically, it’s better to get an authentic piece of art you request from a human artist than to try repeatedly to get a desired picture from an AI.
Circling back to the fact that AI uses other people’s art to create its own pictures, this raises the concern of stealing real artist’s art. Many artists argue that AI takes art without the artist’s permission, but it is still debatable whether or not this infringes on the copyright of the human artist’s work. How to credit the artists used is also still up for debate. People shouldn’t use AI art until artists can be credited.
As for the stress of AI taking artists’ jobs– I’m not concerned. The AI needs human art to make its pieces, so there will always be a need for human artists. I still think that AI art is lazy and, in a sense, cheating, but it is deemed not authentic. As an artist, using AI art, especially by my friends, irritates me. It makes me feel they will never experience all the years of learning through trial and error I went through to improve. I get a sense of self-gratification every time I finish an art piece, and seeing others experience that feeling gives me joy. But with the entrance of better AI art, it feels as though that same level of self-gratification isn’t there anymore. Again, art is really about getting your creativity out into the world— and AI art doesn’t do that.
Of course, someone could use AI art to spark creative ideas. Using an AI generator to create an idea for a drawing or a creative writing piece can be helpful. Art and writer’s block are real things that are a struggle for artists, and if AI can help get ideas flowing through creative minds, then I’d say that’s its proper use in art. The article “Embracing Creativity: How AI Can Enhance the Creative Process” in the New York University blog states, “For visual artists, AI-generated images can serve as starting points for new creations. AI algorithms can create abstract patterns, morph images, or generate unique compositions that artists can incorporate into their work.”
So, AI art is not real art because a human creative mind does not create it. AI art shouldn’t be eligible to submit for contests against human artists and certainly shouldn’t be considered art. Although AI art can be very appealing, that doesn’t make it art.
