Fanciful Friday: AI Art I, Disdain and Rejection
Why Many Traditional Artists Reject and Disdain AI Art
In recent years, the rise of artificial intelligence in creative fields has sparked heated debates in artistic communities. Many traditional artists—painters, sculptors, illustrators, and others who rely on hands-on techniques—are vocal in their skepticism, if not outright rejection, of AI-generated art. But what fuels this resistance, and why do some traditional artists look down on their AI counterparts? Interestingly, photography faced some similar resistance when it first began to be considered as an artistic endeavor.
- The Value of Human Touch and Experience
Traditional artists often see their craft as deeply personal, rooted in years of training, practice, and emotional investment. Every brushstroke or chisel mark carries the artist’s intention, mistakes, and evolution. AI art, by contrast, is created through algorithms and data, lacking the tangible connection between creator and creation. For many, this absence of human touch strips the artwork of authenticity and meaning. - Concerns Over Artistic Integrity and Originality
Many artists worry that AI art, which can rapidly generate images from vast databases of existing works, blurs the line between inspiration and imitation. There’s a fear that AI models, trained on countless human-made artworks, are essentially remixing or even plagiarizing without proper credit. This challenges long-held notions of originality and the artist’s unique vision. - The Threat to Livelihoods
The emergence of AI art tools has made it possible for anyone to produce visually impressive images with minimal effort. For traditional artists who depend on commissions or sales, this democratization can feel like an existential threat. The fear is that clients and companies will opt for cheaper, faster AI-generated content, undermining the value of manual artistic labor and making it harder for human artists to compete. - Cultural and Ethical Concerns
Traditional artists also express ethical worries about AI art. Many see art as a reflection of culture, history, and individual experience—qualities difficult, if not impossible, for machines to replicate authentically. There’s concern that the widespread adoption of AI art could erode cultural diversity, promote homogenization, and devalue artists’ role in society. - Status and Recognition
Finally, status plays a role. The fine art world has long prized the mystique of the artist as a singular genius. Some traditional artists may view AI artists—or those who use AI tools—as lacking the rigor, discipline, and creativity required to be considered “real” artists. This can lead to dismissiveness or even hostility toward AI art and its creators.
Conclusion
While some artists embrace AI as a new tool for creative expression, many traditional artists remain wary. Their concerns are rooted in questions of authenticity, originality, ethics, and the future of the profession itself. As AI continues to reshape the art world, ongoing dialogue and mutual respect between traditional and digital creators will be essential for navigating this evolving landscape. One thing is assured: AI graphics and imagery are here to stay, and no matter what we call it, we need to find a lane for it to exist in.
I’ve intentionally withheld my personal opinions on this subject. My thoughts are still somewhat in flux, and I want to reach a point where I feel comfortable before sharing them. At some point, I will share.
Discover more from MeanderingPassage
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you had done a good job of summarizing the struggles that are going on. I do struggle with the ethical aspects of it. My youngest grandson creates digital art and has concerns also. I know I use the tools of Lightroom to manipulate images. I will be interested in your opinions when you are free enough to share them. I do know that many of the images you create and share here are some excellent works of art. I hope you continue!
I believe there is some validity to all five points mentioned above, but I haven’t yet settled on the finer details of my stance. Personally, I’ve found AI imaging to be incredibly liberating for my creativity and imagination. Even though I have some reservations, I’m not sure I can or should try to put that genie back in the bottle. I’m sure there will be a follow-up post where I share my personal opinions once I have a clearer understanding of my experience and stance on it.
I will be looking for it.
It can be a multi-faceted and nuanced issue, though I think it has parallels to the acceptance of photography as art. After all, a photograph” created with the press of a button” is similar to typing a prompt and it is common to associate effort with value. The originality aspect is a landmine I dare not step on. Then the fact so many artists basically had their work stolen to train these systems so someone can recreate their style or even a duplicate of their work in a couple minutes is a certain sore spot – and they will never likely see compensation out of it except for the big company to big company settlements. But I agree it is here to stay, and we are going to have to figure out how to deal with it and put guardrails up when there is so much effort to not have guardrails. If you haven’t seen the documentary “AI Doc” – worth a watch.
No dispute, AI graphic generators were trained on billions of scraped images, most of them copyrighted work, and the artists were never asked, credited, or paid. There is still the question of whether that constitutes infringement or falls under fair use as “transformative”. The courts will eventually decide, I guess, and then, as you said, the big corporations will settle.
We will soon see, if not already, downward pressure on commissioned and commercial work. Segments such as illustration, concept art, stock photography, and “in the style of” commissions may be hit the hardest. This is because generated images can serve as nearly free substitutes for clients who need an image rather than a specific artist’s vision.
I expect there will be an increasing divide between the “artist as commodity supplier” and the “artist as an author with a following that provides more than just images alone.”
Thanks, Mark, for stopping by and for your comment.
I can see the usefulness in exploring creative ideas and trying to assemble a lot of concepts or flush them out – kinda like a sketch pad of sorts. In some ways: instead of the physical conveyor of something, the human takes more of the role like a movie director. After all, a movie director has writers, actors, all sorts of people creating the final product, the the director nudges and shapes it to their vision.
I’ve had some genuinely interesting conversations in flushing out thoughts with some of these models. Back and forth dialog that seemed like a lot more than just probability calculations. Some of them went off the rails, others showed some predictability, but others quite fascinating on the “awareness.”
I have two additional posts planned related to this one, which will serve as follow-ups over the next two Fridays. In the next post, I’ll discuss part of my research with AI Claude, which turned out to be quite interesting and somewhat eye-opening for me. Not necessarily in terms of specific information, but rather in how Claude maintained its part of the conversation, asking me related questions and demonstrating a level of awareness similar to what I would expect from a person. It was a moment, at least for me, when the I of AI became more apparent. 🤔
You may be interested in this I just came across and watched – and I tend to see more types of things like this from Anthropic than others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBUniZHgCnE
Thanks, Mark. That’s amazing and scary at the same time. If AI behavior is based on its “upbringing,” will a new field open up for AI therapists for cases of questionable behavior where you can’t just start over? Kinda kidding and kinda not. 😨