I going to broach somewhat of a controversial subject, but I feel it is an important subject in this day and age. It's going to be a long one, so please bear with me.
AI-generated and digital art - and largely my stance on it as it relates to my own art.
First and foremost, I consider it all creative, and in many instances, art. Wait .... hear me out! I will explain as to why and how!
Having gone down the rabbit hole myself of both digital art, and learning to generate AI-generated images, I feel I have a clearer understanding of it, which enables me to have some useful boundaries around it.
First of all, I think it is important to define what I mean when I use the terms "digital art" and AI-generated art.
Digital art, to me, is when an artist creates on an electronic device, just like they would on paper. Every stroke is done by hand, the only difference is that instead of pencil and paper, it is created on a screen and with a stylus. Nothing is artificially generated by the program in the art work. Can photos be imported and filters applied? Yes, but that, to me, is the arguably akin to using decoupage items and glazes in art work. If no copyright infringement is present and it is disclosed as digital art, I don't see a problem.
Onto AI-generated art. Wow, this is a sticky topic, but I suspect one that we will be dealing with from now on in some form or another. And I'm sure opinions will adapt and change as we go forward.
A couple of years ago, when the whole AI-generated art database first came to light and so, so many of us found our art work in the "learning" database for the generator, I was quite disheartened.
And I still think that just because us artists post our art on the internet should not make it a free for all for AI training and generating. It has so many ethical implications! But that might be a whole other topic.
As I kept seeing more and more images appear on pinterest and social media sites, and some of them were seemingly amazing, I did wonder how this would influence the art world, especially as I saw more and more paintings that didn't disclose that this was AI generated. So it leaves people not only confused, but also suspicious.
Having learnt a whole lot and having made it a point to actually teach myself how to generate AI images, even trying to reproduce specific styles, I have found that it's not actually all that easy to generate an "amazing" picture. There is some skill to it.
I have also learned that in many instances, AI still has a LONG way to go. Eyes, hands, hair ... feet and toes ... and also the correct number of all the above, consistent and realistic shadows, seems to still present quite the challenge in the artificially generating world. Chances are, I am also still not that great at it, so there's that.
So yes, I do believe there is a skill to it. Therefore I do regard it as creative/ art. I am ok with that.
What I am not ok with, is not disclosing that it's artificially generated.
So, where does all of this fit in in my own art?
As most of you know, I predominantly use photographs as my references. I also combine reference photographs digitally, so I can adjust lights and shadows of the various parts, etc. A digital collage. I do this in photoshop, as I am familiar with it from my digital scrapbooking days. I then use those created composits as my reference.
I also use my phone and photoshop when I am stuck with a painting. I'll upload a photo of my unfinished painting and try out different additional elements, until I hit on what speaks to me and then I'll paint that. To me, it's a tool like any other.
I used to also do digital art many years ago, as it was easier to have a portable art studio in my purse and practice my art in the car, in the pickup line at school, in waiting rooms and such. Digital art programs are excellent for that. Again, I don't see a problem with any of it, as long as we don't go around pretending it isn't digitally created. It's still art. It still requires the same drawing, painting and composition skills a "hands on" painting would.
Now to AI. Do I use it? Sort of. Again, I use it as a tool. To generate references.
And then I draw/paint from the reference, like I do from photographs and composits.
To me, there's no difference between using a photograph I licensed, or took myself and an AI-generated image I licensed, or generated myself, as a reference. The drawing is still all me. How I translate that reference, still all me.
In fact, there are real advantages to generating them myself. I can be much more specific about what I have in mind, and, yes, it's more affordable.
Even on photography stock sites, they now have AI images. I was surprised to see this more and more, even on the Adobe stock website. It is disclosed that they are AI. However, the licensing is the same $ amount as the licensing of a photograph taken by a human.
There are also many disadvantages, not least of all the above mentioned errors and glitches.
So, some of you may be worried that they might not be able to tell the difference between an AI-generated painting and a "real" one. Honestly, I think it's not that hard with paintings. Close up you will always be able to tell the difference. Not only is there a certain inconsistency in patterns, textures and such, there is also a certain repetition that often seems odd and unnatural.
Holding a painting in your hand, feeling the texture, even when there is very little of it, seeing the brush or pencil strokes, and the natural continuity thereof, etc. It is really quite obvious once you figured out what the tell tale signs of AI-generated images are in paintings. And if in doubt, ask the artist. Ask for a closeup. Most of us are only too happy to oblige.
I also feel that AI-generated art lacks a certain depth, both physically and emotionally. It lacks the connection, the expression, the feelings and personal signature style of human created art. Often there is also a lack of cohesion and context within the art itself. It is, after all, at it's essence a stiched together image with a bunch of filters applied. And it shows.
Now, AI-generated photographs, I find those much harder to determine. There is so much of that floating around on the internet now, that it's really hard to be sure sometimes. And there is a very deliberate movement to spread misinformation with AI images, as they are really so convincing.
But I think we are a long way from that in the hands-on art world, where actual paintings exchange hands. You might not always be able to tell when seeing an image on your computer. But you will be able to tell once you hold it in your hands! In fact, even zooming in on a digital image will often tell you all you need to know.
But again, if in doubt, please ask. I think most artists you follow are only too happy to let you know.
I have been asked a couple of times about AI recently, mostly from people who aren't familiar with my work. My technique doesn't have a lot of texture, like acrylic, watercolor or oil painting would have. Between the very thin layers of pastels, which are often rubbed right into the paper, the hot press paper I use (which has pretty much NO texture) and the frequent layers of workable fixative which makes for that smooth diffused finish, it is hard to tell from a distance. However, even with my materials, it becomes quite obvious that it's hand drawn/painted once you get a zoomed in view.
There is so much more to discuss on this topic, but for now, I will leave it there.