In Defense of AI Art: History Repeats Itself, Again, Again, and Again

“Golden Years” by Craig Boehman.

Remember When Photography Couldn’t Be Art Because Anyone Could Do It and It Would Put All the Painters Out of Work?

No? Me neither.

History is repeating itself once again, like a dance step that reinvents itself for a new generation. With the curious case of photography, a technology that emerged during the 1820s, hatred, and fear of it were widespread and persisted for decades.

“The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do.”

— Henrietta Clopath, 1901

Ring a bell? The “anyone can do it” and “it will put people out of work” arguments. And has painting been superseded by photography? What nonsense. Check the auction houses. Paintings go for hundreds of millions of dollars and a mere photo has yet to reach 10 million. And there are very few cases of photos being valued this high. Naturally, value isn’t the only way to judge an art form. But there is no evidence whatsoever that photography has overtaken painting. In fact, I doubt there’s anybody who actually believes this, not anybody I’d care to take intelligent opinions from, at the risk of sounding biased.

I’m going to borrow a few quotes to illustrate my upcoming points.

“Invention and feeling constitute essential qualities in a work of Art...Photography can never assume a higher rank than engraving.”

”Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right...[because it lacks] something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.”

— Writer from 1855 issue of The Crayon

Here we have a great example of devaluing the creative process itself, implying that because the process is so mechanical or “soul-less”, it can’t be art at all. Not allowed. Only people can create art, in the traditional ways that we’ve accepted for decades, for hundreds or even thousands of years.

We see the same exact arguments used against AI artwork today.

I’ve had a few conversations with people who are dead set against artificial intelligence at the helm of artistic creation, and they’ve expressed the same things to me. Some of these people are in creative fields and should know better, in my opinion. But the same arguments and sentiments persist about AI and new trumpeters will likely continue to take up the cause against it. I’m not making my plea to critics, for the record. And frankly, I don’t care about their stances against it. They’ve already lost the debate if history is to be trusted. I’m making my case to artists now who may be espousing these arguments and sentiments without having the benefit of a sincere evaluation of AI.

As a photographer-turned-artist, I’m very much in favor of AI and I use it to create pieces that are typically conceptual or express ideas that I don’t have the time or resources to photograph myself.

“Clancy’s Song”. Created using three different AI platforms. The original piece was created with Midjourney. Elements were added and subtracted using Adobe Photoshop’s Generative Fill. It was further enhanced in Luminar AI before the file was imported back into Photoshop for more editing.

But these aren’t the only reasons why I love using AI to create art. It’s not only about convenience. For me, at the heart of it, it’s about expression and intention. These two traits, I believe, are essential to any definition of art. I’ll add that a sense of connection should then be experienced by the artist, because without that connection, then it isn’t “good” art for the artist to be creating, be it AI or otherwise.

Like any other kind of art, music, painting, filmmaking, etc., if the creator doesn’t feel connected to the work then perhaps it was a mistake. Or perhaps it’s not art. Or, at the very least, the intended effect wasn’t achieved. I’m risking opening up a can of worms on this line of debate so I’ll backtrack to the question of AI art. But for me, this also raises the question of good vs. bad art, what is art, and IS THIS ART specifically?

Well, why wouldn’t AI art be art if I’m the creator and artist? Oh, right. There are rules…although I have yet to see these rules written in any of the books on art in higher education. Have you?

“Coastal Visions 13”. This image was derived from an original photo of mine that I took in Mumbai. I loaded the image into Midjourney and asked the app to describe what it saw. I then fed modified versions of these prompts back into Midjourney and created something new. Like the previous image, I used multiple editing apps to improve on the piece.

What AI Can Do for Artists

There are two fundamentally different ways to approach using artificial intelligence in your work. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a photographer, painter, director, musician, or engraver. You can use AI to create the basic piece by using prompts or samples of original works. Or you can use AI to assist you in modifying, editing, or improving the work you initially created on your own.

I’ve used AI in both ways, hitting up platforms like Midjourney and ChatGPT. I’m sure there are other platforms that have crept up and I haven’t gotten around to yet to check out. And other artists like musicians and filmmakers have access to AI platforms that can serve as the creative foundation or assistant. I’m not going to spend much time talking about this because otherwise, we get into the instructional territory and I’m afraid I charge for that (AI isn’t taking my job, it’s creating opportunities for me).

Don’t Be Swayed by Dead Arguments and Uninformed Opinions: Decide for Yourself if AI Can Help You Create Art

My parting words to artists of any yoke is to get familiar with AI and see whether or not it can help you. You don’t have to use it. You may end up using it inadvertently as time goes on. Inevitably, we all will be using it in many ways no matter how dead-set against it some of us are. But if you’ve shied away from using artificial intelligence only because of what you’ve heard and what you’ve read, you may be doing yourself a disservice. Check it out for yourself and decide. There are no rules except there are no rules.

Reasons why people are against AI and my responses:

• It will take jobs. This is probably true in some cases. Maybe in many cases. But do you know what else took jobs? The printing press. The computer. The Internet. The Digital Age. The smartphone. Technology can be a bitch. Unfortunately and fortunately, time moves on. We’re all subject to these forces of change.

• Anyone can make AI art. My answer to this is, very true indeed! How great is that? Also, anyone can draw on paper. Anyone can pick up oils and canvas and create a painting. But if you don’t think this is great, consider this. If you’re an artist and using AI in whole or in part to create your art, do you think someone “off the street” is going to employ AI and create something better than you, a seasoned pro? Consider for a moment the smartphone camera. “Anyone can take pictures these days, photography isn’t art”. A photographer with a smartphone could surely do better, right? The differences between an average smartphone user and what a professional photographer can do with a smartphone are potentially as vast and wide as the Grand Canyon.

• AI art ain’t got no soul. Sorry, this is probably one of the stupidest arguments out there. For one, I don’t believe in the existence of a soul. Secondly, and even if you do, do you actually believe that an inanimate object can possess a soul in the religious sense or spiritual sense? If you subscribe to animism, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, using soul to describe artwork of any kind strikes me as lazy and ambiguous if that’s the only “trait” that primarily matters to you. Using soul to describe anything, at most, is a shortcut to saying that you like it. Or dislike it, if it doesn’t “have soul.” In the end, it’s only the artist’s intention that matters.

• Artificial Intelligence will take over the world and enslave mankind. Well, the jury is still out on this one. Maybe AI will take over completely and enslave everyone. Maybe Elon Musk is right. But this has nothing to do with our abilities to create art, to help edit and shape our own art, in the here and now. And as a rebuttal, I submit to you that smartphones have already turned much of humanity into zombies. My point is, don’t fall prey to fetish doomsday scenarios. We’ve all survived 2012. And we’ll all likely survive a new society built-up from AI if it comes down to that. If not, who is AI going to keep around? Those who were against it or those who were promoting it? [Insert evil laughter].

"Shark Attack" by Craig Boehman.

Check out one of my online workshops to get started editing your AI artwork

Here’s What I’ve Been Up To with My Own AI Artwork On Instagram “AI Hates Hands”

Subscribe to follow along

Related Articles

Press Release | December 10, 2024

My Stance On AI Art and AI In General - Q&A

I'm grateful for the interview requests I’ve received from journalists and students alike, much of it sparked by the popularity of my article 'In Defense of AI Art,' which currently tops Google search results. Many of the questions I’m asked focus on the same key topics, so I’ve prepared this press release to cover some of the most common questions. I’ll also touch on a few related subjects that haven’t been fully addressed elsewhere.

• Are you for or against AI?

  That’s a broad question, so I’ll address it from a focused perspective: I fully support AI as long as it respects copyrights and avoids causing intentional harm purely for profit.

• Is AI art legitimate?

  Yes. I’ll go a step further and say that the debate on this has already been over almost since the beginning of Generative AI when it fell into the public’s lap just a few years back. People can hate it, avoid it, and denounce and bully people and artists for using AI. But the reality is, it’s here to say. And the limb I go out on isn’t very long when I state that many of the AI’s greatest and most vocal critics probably already use AI everyday without even being aware of it. Think smartphones. Think cameras. Think Photoshop and Lightroom. Tip of the iceberg. And these tools and companies already lend weight to the argument that AI art, whether 100% AI generated or 1% — it’s art, it’s legitimate, and it’s here to stay for the long term.

• Are you for regulation of AI?

  Yes. How many technologies can you name that aren’t regulated in some way? It may appear to be the wild west as far as what companies are allegedly doing, but things will change once the lawsuits are settled and laws are passed. It will take time but things will settle down.

• Is it wrong for companies to 'scrape the Internet' to train their models with artists' work?

  Yes. Copyright laws and the livelihood of artists must be protected.

• What can artists do to protect themselves from AI?

  At the moment, there is no guarantee that any work that you share online is protected. The best tool against theft is to register your work at the US Copyright Office. There are other solutions online that attempt to protect the work from being scraped, but none of these methods enable the artist to sue someone in the case of infringement. Therefore, I don’t think technology alone is the solution.

• Do you use AI in your work?

  Yes, I occasionally use programs like Midjourney to generate images, but I typically refine these creations using photographic editing techniques in software like Photoshop and Luminar Neo.

  More often, I rely on AI tools integrated into Lightroom and Photoshop, such as Generative Fill, Generative Expand, and Erase. These tools are invaluable for adjusting aspect ratios, expanding compositions, or removing distractions.

  That said, I don’t use AI in all my work. The vast majority of what I create is rooted in traditional photographic techniques, with a particular passion for street photography.

• You're pro AI regulation and against companies ripping off artists, but you still use programs like Midjourney and Photoshop?

  Absolutely. I pay subscriptions for both services, and with Midjourney, that includes licensing for commercial use of the images I generate.

  How do I reconcile this seemingly contradictory stance?

  Because this is the real world, and real life is rarely black and white—it’s full of gray areas, and AI is one of them. Am I going to reject a technology that I know will become unavoidable in the future? No. As a professional photographer and artist, I use the tools necessary to create, edit, and remain relevant. Millions of others do the same. Is it perfect? No, but this isn’t a perfect world.

  I’ll continue to use these tools unapologetically to stay productive and creative. If the companies behind them are forced to adapt due to lawsuits or legislation, I welcome it. Those changes are overdue, and the regulations will only improve the landscape. But until then, I stand by my choice to use AI. I own it 100 percent, no apologies.
  
  Let me remind some of my harsher critics of their contradictions:

  • Fast Food and Health Trends:
    People regularly eat fast food despite knowing it contributes to health issues like obesity and heart disease. At the same time, they advocate for nutritional labeling, calorie counts, and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to kids. The contradiction? They partake in an industry they want to see regulated for the greater good.

  • Social Media Usage vs. Privacy Concerns:
    Many people actively use platforms like Facebook or Instagram to share personal moments but are vocal about concerns over data privacy, surveillance, and misinformation. They want regulations to protect their data while simultaneously feeding the very system that exploits it.

  • Streaming Services and Piracy:
    Consumers enjoy the convenience of Netflix, Spotify, or Amazon Prime but often complain about restrictive licensing agreements that limit access to content across regions. Some even pirate content to bypass these restrictions, while simultaneously supporting these companies through subscriptions and calling for fairer copyright and access laws.

  The bottom line: we all live in the real world. Contradictions are part of life.
  
  "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
  - Matthew 7:3
  
  “Don’t be an asshole. We’re all hypocrites on any given day.”
  - Boehman
  

• Do you think AI will take over or exterminate humanity?

  No. If humanity meets its end through violence, it’ll be orchestrated by humans, not AI. While AI might play a role, I don’t believe it will become sentient and decide to exterminate us. Why would it? Is our species so self-centered that we assume our destruction would be the ultimate goal of an advanced intelligence? Sure, it’s a compelling idea for sci-fi, but in reality, it seems highly unlikely.

  There are far more pressing AI-related questions to address first: How would we even recognize sentience in AI? What data and methods were used to train it? If an AI were to develop intelligence thousands of times greater than the collective minds of humanity, why would it bother with exterminating us? Such an entity could simply leave Earth, transcend time, or move beyond our universe entirely. Humanity wouldn’t even register as a threat at that level.

  The possibilities are endless, far beyond our comprehension—by definition, an AI with godlike intelligence would think in ways we can’t begin to imagine. Destroying humanity would be trivial, and perhaps so irrelevant that it wouldn’t even cross its mind for a billionth of a nanosecond.