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.

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 And has painting been superseded by photography?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.

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.

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?

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].

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