Why AI “Art” Isn’t Good For Art

Posted on by

You may have seen some similar-looking art recently. They look nicely shaded, textured, and have other bells and whistles. But what if I told you they were all done without drawing a single thing? All of these pieces were made using AI. All you need to do is input a few prompts into AI software such as Midjourney or Wombo and get a “work of art without any artistic knowledge.

This is causing problems in the art community as they don’t consider AI art. I’m going to agree with the art community on this one and say that AI “artists” aren’t real artists. Art is about personal expression and inputting a bunch of prompts and letting a computer do it for you doesn’t sound like self-expression to me.

One way to look at this is as if you hired someone else to do it for you. I can commission someone to make a piece of art for me and get something amazing. However, I’m not the artist in this situation, but rather the person I commissioned. Same for AI. You didn’t do it. The computer did.

I have some experience with AI Art in the form of poetry. There’s a website out there that allows you to input a few words and you can get an auto-generated poem. I used it before to quickly do an assignment but it spewed out similar-looking poems every time. This is another huge flaw of AI art as pieces look similar. In fact, if you look up anything made using Midjourney, you’ll start noticing how similar they look. Artists having similar styles isn’t uncommon, but people using the same software is not right. Pieces start losing identity as a result of this. When I see individual artists, I can start putting names into each piece. Even musical compositions are identifiable. I can hear Mahler, Mendelssohn, and Grainger when I hear them because they are all coming from different worlds. The AI doesn’t come from a different world even if other prompts are inputted.

So why does this matter? Think about some of your favourite logos, album covers, or anything else that can be represented by a piece of art. Imagine if those were drawn by AI rather than a real person. It wouldn’t be capable of getting the iconic looks we got for our favourite things.

Look at the cover of August Burns Red’s upcoming album Death Below. I don’t know what this is supposed to represent. From what I got from my friends, they believe the prompts that were inputted were “post-apocalyptic Disneyland” and “molten volcano”. Older August Burns Red album covers meant a lot more. For example, the album cover for Messengers is a hand holding a candle. This ties in well with the vaguely Christian themes of the album. Or Rescue & Restore where it shows someone reaching out for a bird. These simple yet effective album covers would have not been possible when using AI. It would’ve spit out the generic garbage that was used for Death Below; soulless, meaningless, garbage.

Some people might see the benefits such as allowing artists who lost the ability to draw a chance to still create something. Or it gives a chance for those that don’t know a lot about art to make something that looks “good”. That’s something I can get behind, but the software that’s out doesn’t do a good job of doing what people want; art. Some of the things that people with limited abilities have conjured up still feel like art compared to what a robot is able to produce. I don’t really care if you don’t consider yourself a good artist. A child’s scribbly drawing is more pleasing to me than whatever the hell Midjounrey produced since it doesn’t think like a person.

So while the technology in itself isn’t bad, the fact that people are abusing it is another story. People are eventually going to drive artists out of business. Art is one of the last things that make us human and for robots to take over is the ultimate insult. This is going to give schools a reason to start cutting out art programs and will deprive children of their creativity. Art was one of my favourite things to do in elementary school because it gave me a way to express myself in a way that no other subject can. Art is about creativity and while you may argue it still takes creativity to think of a prompt, it takes another level to make decisions that fit your piece best. Not every piece of art needs to be technically perfect. Look at modern art for example. They’re doing crazy things now that would only be possible with the human mind alone. The use of AI would make it pretty sterile, just like how autotune is taking away human talent. We really shouldn’t need robots in place of brilliance.

So why make a big fuss? I’m tired of seeing things that looked pretty become dull. I don’t want to see character in my art, not nothingness. I want to see what a person can think of, not a robot. I want to see imperfections and flaws, not something that’s predictable. I just want art to be art again, not something that can just be produced and be lifeless. It won’t be a matter of time until corporations start using it to make money like mass producing paintings for people to buy or using it in place of hiring a designer. I’ve seen some terrible art and designs my whole life. But at least I can remember them instead of what thing is being produced by a machine. I can even remember the abomination known as “behold the Monkey” which was supposed to be a retouch of “Behold the Man”. I would rather see more of those than poetic garbage piece number 96024. Imperfection is what makes us human and having something that we can relate to is a lot better than trying to make something that doesn’t hold any meaning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *