Our Curious Journeys With No Destination
Creative curation, art, and the problematic position the public's been put in with generative AI.
Listen to this piece:
Of the artists I know and have spoken to, they are mainly against AI art.
Although there seems quite a balanced mixture of opinion amongst traditional artists, my own anecdotal evidence has found a more negative swing.
Artist Nishant Jain's fantastic SneakyArt Post gives another nod to the negative:
"The real crime of the AI Art movement is not anything it does, but what it stops you from doing. By eliminating you from the process of creation, it reduces your humanity. There is deep self-loathing at the heart of being an 'AI-artist'.
Art is all process. The artist’s life is all journey, no destination.
Anything that can be produced at zero cost by anyone anywhere in the world is – by definition – mid."
Jain also predicts that AI art will soon be as useful and valuable as stock photos, that verifiably human things will get FAR more valuable, and that this is the best time to be an artist.
PERSONAL JOURNEY
I have long been a big supporter of the arts and artists. My money has gone to artists, sometimes on a whim, because I saw an original artwork and decided to buy it there and then. I've been privileged enough to do it a few times, but I wish I had enough coins to do it more. I like art!
On the more affordable front, there are the prints, cards, mugs, ornaments, and so on. I've done what I can. And when I can't, I still celebrate working artists if nothing else. It's always been a big deal for me, and I get to appreciate incredible artworks as I go.
Now that AI image creation is possible, I've become even more interested in the arts than ever.
I'm also doing a lot with AI art myself.
I don't think writing a text prompt makes me an artist. But some parts of the creation of those images do get input beyond the prompt, often in terms of reference images I've created or photographed myself.
My aim is not for output images that look like other people's works. Nor is it just to get pretty pictures and call it art. Instead, I'm looking to explore and consider what's possible, whilst bringing narrative and meaning to the outputs.
Not all traditional artists will believe that I've discovered a valid gateway to being an artist. After all, I could stick to my own reference images and photos, calling those works of art instead.
In a weird way, reference images are well placed to form another part of the art, acting as a template of sorts, or as an originating theme to encompass a collection. The reference image could become the heart of the generations, even if it sits behind the 'prettier' pixel pieces. The most prized collectible of all may be the intention and the narrative rather than the bits that look good.
My hunch is that there's room for everything. Everything in just the same way the bigger picture contains everything. Good, bad, indifferent, weird, changeable, all the things, in different combinations, at different times, and sometimes all at once.
“My aim is not for output images that look like other people's works. Nor is it just to get pretty pictures and call it art. Instead, I'm looking to explore and consider what's possible, whilst bringing narrative and meaning to the outputs.”
A MICROCOSM OF BROADER TRENDS
So I agree that this is a democratisation of sorts, but the dust hasn't settled in a way for us to understand what that means. Given the AI situation, maybe the dust won't have time to settle. I'm not convinced of any specific narrative playing out yet.
In a recent video, Hank Green said: "Despite the fact that AI image generators are super cool and fun to use, they are not necessarily going to be a good thing. At least the way they're currently operating for the most part...[The situation] is I think both fascinating and important." [4:04]
For that reason, it's important to be aware of the many situations playing out with art and AI. Every angle carefully considered and a multitude of voices and intentions heard and acknowledged. I see the situation acting as a microcosm of what's likely to play out in a much broader sense ongoing, which makes this all the more important and sensitive.
If we're watchful and mindful right now, we may have a better chance of understanding the bigger picture elsewhere in good time.
Hey, it's worth a try!
THE SPACES IN BETWEEN
It's worth a try because it's the position the public has been placed into. Azeem Azhar recently said on his Exponential View podcast, "So we have this sort of uncertain thing that is quite seductive and persuasive, but in reality, it's actually only a component of a finished, final product. And I think that what we will start to do to address the weaknesses, the strange hallucinations that go on, or the things that it makes up, will be essentially the same sorts of things that we did to cars to make internal combustion engines useful. So we connected them to drive shafts, we gave them brakes. I mean, brakes are wonderful. Brakes. People think of brakes as slowing down the car, but actually brakes enable you to drive faster. As someone who once had to drive his car, a rental car with shot brake pads to a garage, I know how slowly you drive when the brakes don't work."
My navigating an in-between space that sees validity in both the pro- and anti-AI stances is truly difficult. Part of my sticking in this space is because AI can't be neutral yet. Yes, it's a tool of sorts, but not one that's fully understood, and not one that can easily have current inherent biases and problems removed at will.
So here I am where things I usually love are very much at odds with each other. Art and AI...It's complicated. And that's a problem.
I don't think physical art and traditional methods of creation will lose out in the long run. That said, the wider art world has long been problematic, with gatekeepers and exclusivity among other things. AI may allow these things to get worse, or it may expose matters. Or do nothing at all! Too early to tell.
As for digital art, that's in a different place, with potentially more suffering to take place. But I do like what Nishant Jain says, that the value of verifiably human things will probably grow.
Whether digital or physical art, the blockchain may come into play, allowing proofs and validity of those works. Digital art could become more real and tangible with the blockchain.
Physical art may grow in value despite AI, or even due to it. And digital creation has a potential way through this too. The blockchain can help with that, and the technology will one day explode when there’s greater need. Proving the validity of a digital artwork would be an easy blockchain win.
VALUE AND ART
For now, I'm inclined to agree that most AI art has little value now, let alone in a couple of years. That's because it's not AI art, it's AI images.
We are all artists if we say we are. You may not buy my drawing of a simple stick figure, but maybe you would if an established big-name artist drew it. And we're well aware how some world-famous artists had very little fame or fortune in their lifetimes, only to be esteemed as geniuses after death.
Then you have the urinals, the banana taped to a wall, the seat in a gallery mistaken as art, the...okay, you get the point.
CREATIVE CURATION
My current framing for generative AI art is that I'm a "Creative Curator". That's for another time, but part of my role is to search for the right images and bring them to life in ways that go beyond the image itself. The fact it's curated over other outputs is the start. The addition of titles, narratives, and explanations is another layer. Then there's the purposeful placement of images, sometimes as a collection, or exhibited within another context.
In some ways, now isn't the time to take sides or set boundaries over what is and isn't art. That is unanswerable, as ever. Even a valueless crack in a wall can be seen as art in the right context. And that context could be just one person, for a brief moment as they appreciate that crack in the wall, before they walk away, never to see that beautiful piece of art again.
Jain's comments ring true in so many ways. Simultaneously, human context of some sort may bring AI images into a valid place of art. Not because of the AI, but because it became something beyond the pixels and prompting.
You don't need to change the image to change the meaning. Give an artwork a new title and it can change everything without ever re-touching the canvas.
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
If I only concentrate on the history of art and the avenues we've discovered so far, I cannot recognise the possibility of art moving forward and developing in unexpected ways. If I only concentrate on AI images, I remove so much about art that's come before and still happening to this day.
That's why I need to seriously explore both paths. It feels like a strange, and almost lonely, situation. The AI-centric forums tend to have a sentiment of being all-in on the tech. Not a guarantee, but understandably the general thrust. And the artists I know don't look ready to dip a toe in AI waters any time soon.
Change often works that way. Incumbents resist the fresh developments until they can't be ignored any more.
This time, it's AI. With more urgency, more uncertainty...And, as Jain says, less actual art.
Nonetheless, it's why I'm trying to make art in an AI context. My aim is to seek better understanding from a curious viewpoint, and try to work out what it could mean for the future.
“So here I am where things I usually love are very much at odds with each other. Art and AI...It's complicated. And that's a problem.”
Unexpected evolution is what has driven art throughout history. What we see as classic and amazing today was often seen in the past as unnatural and tantamount to the devil's work.
That past was their present once upon a time. Art wasn't static, isn't static, and never will be static.
This IS the best time to be an artist, just as Jain says. It's always the best time.
It's also a time to be fully aware of what displacement and disruption looks like for current working artists. Just because I support artists and want to do so even more now, regardless of my use of AI, doesn't make everything alright. There's collective work to be done from many angles and approaches. Not easy. Maybe impossible. Definitely necessary.
The past, present, and future are all relevant. All our actions are relevant. To make them count, curiosity needs to win out. And the only way I see curiosity winning out is by exploring the scary, difficult, chewy stuff. That includes allowing AI and art to work together just as much as they can be pulled apart.
The journey doesn't stop. It's ongoing. If the artist's life is all journey and no destination, maybe I am more of an artist after all.
I'll tell you when I arrive...
Nice paintings
Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share this! I have been pondering such thoughts myself lately and really appreciate how you lay this out so clearly!!! Many thanks and best wishes!