What Defines Art?

The question "What is art?" has been debated for centuries and remains unresolved—certainly not in this discussion. For the sake of this piece, we can reference a basic definition, though it has its limitations. A widely accepted definition describes art as "a diverse range of human activity and resulting products that involve creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas" (from Wikipedia).

According to this definition, AI-generated images qualify as art at their core. They fulfill the criteria, albeit in unconventional ways. Many of the works produced would challenge anyone to argue against their classification as art in the broadest sense.

However, a more pertinent question emerges: "Who is the artist?" If I provide the text prompt with its unique parameters, does that make me the artist?

In my view, the answer is both yes and no, but perhaps more often no. Let me clarify. The AI, or its programmers, contributes technical proficiency, drawing from the creative and imaginative expressions of countless artists, and learning from all its users. While I participate in the creative process, I see myself more as an art director than the actual artist, especially if I don’t manipulate the image further. Nonetheless, there is an argument to be made from both perspectives, particularly as user involvement evolves with technological advancements.

Some argue that there is no artist at all since machines are generating these images. This perspective adds complexity to the conversation, as we now consider the "mechanical" proficiency typically associated with artists. However, this is not a new dilemma. Early photographers faced similar skepticism, being dismissed as artists because critics believed machines merely duplicated reality. Over time, photographers gained recognition, but the advent of digital photography reignited debates.

From Michelangelo to Andy Warhol, technological advancements have consistently disrupted established norms in art. Over time, society adapts. While current concerns regarding AI are significant, they are not unprecedented. This understanding should encourage thoughtful deliberation before rushing to conclusions.

The Source of AI's Inspiration

Another pressing concern—perhaps the most valid—is the origin of the data that AI utilizes to learn. Since AI draws from an extensive pool of images available on the internet (and likely beyond), it gains access to works from both contemporary and historical artists. Furthermore, users can instruct the AI to emulate the styles of specific artists. This raises the question: when does inspiration cross the line into stylistic appropriation?

Ultimately, these issues will likely unfold within legal frameworks as artists (and their estates) challenge the unregulated use of their works. I will be observing these legal battles closely, but they won’t resolve the fundamental questions in the immediate future. We must consider whether it is the responsibility of technology to limit its reach or the user's responsibility to employ it ethically. This is a complex dilemma.

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that all art is derivative to some extent. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we all draw from the collective knowledge we accumulate. We do not restrict art students from studying the works of diverse artists for fear of "stealing their style"; instead, we encourage it to enrich their understanding. The unconscious influences of visual learning are immeasurable.

I am not arguing that this justifies artistic copying or claiming others' works. However, tools like Midjourney do not reuse images; they learn in a manner analogous to our own assimilation of visual information.

To delve deeper into how this technology functions, consider watching the following video:

While this does not provide a definitive answer, it challenges the assertion that AI merely "copies" existing works, complicating the task of delineating that elusive boundary.

The Concern for Artists' Livelihoods

The predominant pushback I have encountered largely stems from artists worried about losing their livelihoods to a technology that seemingly borrows from their skills and output, enabling AI users to generate higher-quality content in a fraction of the time, often with minimal talent or training. This is a valid concern. As a digital artist (albeit on a small scale) and a professional writer, I understand the challenges of earning a living in creative fields, particularly when machines are learning to do similar tasks.

However, I question whether this assessment is entirely fair, as these challenges are not new. Every technological advancement poses a threat to existing paradigms. Painters felt threatened by photographers; radio disrupted newspapers; and the rise of video altered the music landscape. While these concerns are genuine, I am not convinced that alarmist responses or staunch opposition are either constructive or equitable.

One of the most significant issues surrounding artists' livelihoods is the failure to critique the detrimental entanglement of capitalism and art. Much of the discourse has focused on how artists earn a living and how (explicitly or implicitly) many equate the quality (or value) of art with its market success. This is more a problem of capitalism than of art itself. An artist's capacity to create and the value of that work should not be so closely tied to consumerism. After all, do we genuinely believe that the commercial success of the 50 Shades series is reflective of its literary merit? Not really.

I am not advocating for naivety. I recognize that we cannot simply sever the ties between art and capitalism. Nor do I deny that financial compensation is crucial for fair remuneration of labor. Instead, I propose that we be cautious not to focus predominantly on critiquing this technological evolution (and those who utilize it) while neglecting how capitalism has repeatedly failed the arts and the artists.

A New Era of Artistic Engagement?

What many overlook in the emergence of this technology is the significant surge in interest in visual arts. Individuals who may have previously shown little interest in art are now excited, curious, and engaged. For instance, Dungeons & Dragons groups utilizing AI technology to enhance their creative experiences exemplify this newfound enthusiasm. When the broader culture engages with art, it benefits all artists.

Moreover, this technology is being embraced by both established and emerging artists. I have seen numerous examples of paintings inspired by AI-generated images. Authors use AI visuals as prompts for their writing, and digital artists incorporate elements of AI-generated art into their own work. Artists are already reaping the benefits of this advancement, and I anticipate that this trend will only grow as we adapt.

Ultimately, we should celebrate how this technology is introducing millions to the beauty and intricacies of visual art. People are discovering composition, perspective, lighting, and the nuances of form.

Therefore, as we grapple with the legitimate and intricate challenges posed by this new technology—dare I say, art form—let us approach the conversation with cautious optimism. History has shown that all parties suffer when we attempt to gatekeep art.

Jamie Arpin-Ricci is a bisexual author, activist, and the Co-Director of Peace & Justice Initiatives. You can learn more about his work at his website: www.jamiearpinricci.com.

In this video, various experts discuss the ethical implications of AI-generated art, providing insights that complement the themes explored in this article.