Re: about AI, authenticity, and identity crisis
The following is an excerpt from a private exchange. The quoted/indented parts belong to my correspondent. I comment on how we can frame our thinking so as not to feel lost in the modern era. Keeping a sense of perspective is important at all times.
I’ve always been someone very defined by hobbies and interests in the arts and computers: programming, drawing, painting. I loved the craft and the feeling of making something with my own hands.
But I find in recent years with generative AI and image generation advancements, I’m depressed. I’ve never been a professional artist or creator, but it always comforted me that the “artist” or more generally “creator” role existed in society, like there are artists creating things and people accept them and they are somehow apart of the social fabric. As a kid I always looked up to famous artists / programmers etc.
However, I worry with recent technological advancements, this “creator” role will gradually drift away completely from human society. Humans will just become consumers of endless amounts of AI generated content precisely designed for their specific preferences. Feel free to disagree, but I don’t see using tools like ChatGPT or image generation to be a valid act of creation or art.
I agree with you about the impact of AI on creators. Though I encourage you to consider the wider context. Doing so will allow you to better appreciate the technological, social, and historical trends and thus to not feel depressed or worried about a particular instance of them. I also want you to keep in mind the separation between “fine art” and “art at-large”, as it helps frame the discussion about quality and authenticity.
My view is that AI is the latest instantiation of age-old tendencies pertaining to the mass production of art. This is about art at-large. For example, we keep unearthing ancient Greek pottery because, fundamentally, the people of that time had streamlined the production of those items. Each piece would have some practical utility, though all the drawing on its walls were a form of relatively easy-to-produce painting; painting for the masses that also made business sense.
Art at-large is in everything we buy. Consider how IKEA not only sells furniture but goods that have a certain aesthetic. There is a way to their style which is recognisable. Consumer electronics are no different. Apple has made an empire out of its emphasis on design and concomitant marketing. Think of anything that has an interface, from door handles to car dashboards, and you will discern the touch of art. Take any piece of clothing or footwear and ask yourself why is not just blank? Why do we need to add some colours and patterns to it? Why must they be different from each other? And you can apply this thinking to everything around you. The gist is that art at-large has been and will always be subject to streamlining yet retain its nature qua art.
What AI is doing right now can be considered another instance of mass production. Yes, the models may not be deterministic, but they still have this quality of outputting large quantities of art. For our purposes, they meet the demand that has been in effect since antiquity.
Fine art is different though. It is always about exclusivity. If I have the paintings of Rembrandt, for example, then you cannot also have them. For most of its history, fine art was appreciated as mastery of the highest order. When El Greco paints his famous View of Toledo, we do not simply get a landscape, but a piece whose inherent work with the materials is of the finest calibre. The painting also has a meta value, which is the statement it makes in terms of the aesthetics it applies and the subject it has: to work on something other than an anthropocentric theme and thus to run counter to the sensitivities of that specific milieu of theocratic Spain.
With the advent of modern art, the attention shifts to the meta value. The craft becomes secondary. The modern artist is no longer untouchable skill-wise the way its predecessors are. Rather, the modern artist relies on the narrative to drive up the value of the works. For example, Marcel Duchamp took a generic bidet, put his signature on it and—voilà —modern art was born. The bidet is like every other that came out of the assembly line, but that particular one has a story behind it. As such, this is mastery of story-telling above all.
To my mind, modern art has been debasing fine art long before we even had widespread AI. It turned the practice into sophistry, kind of how everything that becomes “too meta” ultimately loses touch with the reality it was preoccupied with. Because the art piece acquires its worth through the narrative that is woven around it, it is up to the spin doctors who run the galleries and auction houses to build up the excitement, and then for investors with a penchant for kitsch to pour in zillions into this burgeoning market of pretentiousness. I say this is a convenient way to inflate asset prices, which can then be used to launder money, avoid taxation through so-called “philanthropy”, “patronage of the arts” and the like. The creator who cares about their craft is pushed to the side and dismissed for the sin of not being sufficiently smug.
I see fine art as something that engenders in us a sense of awe. Take Jean-François Millet’s The Gleaners, for example: not only are they untouchable skill-wise, they also invite us to appreciate the little things of everyday life, to find in them the universals, and to aspire to our highest. Now if a bidet is the best art can give us because some poser declared thus, then whatever AI stitches together is also art. The latter may even have more work put into it… My point is that AI adds noise to what was already happening.
To this end, I feel we have to demand more from artists. Be assertive in calling out nonsense and show its dealers the middle finger.
Even before AI, we had patrons of the arts. Like wealthy people would commission an artist to make a painting in a certain style of a certain subject (e.g. portrait of a family member). However the act of specifying a creative work is very different then actually creating it yourself in my opinion. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Sora etc. are very similar. Your not actually creating, your specifying and have no honest “skin in the game” so to say or direct influence in the end result.
The kind of person who would take this over an expertly crafted work was anyway not going to appreciate the finer points or was not willing to pay for it.
Though, again, we have to factor in history so as to not be upset by today’s prevailing conditions. Patronage of the fine arts happened in certain eras at some places. It did not exist everywhere. To make good money as a painter is the exception to the rule.
Which brings me to the point of the reason a person produces art. It ultimately comes from within: there is an inner need for expression and self-actualisation. An artist may be able to make a living selling their works, though that is secondary to the innate inclination for art. And, yes, art may bring social validation and even fame, though those mean nothing if the aforementioned need is not satisfied.
Also note how patronage of the sort you described tends to constrain the creativity of the creator. If I only find meaning in drawing landscapes while the patron wants a portrait which I dislike, then I will have to do something contrary to my aesthetic sensitivities. If the artist has no need for the money, they will likely demand full artistic control instead of conforming with the guidelines of the buyer. Patronage thus becomes obsolete.
Going forward into the future, I am extremely depressed humans will inevitably become more dependent and accepting of AI generated art and creative works.
I will continue with my commentary below, but here I want to make a brief remark. Remember that you do something because it matters to you. We may put it differently: the Muse compels you into action. The fact that others do not heed the voice of the Muse is irrelevant to what you understand as your calling, namely, to make art and to express yourself accordingly.
For example, will people with an interest in creating art in the future be seen as weird and wasting time because “why make a painting, if the AI can make it better, faster, cheaper”?
The history of artists is the history of “weird”. At least modern art gets this part right, even though it makes a mockery out of it. The artist is not a “normal person” because their capacity to produce fine art is a rare trait. Even the ability to make art at-large is not common. This is why we still appreciate elegance, even in matters that are not art per se: elegance is not the norm.
Artists are also not “normal” because they do not agree with the majority view about what constitutes productivity versus wastefulness. To the average person, drawing water lilies with a passion á la Claude Monet is a strange way to spend your time when, say, you could be doing commerce instead, or sport, or chasing skirts.
Once you accept this reality, you will be empowered to make the best work of your life. Else you will forever remain subject to the downward pressures of public opinion. Be bold and unapologetic about your art. Everything else is a distraction.
[…]
There are already people who assume art is AI generated even when it is not.
It is appropriate to call such people “naive”. Why would you allow another person to make your life miserable by simply holding an uninformed opinion? More generally, why subject yourself to the vicissitudes of opinion, at all? Focus on the inherent quality of your interests and make the most out of them. Yes, this means that your journey in certain parts is going to be lonely. Such is the fate allotted to you. The best you can hope for, friend, is to find fellow travellers on your path. Be mentally strong in the meantime by focusing on your deeds.
[…]
Like for example I enjoy programming my own games and making all the art. But I see that maybe in the future we will have AI that just generates the entire game from a prompt or something.
The gaming industry is massive and already has the quality of patronage that we covered earlier. Namely, business drives artwork and programming. Yet this does not prevent you from creating your own games and having fun in the process. Even if AI makes the best games possible at the push of a button, you will still derive joy from your craft. This is true for other fields of endeavour, such as how some of us enjoy making our own bread instead of buying industrial loaf. Or, you know, actually preferring a conversation instead of texting each other.
In conclusion: we have been here before and authenticity will always matter to some. Do your thing and the rest will follow.