Computerized artists can never match human creativity
By Emily Velasquez
“Surf’s Up” is written at the top of the page, transparent against the sunset background. Large waves crashing behind two surfer’s walking across the beach. In the corner displays the logo for Alohaven Surf Club. This is the work of a potential surf club poster by CSUN graphic design student, Katy Escalante. The way the words and characters blend naturally with the background is a detail that an AI generated image could not smoothly create.
As the internet raves about the incredible development of AI allowing anyone to create their own images by typing a prompt, artists share a growing concern of a devastating lack of creativity and originality in the art world.
AI has advanced rapidly in the past few years, what once was a technological breakthrough is now a concern for artists everywhere of any medium. Photographers are worrying about AI-generated landscapes, digital artists are worrying about AI-generated art, and graphic designers are worrying about AI-generated advertisements. AI threatens a trade where so many struggle to succeed. However, this also raises the question of whether it really is a threat or a possible resource.
“I believe that AI is a threat to artists,” says PCC art student Katie Thibault, “I have seen a lot of artists online saying how their work has been stolen and replicated using AI programs, and they have not been compensated for it. Because it is so easy to make art using these programs, a lot of freelance artists are missing out on potential commission work, which I feel is not right.”
Not only are these AI programs possibly replacing artists, but they are also stealing already existing pieces from real artists. This is not only an issue of credibility but also defamation, as someone could easily make an impression on an artist by changing one of their artworks and not clarifying it.
The use of AI-generated art completely undermines the genuine emotional and physical labor human artists put into their pieces. In 2022, the Colorado State Fair awarded first place in their digital art contest to an artwork that was generated by Midjourney, leaving artists everywhere feeling cheated, especially because the artist had not disclosed that it was AI-generated until after the fact. The fair has changed its rules, so contestants must disclose whether they used AI tools to make their artwork.
“People can just be lazy and use it, claiming it as their own work without putting any effort into it themselves, which makes it unfair to those who don’t use it, which makes it a threat,” says CSUN art student Katy Escalante, “But I honestly don’t think AI yet can give people exactly what they want design-wise. I’m studying graphic design, and for that, there’s a lot of having to communicate with the people hiring you to create the designs. You can’t really do that with AI.”
Though the use of AI programs is becoming increasingly popular, it is very much still in its developmental stage and not at all advanced enough to completely take over the jobs of artists. As Escalante stated, AI cannot properly communicate with clients in the same manner a human would. This goes for specially commissioned art pieces that have sentimental value. A computer does not hold the capacity for human empathy, which could impact the outcome of a commissioned art piece heavily.
Since the rise in popularity of AI-generated images, artists have had to brainstorm ways they can adapt to this change. In an article by Aela School, they mention how AI can analyze an artist’s work and give suggestions to improve it. Rather than allowing AI to completely generate the artwork, artists would use it as an aid in their process. An article by Worklife describes how artists can use AI as a resource to generate color palettes, experiment with techniques and materials, and use it for architecture and interior design. However, some artists may not want to embrace this change.
“I haven’t used AI in my artistic process at all, because I find it more enjoyable to work on something all on my own and using my creative freedom, and frankly, I tend to forget it exists, so it doesn’t come to mind,” says Escalante.
Perhaps in the future, when society is much more comfortable and adapted to the implementation of AI in workspaces like these, people will be more open to using it as a resource.
“I have discussed this topic with my peers, and for the most part, we have the same opinion,” says Thibault, “I am friends with a lot of artists who do not like the usage of AI in art these days. Many of us believe that AI can be a good tool and it can be fun to use individually, but it shouldn’t be used to make art pieces that will replace the work of a human artist.”
Brainstorming, experimenting, and even making mistakes are all part of the artwork itself. Now, artists might be able to let an AI generate those things for them. Artists should prepare to adapt to the development of stronger AI.
