AI is Killing the Creative Arts

Note: Artificial Intelligence as a concept encompasses a lot of forms of technology, and I’m not going to claim to understand the ins and outs of it. But when I talk about AI in this piece, I am talking about Generative AI (asking bots to make things up for you, whether that’s art or text or anything else).

It’s hard to be online nowadays without encountering AI in some way. Even a simple Google search forces you to first acknowledge a generated idea of what you’re looking for before providing the typical search results. And, in some ways, it seems like a good thing. I’ve seen people describe it as a way to make the arts accessible to people in ways that it never has been before. Suddenly, people are able to generate anything their mind can imagine at the click of a button … except, you don’t even have to imagine it! You can ask ChatGPBT to generate ideas for you too. It’s as simple as that!

Except nothing ever is, is it?

The logical side of me would like to explain the environmental impact of AI. About the waste that it produces, the power that it consumes, and the water that it takes. But all that information has already been put out there by people smarter than me. So instead of that, I’m going to make an emotional plea to you. As someone who loves the arts and storytelling and human intentionality, I’m begging you let go of the grip that AI has on us. Because AI is a threat to the creative arts as we know them.

This is a real prompt that showed up on my Facebook feed to try to entice me to use Meta AI.

ChatGPT and other similar chatbots are not independent thinkers the way that humans are. We call it “generative” AI, but that doesn’t mean the AI is authentically creating anything from scratch. For example, let’s say you open Facebook one day and decide you like the Meta AI advertisement telling you to ask it to “imagine anything” and follow one of its prompts. I opened Facebook today and saw this one: "Imagine a modern painting." As you can see, this is a generated image of a group of people standing in front of an abstract art display. But, despite the language, Meta AI did not “imagine” anything. What it actually did was go into its database and search for relevant photos: people at a museum, an art display, an abstract art piece. Then it cobbles together these various sources to create Frankenstein’s monster before delivering back to you.

The most glaring issue with this process as it concerns the creative arts is the Frankensteining together of all these different sources. This is just a glamorized version of plagiarism and theft. The sources for AI are people’s real artwork. For example, look at these two photos that I took when I went to the Art Institute of Chicago in 2018:

People standing around looking at "A Sunday on La Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.

A picture of "City Landscape" by Joan Mitchell when it was displayed at the Art Institute of Chicago

Now, I'm not going to claim that these are the best photos ever or that specifically my pictures were stolen here, but I think you can see how some photos like mine (and, in the case of "City Landscape," the art itself) might have been combined to make the one composite photo we see from Meta AI. Of course, to get Meta AI's version, it would've also had to take from more than just my two pictures, and I don't know what all goes into it. One example is that it would need to be trained on a lot of photos and artwork featuring the human form in order to create humans that roughly have the right proportions.

The catch here is that the artists whose work makes up the database that Meta AI is pulling from have not all consented for their artwork to be used this way. Sure, you could say that allowing AI to be trained using your photos and uploads is in the Meta Terms of Use, so you're inherently giving consent for Meta AI to use your artwork when you post it to the platform. But consider how frequently things are shared online. People see a funny photo on Twitter or a cool drawing on Instagram and share it to their friends on Facebook without the original artist even being involved. And now their work is being mutilated to create something else.

There's a reason why plagiarism is so heavily condemned in schools and academia as a whole. It is important that, when you are creating something, it is your own work and not someone else's that you're passing off as your own. It's the same with AI: those images do not belong to you.

But the creative theft isn't the only harm done by AI. When humans create art, there's intention behind it. Let's continue to use the museum display as an example. I took those photos seven years ago in 2018, so I couldn't tell you my exact thought process, but I can take a good guess. First, with the photo of "A Sunday on La Grande Jatte," I remember being surprised by how big the painting was. I'm not someone who has done a lot of studies in art, but like every other child, I took art classes in elementary and middle school, and I remember learning about this painting. Seeing it on a teacher's projector doesn't do it justice. I wanted to remember the full scale of it and honor how much work it must've taken to create it. "City Landscape" is a very different style of painting, and I probably just liked the colors. The bright splash of color across the middle of an otherwise grey canvas is a shocking contrast that does resemble busy city life. There's a sort of anxiety that is conveyed through it, but it's not done in an ugly way.

Now let's look back at the Meta AI image. It's ... uh ... it's a painting! It also has splashes of color on a dark background, but it's random and unintentional. It's a mimic, not a design. And people are also looking at this painting. Sure, it's large, but what is the relevancy in this context? It doesn't mean anything.

I know what you're thinking. Kendall, this is cheating. Conveniently, one of my photos is of one of the most famous paintings ever, and the other is of an abstract painting that actually has a meaning behind it. A lot of art, especially modern art that we see these days, doesn't. You're right. So, let's think of a different piece of art. One style of modern art that is heavily criticized is solid color paintings: maybe the whole canvas is one color, or it's just a square or two in different colors. I see Yves Klein's "Blue Monochrome" used a lot as an example of this. I encourage you to read about this painting if you haven't before. You don't have to like it, but consider the love for art — specifically the love for the process of making art — that went into its creation. A piece of AI "artwork" could never hold as much meaning as it, even if "Blue Monochrome" is, at the end of the day, a plain blue canvas.

But let's take an even more obscure example: "Comedian" by Maurizio Cattelan. Maybe you don't know this one by its name, but I'm certain you've seen it. Everyone loves to make fun of the "artwork" that is just a banana duct-taped to a wall. As far as I know, this piece does not have an official meaning as stated by the author, but it sure has been cause for debate. Is this what modern art has come to? Anyone could do that, and it's basically just trash. Especially after a few days. Why on Earth would a museum or rich person buy the rights to it for so much money? It's just a banana! And yeah, this piece of art is absurd. But look at us: we're discussing the merits of art and the ridiculousness of wasted wealth. And isn't that something? This piece may be enraging, but it's clearly saying something, and it's speaking very loudly.

I'll give you one more example. On my bulletin board, I have these very random pieces of paper. They were given to me many years ago by one of the children I was taking care of at work. One kind of looks like a little bow made out of pieces of paper taped into loops at different angles. The other is, if I remember correctly, a bookmark, but you and I both know it is just a random blob of glitter on a piece of paper. I don't think the child who made these would even remember doing it if I asked her, much less be able to tell me a meaning. It's not for the love of art, because she was probably too young to even know what that means. She was a preschooler who was learning what different tools were and exercising her developing motor skills by putting them together. So here we are; we have found art without meaning. Except, not really. These were gifts. This child may not have had any intention with the creation of the art specifically, but she made them for me. Without any sort of artistic knowledge or expertise, she sat down to create something for someone else to communicate something. The exact message is lost, but the intention is not.

Storytelling is one of humanity's oldest traditions. Since the beginning of time, we have looked for ways to communicate ideas and morals and feelings to one another. Paintings, drawings, sculptures, graphic design, fiber arts, oral history, scripture, fashion, hairstyles, written literature, poetry, songwriting, orchestral composition, and so much more has been used with a purpose. By humans, for humans. Maybe it's something deep and philosophical, or maybe it's just a funny joke. But humans have been creating for as long as we have existed in order to connect with one another.

Giving AI a seat at the table is almost blasphemous. It is a disgrace. An embarrassing smudge on the oldest cross-cultural tradition. To cast off the job of creation onto a robot that does not feel, does not intend, does not love, does not feel sadness or anger or joy or desperation, and does not care about others is to cast off our humanity. And when we embrace this soulless style of art, we are surrendering our right to self expression.

This is something we cannot do. Especially now. We live in a society that favors productivity over everything. If you are not making money or contributing to the larger system by doing something, you are wasting your time. Furthermore, in America specifically, we are seeing a rise of anti-intellectualism in a way that will have lasting consequences. Any amount of research or analysis or effort is beginning to be dismissed and ridiculed. Stories are condemned for "pushing an agenda." Genuine criticism is dismissed on the basis of media "just being fun." Add AI into the mix, and what are we left with? Art that is made to be as palatable as possible so as to be as marketable as it can, with all meaning and intellect abandoned at the door.

The integrity of art is something that we should care about preserving, and one of the best things we can do about it right now is to stop using generative AI. For everything. Because even if you use it for little things like word choice or just to bounce ideas off of, you're training it to do the big stuff and removing yourself from the creative process. I assure you that for every question or desire you want to turn to AI for, a human being has already done it. Find and commission real artists, brainstorm with peers, and discuss art of all mediums with the people around you. Or, better yet, learn to do it yourself. Allow yourself to be bad at something until you either get better or create something you love.

May human kind never lose its ability to provoke, to stun, to engage, and to play, to joke, and to love.

From yours truly,

Kendall