I’ve been down the rabbit hole of Reddit boards about the AI craze and one analogy that stuck out to me was about how AI is like when people sample music for their new song. The AI (or the person using the AI) is sampling art to create it’s images.
This is a good parallel that falls apart when you get to the topic most people are questioning or outright up in arms over – giving credit, usually in monetary form, to the original artist.
When you sample a piece of previous work for a song, as is one of the bedrocks of hip-hop music, the sample must be cleared AND somebody must be paid.
Naively, most people think the original artist gets paid. But no, the copyright holder gets paid. Wilton Felder of the Motown’s Funk Brothers was not paid for the use of his bass line for the Jackson 5 hit, “ABC” in Naughty By Nature’s “O.P.P.”
Likewise whoever holds the copyrights to the music of the huge late 90s hit, “Maria Maria” was paid for the sample used in the song, “Wild Thoughts” by DJ Khaled not the performers of that sample. And then you have the more recent and ever more common lawsuits over songs that merely sound too much like other songs. And that doesn’t even touch Taylor Swift rerecording her own albums to sound as much like the originals and get around the rights issue.
This is a tale as old as time. Listen to the baselines for Stevie Wonder’s “Part Time Lover” and Hall & Oates, “Maneater” and the go back to The Supremes, “You Can’t Hurry Love” from the 60s. Or play, “Lust For Life” by Iggy Pop back to back with Jet’s, “Are You Gonna Be My Girl” and go back The Supremes, “You Can’t Hurry Love”. Same song? Those bass lines to me are about as different as, “Under Pressure” and, “Ice Ice Baby” which- Fun Fact: Queen didn’t own the publishing/copyrights rights to that so when that all went down it wasn’t the band getting kickback from Mr. Ice’s label.
The song, “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke really brought this to the fore and was the song that probably made the issue much more mainstream. And personally, it took sometime before I recognized the intro as, “Blurred Lines” and not “Give It Up” by Marvin Gaye when I was out at clubs. But the resulting lawsuit favored the Marvin Gaye estate. And I am willing to bet the labels heads and suits were not pulling from their pocketbooks to pay it off they passed the buck on down the line to the artist.
Now, I was quite annoyed it was not the Marvin Gaye song coming on at the club every time that groove kicked in. But for the younger set at that time… they probably didn’t even notice because they didn’t know the other song to begin with. And putting that song together I’m sure they thought the intended audience wouldn’t know and more importantly knew they wouldn’t care. And in my personal experience with that song well, you CANNOT argue with a packed floor doing the electric slide.
In the AI art craze two common themes cross my pass. The first is the selfie craze where one looks fabulous in everything from french film noir to Japanese ukiyo-e, art nouveau, fantasy fairy worlds and on and on… Then there are people combining one pop culture thing like Star Wars with another like the Wes Anderson film aesthetic. The other common artist I see come up is Mobeius. (Insert pop culture here) in the style of Moebius.
Moebius I must confess is one of my favorite illustrators/artists. And looking at what AI pulls from his style to create new images is cool but it just reeks of trendiness and honestly laziness. I am sure at some point somebody will fine tune the keywords to take Moebius’s style and have the AI create something more interesting than Harry Potter with really cool line work but at the moment it just looks a clichéd knock off of Moebius because it is not Moebius creating it, coming with all his intentions and life experience. And I should say I’m already over-saturated and meh- on it all as a whole. The novelty wore off for me real quick.
I belong to an interior design group that focuses on maximalist design. And I’m seeing WAY to many AI pictures of moody black bedrooms and art deco bathrooms. Some images are cool but after a while they all start to look the same and become less impressive. And I believe this is because it rests to heavily on the cliches and averages. And this too is an interesting personal point because, relating it back to music, AC/DC is one band that NEVER changed lanes. NOT ONCE. Do all their songs sound the same? No, but they all sound like AC/DC. They have songs with the consistency of an AI art deco bathroom but they also have songs that are as high quality as lamps made by Tiffany.
My point here though is I don’t get tired of AC/DC. I suppose this is because in the end the album or song takes me somewhere. I end up someplace different than when I started even if I know the outcome. The AI art I have seen thus far has not taken me anywhere new or inspired me in anyway beyond, “Oh That’s cute”. And in full disclosure I’m sure I would get addicted to an app like Lensa perfecting images of myself so I look even cuter than I think I am and that is partly why I stay away from it.
But let’s go back to Tiffany and his iconic lamps. Original lamps made by the man himself sell in the tens of thousands or more. Lamps made in the period by the studio also fetch a decent number. And if I had money to toss, yeah, I might go to an auction and fight for one. But more likely I’ll find a local artist or newer artist at a craft show to do one in the style of Tiffany, with my own themes I want rendered. Also, Tiffany is dead and his estate and the auction houses don’t need my money. But for your average main street person… I have learned they are fine with a knock off made in China overpriced and sold in Chinatown. Because for most people it’s not about the specifics it’s about the overall idea of a thing. And close enough is good enough just like, “Blurred Lines”.
So when it comes to AI art most people really don’t care about the original artist they selfishly care about what they want now and as cheap as they can get it. I have learned being an artist myself most people don’t want to pay artists a living wage. Plenty of people don’t even see it as a real job worth paying for (but that’s a whole other discussion because is any modern job a “real job” that we need for survival).
Still as an artist, I price my work based on the hours “worked” and materials and what I think it’s worth but your average Mainstreet audience does not think it’s worth that and won’t pay that. As I have remarked before about my own art and art in general, your intended audience (if you want to make a living doing art) is the person that will buy it and that person is usually somebody with a foyer in their house. Meaning, these people have money to toss off and are not worried about food or rent.
Anyone who has had a garage sale can tell you the precious heirloom items you put out on the driveway that have so much value to you, are ultimately worth less than $5 to most buyers. But even so I think this is less because people are cheap and more about how subconsciously as a species we know it’s not food, shelter, or clothing. That, and you can’t take it with you when you go. So if it is not paying for an experience or for survival why would I pay that much for some old second hand item. Though it is true a lot of buyers are looking for that one hidden gem that they can then sell that will be worth much more to somebody with a foyer so they too can hopefully have a foyer. But as far as Mainstreet is concerned if AI can give somebody a picture of the family in a Picasso or Simpsons style for cheap (maybe even to print at home) then who cares.
Think about photography and smart phones. People still take pictures with DSL cameras despite smart phone cameras but it seems to be labeled more of a hobby. I have talked to professional photographers who used to make a living selling tourists photos of the popular sites. But now people all have phone cameras so why do they need to pay the professional. Much like a knock off Tiffany lamp a photo someone takes themselves is cheaper (depending on your phone plan maybe $40.00 a month for whatever amount of photos the phone can hold). And again, Mainstreet doesn’t care about quality they care about right now. And also, I think they like the idea THEY took the photo of THEIR vacation. For the record I have read some studies that say people look at their phone photos selfies/videos at lot less than they think they will or actually do. When was the last time you opened your family photo album? Or do you even have one?
So, does collecting all these memories really even matter after the fact? I don’t know. But I know it doesn’t matter in the moment when people want it now. But even before phones, postcards had been delivering tourists photos of landmarks or even the Mona Lisa on the cheap. And books gave us the entire collections of Klimt and Frida Kalho. But I don’t need to tell you the VAST difference between a small image in a book and a three dimensional piece in three dimensional space, do I?
“…as an artist, I price my work based on the hours “worked” and materials and what I think it’s worth…”
But I want to focus on the word materials I used in the quote above for a second. The most common refrain when it comes to AI art is people saying something akin “All artists are inspired by other artists just like AI is “inspired” by the images it has been fed”. I have to disagree with the language here and how it pertains to the end battle of who gets paid.
Yes, artists are inspired by those who came before. They look at old work and mimic it or outright revolt against it. For example, I am a huge fan of the work of Sergio Aragones and I have copied his characters out of practice along with people like Bill Watterson, Gary Larsen, Stan Saki and others… So after some years of mimicry and copying one comes into what gets defined as, “their style”.
But that point is not relevant in my opinion. What is important and what is left out of this AI equation is that artists, in order to copy ANYTHING must go and buy supplies (paints, clay, canvas, yarn etc.) in order to be able to create their work. The AI and those creating the apps, or using it by giving it commands are not buying their supplies. The AI can’t function without the supplies which are the artwork, photographs, images of others. And those “others” are not getting paid. If I were just go grab paints off the shelf and walk out of the store I’d get arrested for theft. As much as I have issue with site like Gettyimages, there purpose in the end is supposed to be making sure the photographer gets paid for use of their work. Also that reasoning ignores the scale of the problem. One human cannot cull through billions of images to create something unique in under twenty seconds. It takes plenty of hours just to go through 1o-20 images to get ideas and jot down ideas.
Being an artist one could assume I am terrified of this AI business. But actually I’m just meh- it’s feels dull and lifeless. Digital art it’s core lacks the depth of physical objects and also lacks the effects of light in the space in which it resides. I’ve seen some amazing digital artists for sure but none that have entered my top 20 of favorite artists yet. For me it is very similar to CGI in films no matter how great the CGI I am actually not nearly as impressed as I am with practical effects because CGI will never have to deal with actual physical gravity and things in the “real world” that add certain character to and behaviors to an effect. When you blow up an actual car you have to do a lot more planning sure but it’s also way cooler in my opinion. Or dealing with a physical mechanical shark ads more weight than CGI will ever be able to.
Fun Fact: Supposedly they wanted more of the mechanical shark in Jaws but the damn thing just wouldn’t work right. So instead we got a better film all because Bruce the shark didn’t work right. CGI doesn’t have that issue and we may think it’s a plus but what is more iconic to film history the shark in Jaws or the fiftieth marvel superhero implausibly bouncing around the city?
So you can give me any image dressed up in what ever designer fashion you choose but I have some idea of what went into Picasso’s “Gurnica” or what it took to make a Schiaparelli dress and 1s and 0s was not it. And never will be it. Seeing some cool looking art deco bathroom is not the same as somebody actually building it. Cate Blachett’s character in the film, “Nightmare Alley”, Dr. Lilith Ritter works in gorgeous art deco office (that I not so secretly want a replica of) built by humans.
As it stands AI can only give me something to look at on a screen or print out on paper. But a team actually built that set based on the contributions of multiple people. And it is the labor part of the equation, the blood, sweat, and tears that AI also, lacks. And, NO. Entering key words IS NOT blood, sweat, and tears. That is merely the instructions you have given the AI design team on what supplies and aesthetics you want them to use to get your desired end result. Creating physical art is one thing but it is also the human ability to accept that the end product will never be “perfect” but it will at some point be “completed”.
Which brings me to another facet of AI I have an issue with, it all feels to perfect and too calculated. The images are too clean like photo shoots of spotless celebrity homes when you know the dogs or kids are making a mess of the place. A pollack painting is messy because Jackson Pollack had a messy life. An AI never struggled with alcoholism and it shows. At least it shows to me, to the Mainstreet person in the 1950s who said his work was not art… Yeah, maybe not.
Another side note: One of my favorite art pieces is Norman’s Rockwell’s piece The Critic. It is a painting of a man looking at a “Pollack” painting. Here is an example of an artist taking another person’s style and putting it in a new context that says something beyond, “Look how cool this is, Rick and Morty as film noir”.
Interestingly, I see some friends post AI generated selfies in large batches and I wonder if this will become a kind of swipe left mentality always looking for the better generated image. Trying to find perfection instead of trying to capture the feeling or idea.
This striving for the flawless I also see in mainstream music a lot these days. Mainstream musicians today use every tool they can to get a song, “perfect”. But perfect does not equal “authentic” to me or even “right”. Also, for me, it removes any soul. It reduces songs to the cliches in the same way AI reduces an art style to it’s cliches. In the hit song by ABC, “Look Of Love” near the end Martin Fry’s voice cracks. That made it to record. It was minted on the hit version. Today they would edit that out. Not rerecord it but edit it out in post with digital means removing the soul that sang it.
Over processed vocals, auto-tune, click tracks, cutting and pasting the chorus or guitar riff and catering songs to tik-tok… all this is trying to get to perfection and streamline the process for the dollars of now, now, now… we are not creating an artistic history so much as an ever disposable present. I argue a recording process, even one where everyone is on their A game, should be a bit messy and imperfect. Idina Menzel not hitting that note on, “Let It Go” at the Oscar’s probably didn’t feel great to her but for me it felt real and you knew it was live.
I also wonder if the ease of all these programs might make me forgo my own efforts with my own art. I mean entering keywords into Lensa or Midjourney is much like entering various instructions (i.e. parameters for text, brushes, filter etc.) in Photoshop to do my work. One just takes less work and gives you multiple results to choose from. But I had to buy photoshop and create my own starting points before there was anything to edit. Again, these AI programs and those that use them don’t pay for any supplies.
Me doing hours and hours of work is merely trekking towards an image I have in my head of the end result. AI seems to take a few keywords and give one multiple endings to pick from almost instantly like a choose your own adventure. It removes the journey that artists take. It removes the human error of dripping paint in the wrong place or chipping off too much marble or forgetting to press Ctrl+S after 3 hours and then the power goes out. It is also so far only 2-D. There may come a time when AI is able to Holodeck us a fantasy world that we can play in, like when Captain Picard became a 1940s private detective. But how is that really much different from simply playing a detective in a video game created by teams of people now? How is that even different from simply playing Dugeons & Dragons on a table. It all requires one’s imagination to flesh out most of the details.
I don’t know. I don’t have answers? I’m not even sure of the right questions to ask. There are SO many questions to ask. But what I am certain of is those at the top controlling the AI systems will be making their millions and WILL NOT have the best interest of Mainstreet in their minds or hearts one iota, let alone the artists.
And sadly most of Mainstreet will not care in the end if social media and it’s behind the scenes practices are any indication. We will once again be the product. Craftsman, artists, and the like will loose their value and be paid even less than they already are. If many are not outright fired in place of AI when the corporate suits realize they could get their nephew typing keywords for free- Sorry, I mean for fun. I am not kidding when I say the average Mainstreet person is fine with average. And if that is good enough to sell Coke or Nike shoes or dress up the next Marvel movie… corporate will gladly cut those corners for increased revenue. So we have to at least figure out the coming job loss part because if the world is going to continue revolve around money and AI and other automation is taking the jobs not just of artists but many fields from checkout stands, to assembly lines, to medical fields where are people going to get the money to survive on? And ironically, to buy the average stuff corporate peddles to us. It certainly isn’t going to come from charity or the wealthy class. And until someone programs an AI that can produce fresh water and food to sustain the masses all it is a cash cow for the already rich and toy to distract the rest of as we move ever closer (and quicker) to our inescapable end.
