Why is everyone suddenly calling themselves an AI artist?
The emergence of OpenAI has basically impacted all industries. But what I’m most concerned about is the field of design industry. I’ve been a multimedia designer and illustrator for over ten years and have been an art director for nearly 7 years. However, my strength has always been fine art, so to some extent, I would call myself an artist. The title of artist can encompass many professions: photographers, musicians, sculptors, actors, writers, illustrators, poets, and so on. What I'm curious about now is why there’s a new title called AI artist.
I'm not sure if everyone will agree with my perspective, but it's a topic worth discussing. I understand there's no right or wrong answer, and every artist has a unique side. Of course, I'm just someone working in art and don't have the qualifications to criticize anyone. However, when it comes to aspects related to art and perception, as a designer, I really want to explore this topic.
For instance, if there's a creator who can't draw and only provides ideas from behind the scenes, and hasn't even been to Art Basel, let alone understands some art, suddenly with the rise of OpenAI and the development of Midjourney, someone who usually has no interest in fine art uses Midjourney to generate a few images and calls themselves an AI artist. I feel calling oneself that is just embellishing oneself. I also use Midjourney and indeed it can present many different ideas, but for me, it's just a reference to speed up our process. There are many limitations that only designers would notice, like the image can't be used commercially, it's just a JPEG image without layers for modification, low resolution , and you can generate many images to try your luck. I usually use Midjourney for fun or as a mood board, but it can't really be considered an artwork.
The value depends on how you view this so-called artwork !
I'm sure everyone's familiar with the term "prompt." All AI images are generated using text prompts, like with DALL-E, Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion. This means that even people without an art background can generate many fake artworks. Because it's so easy to create, what artistic value does it have?
I remember around March 2023, a photo of Pope Francis wearing a white puffer coat went viral. The image was created using Midjourney, an AI tool that can generate shockingly realistic images. Futurist tech entrepreneur and startup founder Sinead Bovell joined CNN that morning to discuss it. Since then, many people have started calling themselves AI artists. I've seen many platforms on Instagram about AI art, with lots of so-called exhibitions, many of which I've never heard of. AI images have been severely overused this past year. What was once seen as innovative has become commonplace. Creativity is, of course, a good thing, but if you're trying to showcase a visual piece and have never actually painted a picture, why call yourself an artist? Why Photoshop your so-called artworks into a gallery to embellish yourself? In my opinion, you really don't have that qualification. Because it's so easy to generate images, it also explains why a series of pictures can have so many versions.
I'm talking about true artists. For example, modern artists like KAWS, James Jean, or Daniel Arsham. They truly have their own skills and a certain level of background and history of hard work. Besides the beauty of their art pieces, many collectors purchase their works because of their history. These are true artists. There are also many older generation artists like Gerhard Richter, Francis Bacon, Pierre Huyghe, or Anish Kapoor, who all create their artworks by hand. Additionally, their works aren't limited to just one medium. For example, Gerhard Richter's work spans various media, including abstract and photorealistic paintings, glass pieces, and photography. Just with this example, AI can't replace what he does.
Cultural Impact
Artists like Francis Bacon and Anish Kapoor provoke deep thought and introspection, engaging audiences with complex philosophical and existential questions. Their art resonates with contemporary cultural dialogues, addressing universal themes that transcend time and space. The ambiguity and open-ended nature of their works invite diverse interpretations, fostering rich discussions and varied perspectives. Kapoor frequently engages with the concept of the sublime, using his art to evoke feelings of awe and wonder. His large-scale works often suggest infinity, inviting contemplation of the vastness beyond human comprehension.
True art conveys complex emotions and human experiences that AI cannot replicate, lacking the personal touch and emotional intent of human creators. Artists push boundaries and take risks, innovating through a deep understanding of their medium and a willingness to explore the unknown. Their work reflects the zeitgeist, resonating with societal shifts and cultural conversations, as seen in artists like Pierre Huyghe who engage with contemporary issues and future possibilities.
I'm just expressing my personal opinion, and there's no absolute right or wrong. As an artist, I don't agree that what AI produces can be considered art. At most, it's a tool that has emerged in our generation, and this trend is unavoidable. I recently read a book called “The Coming Wave” by Mustafa Suleyman that inspired me to share my thoughts. The book suggests that while we can't avoid this wave, it's about how we handle it. No matter how advanced technology becomes, creating a piece of art should involve human thought, feeling, preparation, and countless mistakes. So, no matter how many years pass, art will always have its inherent value.