Random Thoughts on AI-generated images
It's been a while, but I'm back (bitching as usual). Let's start with....Artificial Intelligence generated art!
1. The first thing to remember is this is the new Bright Shiny Object.
LIke the camera once was. Upon seeing the first daguerreotype around 1840, the French painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), declared: “From today, painting is dead.” He was a little premature. And there will continue to be be more Bright Shiny Objects that will grab everyone’s attention and cause gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
2. It’s also version .01 of this Bright Shiny Object.
What we’re currently seeing is essentially demo reels: “See what I can do!!” Interesting but not *that* interesting. Once the excitement wears off it will be just another tool, used badly by some, used well by others. The camera did not replace painting, but it opened the eyes of artists to the possibilities of other forms.
3. Where Does the Artificial End and the Artist Begin?
in my mind this situation is the logical next phase in the rise of artists like Jeff Koons and Kehinde Wiley (not to mention the late Andy Warhol): the generation of high dollar art investment collectibles, generally produced by “assistants” who do the actual work (“art fabrication”). Koons at one point employed upwards of 100 “assistants.” Kehinde Wiley likewise employs a staff of assistants.
1. The first thing to remember is this is the new Bright Shiny Object.
LIke the camera once was. Upon seeing the first daguerreotype around 1840, the French painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), declared: “From today, painting is dead.” He was a little premature. And there will continue to be be more Bright Shiny Objects that will grab everyone’s attention and cause gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
2. It’s also version .01 of this Bright Shiny Object.
What we’re currently seeing is essentially demo reels: “See what I can do!!” Interesting but not *that* interesting. Once the excitement wears off it will be just another tool, used badly by some, used well by others. The camera did not replace painting, but it opened the eyes of artists to the possibilities of other forms.
3. Where Does the Artificial End and the Artist Begin?
in my mind this situation is the logical next phase in the rise of artists like Jeff Koons and Kehinde Wiley (not to mention the late Andy Warhol): the generation of high dollar art investment collectibles, generally produced by “assistants” who do the actual work (“art fabrication”). Koons at one point employed upwards of 100 “assistants.” Kehinde Wiley likewise employs a staff of assistants.
4. But is it ... ART?
The big driver on this is because of demand by collectors - many who buy art primarily as an investment (“art as bullion”). It’s the same mindset that gave us NFTs -- the bastard offspring of JPEGs and Bitcoins. I’ve said for years that the difference between Fine Art and Commercial Art is that Fine Art is about process and Commercial Art is about product. If you are generating art with a team of assistants to keep up with demand, my guess is you’re about product.
------
In a way, I’m glad AI-generated art is upon us. Maybe it will burn down the House of High Dollar Art and all the people who feed it.
The big driver on this is because of demand by collectors - many who buy art primarily as an investment (“art as bullion”). It’s the same mindset that gave us NFTs -- the bastard offspring of JPEGs and Bitcoins. I’ve said for years that the difference between Fine Art and Commercial Art is that Fine Art is about process and Commercial Art is about product. If you are generating art with a team of assistants to keep up with demand, my guess is you’re about product.
------
In a way, I’m glad AI-generated art is upon us. Maybe it will burn down the House of High Dollar Art and all the people who feed it.
BTW - SalesForce (the big cloud-based customer management company) has a sly series of commercials that mock the limitations of AI generated imagery - this is cleverest of them, IMHO.
Watch it carefully.
Comments