Is AI Art Really Art? Is it Plagiarism?

Welcome back to our little corner of the internet (this has now become our iconic line)! Today we’ll be looking at both sides of the argument and asking the question: is AI art really art? Let’s begin to look into it…

This year, the internet has taken storm over AI, especially that of the company OpenAI. You’ve probably heard of ChatGPT, and you may even know or use another generative artificial intelligence, such as Bard (Google’s AI) or Magic Write by Canva. However, a particular aspect of AI has become popularised: and that is AI Art.

Firstly, if you want the truth, AI Art isn’t the same as “normal” art. What actually happens is the highly intelligent generators use pre-existing images from a set database and merge them to illustrate a subject or art form which is usually provided by the user. Although AI art is often unique, that does not necessarily mean that it is not sourced from other artists and creators.

This topic is of great discussion in relevant industries. The news website IDS News says that:

“AI art companies are essentially stealing art from actual artists and profiting from their work”.

Most people argue about the sentience of a true artist, and how AI art pieces simply lack the emotion and feeling of art made by hand. In 2022, artist Kelly McKernan noticed that her name was being used a lot on AI Art websites to generate artwork not dissimilar from hers. In fact it was used so much that the name “Kelly McKernan” soon became associated with “lord-of-the-rings style art” on Midjourney, an AI Image creation program, which could be deemed as unfair.

Next, according to a controversial blog post by ‘Aesthetics for Birds’:

“AI art is art, and it is no less revolutionary than readymades, conceptual art, and photography.”

However, some people believe that with the rise of AI, personal essence in tasks like creating art or completing jobs is an unnecessary factor. As Machine Learning is developed, the prime focus of it will be to complete objectives, regardless of the lack of emotion and feeling in the final output. Imagine the future, where AI art programs will streamline the process of creating a logo, phone case or book cover – but the question is, do any of those things require heart and soul – and does art have to require heart and soul? You may think it does – but a lot of people argue that it doesn’t – for example Damien Hirst’s infamous One Thousand Years (a piece of modern art with a decapitated cow’s head being eaten away by very real maggots) has been described as heartless. So maybe this revolutionary tech which generates an image based off human artwork could be described as an artist?

Finally, there is also the argument that AI is generating new images with every click – unique images, and most therefore can’t be directly associated with a particular artist; or at least that’s what a post on a popular subreddit, r/Change my view, with over 3.2 million members says. The same post also makes the somewhat true statement that an AI is trained on artwork, and that humans do the same thing – humans, if tasked with making something of a certain style – will train their brains by looking at images from within the style, and then try to replicate it. Sound familiar?

But in conclusion: no, personally I think it’s not art, however depending on who you ask or where you look, it may be plagiarism. But if you want my opinion, I believe that AI art isn’t and was never meant to be a malicious output for growing technologies. Its purpose is not to steal the careers of artists, authors and talented, diligent humans. I believe it is simply there as an idea, to inspire people of all backgrounds and ages, and to help us complete tasks and move into the future.

I hope you enjoyed reading this short evidence-based article, and if you like the style and want more like this then leave a clap and a comment below. Thank you so much for being my dedicated audience!

See you in the next one!