AI generated art is fairly new and to some considering it art is controversial. Personally, I believe it is art. Art is a form of expression and AI gives the tools to do just that. While others consider AI cheating, I think wanting to create something and watching it come to fruition is still the process around art. People have called AI “a high tech form of plagiarism” but isn’t all art inspired by something? Art is multi dimensional.  

I understand why artist are concerned with the rapid growth in popularity of AI. I don’t think their worry is exaggerated. I believe to some extent the worry is misplaced. Change is scary. This is their livelihood, passion and in some, their life’s work. AI has the potential to shift and wipe out the need of them. On the other hand, technology and art is forever changing and evolving. Everyone, artist included, should be part of adapting and learning these changes to ensure their value. Fear of change should not stifle growth of great artists. AI is tool that might be more beneficial than some think. 

When Stephen Marche stated “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing”? To my understanding he made this statement through his experience in using I.I. The engine used was Chat GPT were he used its “assistance” which contribute 17 % to some of his novels. Although he used A.I. he still had to do a lot of the work anyway. In his examples of how he had to use Chat GPT in the first place proved to him that its nothing but a tool for his writing. Alot of people have a misconception if how A.I would change everything, but it has change nothing as well.

The nothing part is the fact that work on the induvial part still has to happen to have success in their writing anyway. The plagiarizing aspects just comes from asking the A.I to do something which it isn’t capable of. Which is think. Stephen Marche stated ” I didn’t find ChatGPT particularly good in this richness. “Thus, admitting this A.I.s limitations so he moved on to another A.I. called Cohere which allowed him to write many prompts and allow him to Givemore examples of what he was looking for. A.I changes things by the convenience of an editor so to speak but the foundation will always have to come through someone who is feeding the A.I ideas for it to spit out results. Thats the reason it will not change anything.

Art is very subjective. At this point anything can be art. Three dots on a piece of paper may be considered art to someone. If you can explain what it is or how it has inspired you “voila”! We have art. Even though AI consists of generated images, one would have to put their own ideas into words to produce said images. Therefore AI generated images of ones ideas may very well be art.
To say artists’ concerns on AI generated art is exaggerated would be unfair. I cannot invalidate one’s views, with everyone being entitled to their own opinion. You also don’t know how much time and effort one has put in to master their craft. However, the world is very progressive. New and improved innovations are happening around us everyday. I do feel Mr. Allen did his research. He became enthralled with the midjourney program and created hundreds of images and got it down to a select three. In his own right putting his time and effort into his work producing a successful outcome. He also did not cheat contrary to what other contestants believed. He made it very clear exactly how his work was created by submitting it under his name Jason M. Allen via midjourney.
Although there are concerns about AI generated art replacing human artists, I will say if you have a talent, any talent for that matter no one can take that from you. That is yours and only yours. You have an intricate eye for whatever thoughts you have floating around in your mind, and only you can replicate it. That being said, no tool or computer can replace your mind. When they invent mind reading technology then we are screwed.

1. Art is a way of expressing feelings and emotions through skills and figures, taking into account this, I think that AI generated should be considered art since this helps and facilitates artists when generating the basis of their works and then with other tools, they modify them and add details, which does not lose the essence of expression of ideas and feelings. We must also take into account that day by day the world is changing with new updates and new technological interventions, so I think we must take advantage of and update ourselves with these new technologies making proper use of them.
2. I think that the concern of artists is not exaggerated since they have several specific points, among the most important would be the time dedicated to their works, since some artists take days and a lot of effort to elaborate them in detail, and seeing that an artificial intelligence facilitates this process, they could feel that it is unfair and that all their effort was in vain. Another point could be the profitability of their work since artists would fear that their skills are no longer needed and better resort to the help of artificial intelligence which does not benefit them. However, I think that it is only a matter and time to adapt and accept the new tools, as happened with the digital camera that after years it became a important tool in the field of art.

1. According to the articles, digital art should not be called art because according to the artists, AI does the work for us and also takes away the main idea of the process of creating a work from scratch, but they forget about the process that despite the fact that it advances much faster is expensive, so in my opinion digital art should be considered art only if the original ideas are created by the artist and not only does it with AI but also that the design carries an editing process of the artist, as well as Jason Allen since this way he showed his main idea of what he wanted to express through his art to people and let them know the process that he carried out, also although it seems easy to use artificial intelligence to create art, we do not know the work that it can generate.

2. I think that the concern of artists is not exaggerated but it has neutral ideas because in a certain way unlike the camera which is now a tool, AI has many more uses so it not only speaks of a painting and sculpture, but also that artists thanks to AI have enough capacity to skip processes, since AI can illustrate and the artist only modifies it and that is why many illustrator artists tend to be afraid that AI will take their place and thus lower the demand in this branch of study, on the other hand we do not know how much it costs to edit the illustration to the point that the artist shows what he thought with AI and the fact that he is seeing details and using tools that many of the times we do not know is complicated and we know how much it cost artists to learn how to use them correctly.

I don’t believe that A.I. generated imagery can be considered art. True art comes from the mind of an artist and is brought to life through their personal touches. A.I. can replicate style but It doesn’t have soul or perspective. The creation of A.I. art is a slap in the face of any genuine creative because we are actively devaluing a skill that has been and should continue to be adored and beloved by many. Not only for the beautiful imagery and thought provoking scenery it has provided but also the time and effort that one has to put into the craft to be considered great at it. People work hard to prove themselves in the creative field and there are so many battles that come with pursuing a career path in the arts already, why are we adding to them? Art is supposed to be a process. From formulating an idea, to drawing a first draft, revising/editing and finally filling in all the final details. That’s not meant to be boiled down to a couple random sentences for a machine to turn into binary code so it can spit out some unintelligible garbage at you. It’s a mindset of I want it now and I don’t want to work for it when there is all to gain from learning and taking your time with something as opposed to rushing and making something that is not genuine of your abilities or even your character. At the moment A.I. art is all digital so part of me wants to say human artists could never be replaced but with the constant push and advancement I’m seeing in A.I. especially in the arts, I would say artists fears are very valid. We also have to take into account by the time a new tech is in the hands of the public the engineers and masterminds behind it all are already on to their next thrill so everyday is a new story and who knows what’s to come of it. I just hope we preserve a certain respect and reverence for people who have taken the time to actually materialize their ideas in a creative fashion.

1. Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta both share great ideas and perspectives in their articles regarding A.I. and its relationship with art. Initially I disagreed with the belief that A.I. generated artwork should be looked at and considered as art. Art for me has been an outlet to express my own feelings and ideas that maybe couldn’t be put into words. A crucial part when creating an art piece is the process that it takes to do it. Imagine how much time I could save if I could physically write some of the artwork that I’ve done into an A.I. generator, That would be amazing! But because of the feelings and passion that I put into each of my work, I wouldn’t even know where to start. Though I feel the way I do about my own art, I do see how you can still look at it as art. It follows all the same “principles” and “guidelines” of what art is when you look at the end results from a surface level viewpoint. But comparing that process to the “regular” art creation process can uncover a variety of differences between them.

2. I believe that the artists argue a very fair perspective. Some of them may be exaggerating a bit, but its hard to say because of how passionate and dedicated some are to maintaining the authenticity of creating art. The concern of A.I. taking over specific jobs is a fear amongst a variety of occupations, making these concerns and worries completely reasonable. I think as long as artist realize that art is always going to be changing and new technology that is introduced into the art world doesn’t take away from the love and appreciation individuals still have for “human created art”. As a result of this people should be open to appreciating this new form of A.I generated art as another form of art and human expression.

1) Art can be anything I think using skill and a creative imagination. It’s been developed throughout the year in many different ways and aspects. Using A.I. you have be creative with the way you write your prompt as well as an understanding of the vision you want for the piece. So after reading the two articles by Kevin Roose and Sarah Kuta they explained Mr Allens intentions in using A.I., and the process of which he did so. For these reasons I agree that A.I. should be considered as another aspect of art. Mr Allen spent around 80 hours working on his entree piece, its not like he typed up anything, took the results and submitted it. Then after careful evaluation he picked his favorites and edited them more using other programs. So with that being said A.I. generated art should definitely be considered art.

2) Artist’s most certainly have a reason to worry about the use of A.I.. When I think about handcrafted, I think about the time, skill, and patients that are needed to bring their image to life. The artist point of view tells us how A.I. could potentially take jobs from illustrators and commissioner, which in some may be their source of income. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the situation. A.I. generated art will not put an end to other forms of art. Each peice of art will have its own targeted audience. So I do believe artist have a point, but it is exaggerated.