Artists & AI Art
Table of Contents
Contemplations in January 2025
severe engineer posted an interesting tweet over the anti-Midjourney1 sentiments of Twitter artists.
I dumped a thread of my initial thoughts while investigating a water main break, but I figure the topic deserves a more in-depth exploration, since there is a lot of stuff here that isn't particularly legible to people who haven't run with the online art community2.
1. Original Thread
My initial thought is that it'll be like regular digital art was, and the times will sweep everyone along. Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. However, the continued perception of models being fueled by theft counters that. Not sure how to get rid of that.
The idea of art theft is foundational to the current online art edifice, imo. Very difficult to remove. And teaching all the artists how diffusion models work is a no-go, since a) they lack the prerequisites and b) they're a hostile audience that will be looking for any chance to reject what you're saying.
This may require a wholesale reflection of the idea of being a career artist. Notice that a lot of the comments are lamenting a loss of motivation, implying that their reason for creating art is not the act of creation itself, but some external reward that superior AI art will cannibalize (the artists themselves admitting/implying that the work of the AI is superior to their own).
sev> i think even in the worst case (from that point of view) that things are fine if it's just treated like chess, the machine is better, but it's fun to do it on your own for the sake of doing it and doing so is still respected
though the machine is quite that good with art yet
Yeah, that's why I still code primarily acoustic (<1 LLM call per project on avg). The hard part is moving from the idea of doing art as your job (primary activity) to your hobby (secondary activity that tends to be sacrificed for time), which is something that has been anathema to online artists for some time afaict (the usual progression involves becoming skilled enough that you can do commissions for a living).
2. Elaboration
First big caveat: this is being written on January 4th, 2025, and AI capabilities, regulation around them, or artist opinion may have shifted since then.
Second big caveat: I haven't spent significant time around the online Xitter/DeviantArt sphere in 6-odd years. Some browsing indicates that the social dynamics at play3 have remained the same since then, but I may be off in the specifics.
2.1. The Initial Digital Art Wave
is one of the keys to understanding the oddities of the lay art community4. First off, digital artists faced criticism similar to the users of diffusion models: it was too simple and easy. This is reflected in the records of the time:
Now, obviously, digital art is now venerable and respected in the circles that we care about, so the technical criticism has been resolved; but, getting a mule to kick is always something that is seized zealously by anyone who has been the recipient of a kicking. However, AI art is held up by a cultural criticism much more important than perceived lack of difficulty5: that AI art is powered by art theft.
2.2. Art Theft
is one of those things that only makes sense in the context of the path in which it was created. Back in the day, an artist would learn, at least partially, by copying the works of old masters6. However, the digital art community has a semi-unique set of ethics7 around reproduction that are largely governed by ego-based8 considerations; these have been embedded, legibly or illegibly, in the foundation of the digital art edifice9.
Ego considerations require an understanding of "style". An artist's style is similar to a musician's tone10: the definition of an artist's work, embodying their personality and approach; the reaction against diffusion models' ability to recreate an arbitrary artist's style can be trivially understood through that lens11.
Meanwhile, there are (less-pressing) pseudoeconomic considerations revolving around the social game that the online art community is. The usual goal of a participant is to become a full-time artist12, living off of Patreon and commissions, a prerequisite of which is building up a portfolio of work and a good reputation within the community13. Falsifying your portfolio (the most obvious meaning of "stealing art") is obviously a major defection (as the copying of a piece is incredibly easy), but smaller "thefts" (re-using a pose or a character) are also defections (though smaller), because an artist that creates a trendy pose or suchlike has the chance to have their name spread far and wide14.
AI, then, with its ability to imitate an artist's style at zero15 cost and the leverage it gives a non-artist user16 undermine this dream from both directions (as reflected in the comments on the original tweet). It's an unfortunate regression to the mean after the Internet democratized the art profession17, but such is life.
So, what to do? I don't know. Sacrificing something you love doing for something that keeps you alive is never a fun decision18, but it's something that'll have to happen and the culture must adapt. I've no clue how the trust structures will readjust to portfolio falsification (since the respect of your peers is still desirable in the absence of real economic motivators). The big thing for fans of AI-generated art, is to avoid poisoning the well with overt smugness19, which is inevitably interpreted as a personal attack and is vehemently rejected.
If you're an aspiring artist, take heed and learn to motivate yourself through enjoyment of the craft itself. If you're a current full-time artist, keep an eye on state-of-the-art and how it's being used20, and be prepared to enter (or re-enter) the regular workforce if your situation becomes untenable.
Overall, this is a sucky situation for all parties involved. As someone who spent a solid chunk of his formative years in the art community, I feel the pain of the one whose years of effort are undermined by technological innovation; as someone who was never very good at art and filled with more ideas than will-to-practice, I appreciate that I now have the tools to realize my ideas on the fastest possible cycle time21. Stay frosty.
Footnotes:
And anti-AI generally
i.e., most people
which are the only things that matter here
As opposed to academic/high art, which I know nothing about
Technical criticism establishes a hierarchy to establish who is better than whom. Cultural criticism causes an emotional reaction that completely shuts down any debate over the subject, hence the "pick up the pencil" memes in the replies of the original post.
In fact, I have an imitation Rembrandt(?) from a great-uncle of some description. Nobody minds.
Roughly the opposite of those of the open-source programming communities that champion AI art
In the sense of self-identity
Acknowledging art theft is an axiom required of inductees, and managing copying/theft is one of the primary sources of contention in the community.
Including its use as an excuse for shoddy work.
Someone stealing your style is like the fae stealing your name
Like most artists, tbh
The old boy network is eternal; being in good standing with your fellow artists means that they will repost your work (increasing your reach) or recommend you to clients that they turn away.
Tradition dictates that anyone who re-uses one of these frameworks must credit the original artist. What began as a form of respect between peers hath become a load-bearing element of a psychoeconomic system. Many such cases!
Rounded
Effectively unlimited pieces that cost nothing but time and compute to create
Previously a professional artist required pre-existing wealth or a patron like the Medicis or the Catholic Church
Especially after having gotten a taste of the proverbial double-dip
The replacement rhetoric is never a good idea
It's entirely possible that AI art will, given time, increase the number of commissions you get, as too much slop drives people to seek purely human art.
Commissions are expensive and deadlines tend to be pushed back.