I had heard of this happening a long time ago, but never knew the formal details thus deciding to read an article about it. I also think that the topic of AI in art is interesting as people have differing opinions on it. This happened when AI art was becoming more popular and caused a little bit of a stirr in the art community. (Also, bonus points for it occuring in Colorado!) The artist used Midjourney to generate his imagery and ended up winning the blue ribbon in the art contest he was participating in. Many other artists were upset with him and people have since been talking about the future of AI art. Should AI art be winning prizes? Should we make another category? Did he cheat because he didn't actually draw anything? He did submit his piece in the "digital art" section of the art contest, but some people felt as though it was still cheating because he didn't draw it digitally himself. However, some people were saying this was fine and that it was no different than making a collage of imagery in Photoshop. What is even more interesting is that the judges were actually informed of the fact that it was made with Midjourney, but they did not know it was an AI program. Even when they were informed, they said, "...that they would have awarded Mr. Allen the top prize even if they had." (Roose, 2022). I also found it a little intriguing that the human-like figures really aren't that perfected at all yet people seemed to really enjoy them. I suppose without the uncanny valley face and shape, it is definitely close enoug. I agreed with most of the article until the contestant said, "Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.” when speaking about the results of the contest (Roose, 2022).
I believe that AI will allow us to create with much more efficiency, incorperate different ideas, and integrate new tools and styles. AI did not kill art, but more so is helping it transform in the modern technological age. However I do think that while AI art is in the beginning stages, it may be worth it to start to categorize it even outside of digital art. But eventually it will become much better and humans will have a much harder time being able to point out what is really made by a human or isn't. I also want to consider the ethicality of this is as the model is trained on what other people have already created. One side of me wants to mention the fact that people learn off of each other all the time and use pieces of other art as inspiration, what is the difference in the AI doing so? But the other side of me thinks about the fact that they sometimes don't credit these artists as well as the fact that the artist may not want to personally participate. I do agree that AI art is inevitable, but I don't we should be seeing it in an extremely negative light. I think that humans still provide a nice touch to homemade art, no matter the medium. And I think it is smart to accept the fact now that AI art will eventually become much better and more normalized and just be confident in what you can make as an artist to prove yourself. You are also allowed to use the tools provided, so I encourage people to see what generative AI can do for you too. After using some programs, you will have been able to combine a variety of tools to provide the world with something new, and I think that is an overall positive thing. All in all, the article was fairly interesting and does raise some interesting points about the situation and AI art in general.
コメント