Can Google Create the Next Van Gogh?
By Sarah Kennelly
In the last 20 years, the technological triumphs that we have achieved would have been deemed unimaginable. From Face ID to Robot Vacuums, it seems like there is no limit to what we can create. The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence is a testament to this. AI teaches computers how to think like us, imitating the inner workings of our brains. Still, it is widely believed that it could never reach our level of intelligence because we have something it lacks- creativity. This fascinating facet of the human brain is something that cannot simply be coded. However, the soaring popularity of AI-generated art is beginning to contest this.
In 2016, Researchers at the University of Toronto successfully achieved the impossible when they taught a computer how to generate an image from text. In the short six years since then, AI art websites have popped up in every corner of the internet. They have been especially popular amongst Twitter users who use them to render unthinkable memes like Karl Marx getting slimed at the Kid’s Choice Awards. These programmes are used for fun by most but others have started to use the software in a more sophisticated way to create fine art.
In fact, an AI-generated image called “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” has already won first prize at a Colorado art competition. The creation depicts the scene of an opera performance in space, drawing on the beautifully intricate paintings of the Renaissance. The artist, Jason Allen, describes himself as a digital creator who simply uses the programme as a tool in his creative process, similar to a paintbrush. He has asserted that he put in weeks of work, using hundreds of images, to arrive at the final product.
Despite Allen’s hard work, the win is not sitting well with the art industry. It has attracted much controversy with artists across the globe objecting to the new art form. They have argued that AI-generated images require little to no effort or creative expertise. Some have even dubbed it the “death of artistry” since users of the software don’t have to rely on traditional artistic skills. If we can code creativity into an algorithm, why go to the effort of creation? It is worried that this new tool could de-incentivise artists from creating physical artworks if a computer can do it in under a minute.
The software has also caused concern over copyright issues because of the database it is built upon. In order to create this art, the computer is programmed to scan through images on the internet so it can imitate them. This means that a user can render an image of Cork City as if it was painted by Van Gogh. The generator carefully studies the brush strokes and patterns of his work to very convincingly recreate them. This allows anyone with access to a computer to copy the unique styles of an artist onto an image that they did not create. Although this goes against all ethics of copyright, the laws are not in place to hold AI generators accountable.
Others have come to embrace the software, asserting that it is just another mode of modern art like photography. They are comparing these critiques to the backlash that painters had towards the creation of the camera. The defenders of AI art believe that we should instead see it as a tool that can enhance and diversify our artistic capabilities. It is possible that this new software could encourage artists to be more innovative rather than relying on artistic trends of the past.
The negative effect AI could have on the worth of artworks is undeniable, given the scope of its potential. Without proper regulation, it will evade copyright laws and duplicate art which belongs to someone else. The struggles of artists to establish a platform is difficult enough without having to compete with a computer. The hope is that we can find a way to use this software as a tool rather than an imitator. If we can create a system of accountability for these generators then it could become the greatest innovation the art community has ever seen.