The Bastardization of Art
In recent years there has been an astonishing uptick in the presence of generative artificial intelligence within fields and industries it previously hadn't been.
Students relying on engines such as ChatGBT, Perplexity, or Google's Gemini to completely generate solutions to essays and assignments...
Self-proclaimed "AI artists" (comical) utilizing decades, even centuries, worth of stolen artworks to compile into some semblance of what they deem to be creativity...
Artists around the globe, myself included, find this phenomena to be distasteful, disrespectful, and extremely disheartening. This commodification of practice which takes a lifetime to hone and internally connect with is having the soul removed to create something not even remotely human.
During the past two, maybe three, years it was easy to discern true art from its sloppy, AI generated counterpart. Text which wasn't legible in any language. Extra limbs. Missing limbs. Nonsensical anatomy. Hyper-realistic and uncanny images. Clouded backgrounds meant to obscure details that any human artist would have put love and genuine effort into.
More recently, however, the accuracy which these generative programs have achieved in replicating life have become unsettling. It certainly takes more observation and attention to detail to call out these "creative" farces.
Artwork is the extension of it's creator's soul. In each brushstroke or charcoal line, there is passion and emotion interwoven with the medium. Generative AI "artwork" strips it's source material of any of the soul that once existed and in its place we are left with images which are grasping for validity in the creative space.
L'art pour l'art. Art for art's sake.
Artists aren't creating works to revolutionize technology or to prove something more "realistic" or "betting looking" (again, comical) is superior to something forged by human hands or emotions.
This rhetoric is exhausting. Rather than conceptualizing the ways in which generative artificial intelligence tools can benefit the realms of education or artistry - the biggest advocates for this slop are seeking to replace the humanity which is art, and which is education.
A common argument I've seen from prompt-compliers is how generative AI is making art "accessible." As an art historian, this argument is tired and foolish as physical tools to create art are extremely accessible. The ability to put in time and effort into learning a new medium or technique has always been accessible. This argument serves as an excuse for lack of respect for the art practice and sheer laziness.
Art has never been easy (see "starving artist").
Easiness isn't what makes a work compelling.
29 Mar. 2025♡