There are two main criticisms of AI art (that is, not on the effects of AI in art, but rather the art itself) - AI art sucks and can’t draw hands or cannot replicate the technique of a human artist, and also AI art lacks ‘soul’ or ‘emotion’ as Art is something sacred to be created by Humans.
“AI art sucks. It can’t draw hands. Look at the line around this character and the inconsistent shading. AI will never be able to replicate the delicate detail around the eyes.”
But the artist community most upset about AI art is not one that will criticize their own on the technical merits of their work. The detachment from technical ability and the value of the artwork is emphasized the most in artist communities which abhor AI generated artwork. Support is given to even the most rookie of artists, and technical merit is downplayed in favor of the content of the artwork, the character of the artist, and the story of the journey itself. In essence, the detractors of AI artwork’s technical merit are themselves, not applying the same criticism to human artwork. This is most likely a byproduct of over-socialization; ‘don’t say anything you wouldn’t want said to you’. Those who throw themselves so deeply into their passion are often the ones who take criticism the worst, and so often produce mediocre work as they take offense to anyone who suggests changes, and with these True Believers at the core of their movement, any movement that does not embrace the value of negative feedback stagnates and creates a safe, but mediocre, space, one devoid of the cycle of failure and improvement.
“AI has no soul and is emotionless as it is not created by a Human. Look at this generic, bland photo. There’s nothing behind it”
The predication of emotion and soul existing behind a piece of artwork means that there is some sort of human element that cannot be duplicated by machine. It renders the technical ability of the work only a medium by which to convey some sort of story or emotional feeling, something the proponents of such a criticism feel AI lacks. Humans are to Art as God is to Humans, and as only God can create Humans, only Humans can create Art. A good argument nonetheless for True Believers. But do those who criticize AI art on this basis themselves believe they were created from randomness, from evolution? The disconnect between believing they themselves were a part of Nature’s Evolutionary Learning Algorithm and the ability for themselves play God to Art is something of a mental gymnastics optimization problem.
Not only are the two most dominant criticisms against AI generated art in contradiction to each other, they’re in contradiction to the criticizer’s own beliefs. No wonder they’re so unhappy.
So what should you do if you don’t like AI art? How do you avoid being unhappy by creating unrealistic mental models for trying to justify human created artwork? How CAN you launch criticisms against it?
By simply not.
Just complain that it’s taking your jobs!
Coal miners complained about the technical aspects of solar, they complained about the aesthetics and the ecological impact and the economic impact, but none of those did anything to them. In the end the they just became solar installers.
Technology from an economic perspective exists to expand the Production Possibility Frontier by keeping L (labor) and K (capital) consistent, or rather to reduce L and K while keeping PPF consistent. It’s here to take everyone’s jobs so people can move onto different things. Unless significant demand is induced, L and K will and should shrink while production is kept constant in line with demand, and will result in a lower cost.
Technology comes for everyone, whether you’re an artist or a truck driver or a coal miner or a horsekeeper or a village shaman. Just complain about it!