Generative AI in Art

By: Paige C. ‘27

Change is innately human and with change, comes innovation. The evolution of art is fascinating in how it developed in intricacy and skill as new innovations were created and became widespread. These would have included different types of paint, paintbrushes, canvases, clay, and so much more. But now that all of these have already been invented, artists are looking for new and interesting innovations in art. Some artists have even looked to the quickly expanding world of technology by seeing how generative artificial intelligence can be used. However, this has caused much controversy in the art community concerning whether or not AI-generated art should be considered real art as well as how it plagiarizes other artists' work. 

Another of the most debated uses of generative AI is in an educational setting. Teachers have been a large part of this conversation since they expect students to complete assignments honorably. When using generative AI, it is difficult to draw the line between what is stealing or overusing the tool and what is engaging in the task at hand. The consensus from computer science teacher, Ms. Bhalla, and art teacher, Ms. Connors, is that students should be conscious of the ethical dilemmas in using generative AI and not abuse it. 

The largest concern with AI-generating art is that the piece created by it has taken from other artists’ works. This is because AI learns from references in order to create something new. Many of the generative AI models are trained from resources collected by scouring the internet, which includes any and all artworks that have been uploaded on any platform and as Ms. Bhalla put it, “the pieces of art that are being used to train these models are often being taken without consent, consideration, or attribution”. This allows for artists’ work to be used without their permission because the generative AI companies see it as part of the public domain and therefore, open for taking. As a result, the art created by a generative AI model is not solely based on the prompt that it was given, but instead, it is an amalgamation of thousands and possibly millions of other independent works of art and artists. 

Not giving credit to the artists that generative AI takes from becomes a problem because the individual artist is not the one benefiting. Additionally, as generated art becomes more advanced and widespread, human creativity becomes less valuable. An example of this is how in the movie and television industry, screenwriters are being passed over for generative AI writers that cost the production company less money. This limits job opportunities and reduces the writers’ value in the industry. Luckily, the Writers Guild of America has been advocating for the employment of screenwriters over the use of generative AI. No one can predict what the future may hold, but as generative AI develops further the value of an artist becomes debatable. 

The question now becomes: how can generative AI be utilized in art without stealing from other artists’ work? While everyone may have different answers for varying reasons, Ms. Connors posed an interesting use of Generative AI in art. She said to “use it to visualize an idea in your mind,” and “use it to inspire an artwork,” as opposed to letting the AI-generated art be the final product. In all, Ms. Connors said that generative AI could be used as a tool in creating art. Still, it should not be considered art in itself due to the fact that the process of creating it is not at all as challenging as making a traditional work of art and cannot have the same human qualities.

In conclusion, while generative AI can be a useful tool, it is crucial to make the distinction between something created from a person’s own creativity and something created using generative AI. That difference is how people, students or artists, can preserve their integrity and not steal from other creations.