You write well. But I do disagree. There is nuance to this topic that many people choose to blatantly ignore and unsee. This is exactly why I think art education is important.
Art isn't about pretty and aesthetic work. Its about human expression of feeling, expression of morals and a reflection of the time period they're in. AI prompt generated images will never be art to me. Because AI doesn't have thoughts, its not enraged or empathetic or bored. AI doesn't "create". It regenerates off of a prompt and trains its data model with existing images on the internet for which OpenAI does not acquire consent to or commision the creators fairly.
As for the accessibility argument - Art has always been and will always be accessible. I follow a lot of incredible artists who live with auto-immune diseases and chronic pain issues, even cancer and they have still found a way to make art. Heck even animals make art. There's a million youtube tutorials that teach you how to make art in less 5 minutes or even an hour.
Making art into an industrial process is what Miyazaki is against. People who truly appreciate art and understand what it stands for cannot accept machine made slop. Art is supposed to motivate you, inspire you. Its supposed to want you to be a student of life, find small things in life to be grateful for and slow down to live, not just exist.
If you cannot have patience for art, you do not respect art. People love Ghibli movies because it helps them connect to their humanity. It helps them appreciate humans around them, teaches them to be grateful for their priveleges, to be grateful for nature and makes them aware of socio-political injustices taking place in the world. People love Bob Ross because through teaching how to make art, he also taught people life lessons and to always consider "mistakes" as "happy accidents".
It saddens me to see people that refuse to understand that humans aren't meant to do 9-5 corporate jobs. That's capitalism. They are meant to live amongst nature, appreciate life and CREATE.
Its okay to be excited about a new technological advancement. What isn't okay is to justify it and refuse to acknowledge it. That by participating in such a practice you are morally responsible for your decisions. What’s not fine is pretending they exist in a moral gray zone where no one is accountable.
What we should be doing is pushing for ethical guidelines and not just shrugging and saying, "That’s just how the world works." Which unfortunately speaks to every individual's moral compass differently.
AI "art" will never be art. AI "artists" will never be artists if they continue to use prompts instead of a pencil.
I hugely appreciate this take. It is opinionated and nuanced, and I am grateful you took the time to share it with the readers here. There are some takes that I agree with, and some that I disagree with, and I would like to debate those.
First of all, I agree that art is not just pretty and aesthetic. It is meant to invoke feelings and thoughts. The core message that I'm trying to propagate in this article (literally as the concluding line) is that people get to decide and choose what affects them. Just because AI art doesn't impact you does not mean that it won't impact someone else. People are allowed to find meaning in whatever "art" they see on their own terms. If I generate a Ghibli-styled picture for myself using ChatGPT, and it makes me happy or gives me a sense of peace, you do not get to dictate whether I have the right to enjoy that as "art."
You're right that AI does not "create". In its current state, it simply applies patterns learned from pre-existing data. However, it does so in a highly generalized manner and in a way that does not directly output any actually protected IP. In the article, I shared a very specific link (https://chatgpt.com/share/67ea42ce-5bd4-8009-9355-c59996a21aa8) about what ChatGPT does when someone asks it to apply Studio Ghibli's style, for example, to which it clearly specifies that it applies specific aesthetic styles, which is very much valid under fair use. Otherwise, you'd basically have a single artist owning all surreal art, a single artist owning all baroque art, and so on. And that would be extremely bad for every single person in the world of art.
The accessibility perspective that I shared does not emphasize creation as much as consumption. It doesn't talk about how artists are disabled without tech, but how tech has tried to complement the work artists do. I am not claiming that humans can't create art if they don't want to. From the perspective of people learning about art, however, art has not always been accessible though. And with all due respect, tech is doing more to enable art preservation and education at scale at a faster pace than any other documented movement in history.
As far as turning art into an industrial process goes, this just denies the fact that art and, subsequently, media is an industry. Just because Ghibli takes a more vintage approach to it does not mean that everyone else is required to do so. In fact, it is one of the biggest animation studios in the world, one whose impact on art and media can absolutely not be denied, is investing further in implementing machine learning-enabled and algorithmic workflows to improve their output (I'm talking about Pixar here, by the way). The video game industry has also taken to this, where we have seen procedurally generated open-worlds in games such as "No Man's Sky, and they are beautiful! And all those efforts start by generating slop. But you know what? So do humans. Because the standard for what is considered "slop" is not absolute, but relative. And it is going to improve as both the tech and the art industry work together because it will become a matter of survival for both (if it hasn't already).
This brings me to the point of patience. I'm sorry, but this opinion reeks of privilege. I say this because I carry enough privilege myself. I have sat through Bob Ross episodes, spending hours watching and recreating those paintings in MS Paint because they calm me. I mean, I'm a fan to the point where I have a t-shirt with his face on it. The fact is that most people don't have the same number of hours to spend on Bob Ross videos as me. And this has nothing to do with capitalism. I'm not just talking about the "regular corporate slave" here; I'm talking about the owner of the nearby kirana shop who sends 12-14 hours a day at the minimum serving customers, the doctor who spends sleepless nights working in an overcrowded government hospital, the labourer at the flats under construction who is physically and mentally broken every single day, the Swiggy delivery person out on the streets from morning to evening and often so without knowing where they'll have their next meal, the stay-at-home mom or dad taking care of home and family all day long. People have hard enough lives, and if a person gets a moment of happiness because they see a little AI-generated picture of themselves or their partner (this was the quoted Instagram post by @andheriwestshitposting in the article), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They don't need to be connoisseurs to enjoy that moment. They just have to feel; isn't that what "art" is supposed to enable anyway? We don't know what people's circumstances are or why they don't have time. Without understanding someone's circumstances, claiming they're just too impatient to appreciate art is just blatant disrespect to people, their responsibilities, and their struggles.
As far as technological advancement goes, it is absolutely scary. We have seen weeks where decades have passed. And yes, we have observed an unquestionably high number of ethically-ambiguous activities in the AI world in the last 2 years. OpenAI is being sued by The New York Times for copyright infringement, and I would like to learn how that goes because it will be monumental in defining how AI companies can collect data. With that said, if we take Studio Ghibli's example, I just came across an open, free-to-use library of still images that they have published themselves (https://www.ghibli.jp/works/). For other art styles, there are a number of museums that have published lakhs of artworks online, stating they are free to use. If these images were analyzed solely for styles and the resulting data were then used for image generation, it may very well fall under the confines of "fair use." This is arguable, of course, and I'm no legal expert, but the truth is that copyright law is unclear on this, and at this point, we cannot call out a breach of law on this particular front because there is no precedent.
You know, throughout your comment, there are numerous points where you've tried to imply and define what "art" means. However, to this day, we don't have a universally agreed-upon definition of "art," which inherently makes it fluid. And whether some people may disagree, AI will make artists and art better. This is just the beginning. We already see this in tools such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro, and, on a more common level, in the software running our iPhone, Pixel, and Samsung phone cameras. It doesn't prevent anyone from creating art with their hands. But that does not mean that it will stand side-by-side with hand-created art. It will get better, and society will already start to accept it. To tell you the truth, we won't make it more ethical by shouting from the outside. We do so by embracing it and joining hands. Whether artists agree or not, art will progress to include AI if society deems it so.
Agree to disagree I guess and you're right, what I said is my opinion and people have free will.
But I still think it's unfair to artists (no not just Ghibli but numerous other smaller artists). As someone who spends a lot of time in the art space, I see everyday, someone using AI to rip off specific kinds of work from a small artist to sell as merchandise. This is a small artist who is trying to get by with commissions, maybe to pay off their college fee or pay for a loved ones living expenses. They're not privileged just because they make art. But they are still being wronged in the name of entertainment.
Yes the Ghibli fiasco made a lot of noise because it's a pretty big and famous animation studio. But this has been happening to artists ever since Gen AI could recreate images. And I think that its just unfair to people who care about their work, to be silenced just because someone found happiness through this.
As for the AI tools, I absolutely have no issues with those because they're only used for a part of the process and aren't replacing the entire process. A lot of digital artists use softwares that have AI tolls in them and that's valid. What I'm against is OpenAI image generation. That's a whole other thing.
I could counter your arguments and believe me I know you come from a place of understanding. But a lot of people exploit smaller artists just because they can. And just because they can doesn't mean it's right.
Anyway I do not think the two sides will ever agree with each other and that's fine. The world will continue doing what it pleases.
My only take away from this whole situation is to push for more support and resources to fostering spaces where people can access learning to make art and also appreciate art. That now more than ever it's important to support local artists and struggling artists. 🩵
It's not an easy situation for sure. Every trade in the world right now is impacted by AI. Unfortunately that's the case with every technological advancement. Cars deprecated horse-cart drivers and computers deprecated human calculators. But the bigger question is what will people do about that? At least from the perspective of business and trade, where do we as people decide to evolve?
And I get what you say about OpenAI's image generation but the ability to generate images isn't inherently bad. I have been using OpenAI's DALL•E model from when it was in preview for this newsletter because for a personal blog with zero financial gain, commissioning illustrations when I wouldn't find a stock photo would have extracted a financial toll that I wouldn't be able to bear at a certain point. There are both sides to the coin.
In all honesty, I have no idea where this is going to go. But I do know that as AI art becomes more prevalent, human-created art will become more valuable. People who are better than AI definitely won't perish. I would hope to see more voices from the art world in tech because we definitely need a more holistic approach here. And it would definitely be amazing to see more spaces fostered to educate about art and support budding artists.
This article articulates beautifully the conflict in my mind. It's such a fresh perspective rather than an us versus them attitude which is very much needed in such a controversial topic.
The "us versus them" attitude will never work for either side, we need to find ways to intersect and integrate. But first, that needs a certain level of acceptance that this should even be allowed to occur.
You write well. But I do disagree. There is nuance to this topic that many people choose to blatantly ignore and unsee. This is exactly why I think art education is important.
Art isn't about pretty and aesthetic work. Its about human expression of feeling, expression of morals and a reflection of the time period they're in. AI prompt generated images will never be art to me. Because AI doesn't have thoughts, its not enraged or empathetic or bored. AI doesn't "create". It regenerates off of a prompt and trains its data model with existing images on the internet for which OpenAI does not acquire consent to or commision the creators fairly.
As for the accessibility argument - Art has always been and will always be accessible. I follow a lot of incredible artists who live with auto-immune diseases and chronic pain issues, even cancer and they have still found a way to make art. Heck even animals make art. There's a million youtube tutorials that teach you how to make art in less 5 minutes or even an hour.
Making art into an industrial process is what Miyazaki is against. People who truly appreciate art and understand what it stands for cannot accept machine made slop. Art is supposed to motivate you, inspire you. Its supposed to want you to be a student of life, find small things in life to be grateful for and slow down to live, not just exist.
If you cannot have patience for art, you do not respect art. People love Ghibli movies because it helps them connect to their humanity. It helps them appreciate humans around them, teaches them to be grateful for their priveleges, to be grateful for nature and makes them aware of socio-political injustices taking place in the world. People love Bob Ross because through teaching how to make art, he also taught people life lessons and to always consider "mistakes" as "happy accidents".
It saddens me to see people that refuse to understand that humans aren't meant to do 9-5 corporate jobs. That's capitalism. They are meant to live amongst nature, appreciate life and CREATE.
Its okay to be excited about a new technological advancement. What isn't okay is to justify it and refuse to acknowledge it. That by participating in such a practice you are morally responsible for your decisions. What’s not fine is pretending they exist in a moral gray zone where no one is accountable.
What we should be doing is pushing for ethical guidelines and not just shrugging and saying, "That’s just how the world works." Which unfortunately speaks to every individual's moral compass differently.
AI "art" will never be art. AI "artists" will never be artists if they continue to use prompts instead of a pencil.
That's my thought on this entire fiasco.
I hugely appreciate this take. It is opinionated and nuanced, and I am grateful you took the time to share it with the readers here. There are some takes that I agree with, and some that I disagree with, and I would like to debate those.
First of all, I agree that art is not just pretty and aesthetic. It is meant to invoke feelings and thoughts. The core message that I'm trying to propagate in this article (literally as the concluding line) is that people get to decide and choose what affects them. Just because AI art doesn't impact you does not mean that it won't impact someone else. People are allowed to find meaning in whatever "art" they see on their own terms. If I generate a Ghibli-styled picture for myself using ChatGPT, and it makes me happy or gives me a sense of peace, you do not get to dictate whether I have the right to enjoy that as "art."
You're right that AI does not "create". In its current state, it simply applies patterns learned from pre-existing data. However, it does so in a highly generalized manner and in a way that does not directly output any actually protected IP. In the article, I shared a very specific link (https://chatgpt.com/share/67ea42ce-5bd4-8009-9355-c59996a21aa8) about what ChatGPT does when someone asks it to apply Studio Ghibli's style, for example, to which it clearly specifies that it applies specific aesthetic styles, which is very much valid under fair use. Otherwise, you'd basically have a single artist owning all surreal art, a single artist owning all baroque art, and so on. And that would be extremely bad for every single person in the world of art.
The accessibility perspective that I shared does not emphasize creation as much as consumption. It doesn't talk about how artists are disabled without tech, but how tech has tried to complement the work artists do. I am not claiming that humans can't create art if they don't want to. From the perspective of people learning about art, however, art has not always been accessible though. And with all due respect, tech is doing more to enable art preservation and education at scale at a faster pace than any other documented movement in history.
As far as turning art into an industrial process goes, this just denies the fact that art and, subsequently, media is an industry. Just because Ghibli takes a more vintage approach to it does not mean that everyone else is required to do so. In fact, it is one of the biggest animation studios in the world, one whose impact on art and media can absolutely not be denied, is investing further in implementing machine learning-enabled and algorithmic workflows to improve their output (I'm talking about Pixar here, by the way). The video game industry has also taken to this, where we have seen procedurally generated open-worlds in games such as "No Man's Sky, and they are beautiful! And all those efforts start by generating slop. But you know what? So do humans. Because the standard for what is considered "slop" is not absolute, but relative. And it is going to improve as both the tech and the art industry work together because it will become a matter of survival for both (if it hasn't already).
This brings me to the point of patience. I'm sorry, but this opinion reeks of privilege. I say this because I carry enough privilege myself. I have sat through Bob Ross episodes, spending hours watching and recreating those paintings in MS Paint because they calm me. I mean, I'm a fan to the point where I have a t-shirt with his face on it. The fact is that most people don't have the same number of hours to spend on Bob Ross videos as me. And this has nothing to do with capitalism. I'm not just talking about the "regular corporate slave" here; I'm talking about the owner of the nearby kirana shop who sends 12-14 hours a day at the minimum serving customers, the doctor who spends sleepless nights working in an overcrowded government hospital, the labourer at the flats under construction who is physically and mentally broken every single day, the Swiggy delivery person out on the streets from morning to evening and often so without knowing where they'll have their next meal, the stay-at-home mom or dad taking care of home and family all day long. People have hard enough lives, and if a person gets a moment of happiness because they see a little AI-generated picture of themselves or their partner (this was the quoted Instagram post by @andheriwestshitposting in the article), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They don't need to be connoisseurs to enjoy that moment. They just have to feel; isn't that what "art" is supposed to enable anyway? We don't know what people's circumstances are or why they don't have time. Without understanding someone's circumstances, claiming they're just too impatient to appreciate art is just blatant disrespect to people, their responsibilities, and their struggles.
As far as technological advancement goes, it is absolutely scary. We have seen weeks where decades have passed. And yes, we have observed an unquestionably high number of ethically-ambiguous activities in the AI world in the last 2 years. OpenAI is being sued by The New York Times for copyright infringement, and I would like to learn how that goes because it will be monumental in defining how AI companies can collect data. With that said, if we take Studio Ghibli's example, I just came across an open, free-to-use library of still images that they have published themselves (https://www.ghibli.jp/works/). For other art styles, there are a number of museums that have published lakhs of artworks online, stating they are free to use. If these images were analyzed solely for styles and the resulting data were then used for image generation, it may very well fall under the confines of "fair use." This is arguable, of course, and I'm no legal expert, but the truth is that copyright law is unclear on this, and at this point, we cannot call out a breach of law on this particular front because there is no precedent.
You know, throughout your comment, there are numerous points where you've tried to imply and define what "art" means. However, to this day, we don't have a universally agreed-upon definition of "art," which inherently makes it fluid. And whether some people may disagree, AI will make artists and art better. This is just the beginning. We already see this in tools such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro, and, on a more common level, in the software running our iPhone, Pixel, and Samsung phone cameras. It doesn't prevent anyone from creating art with their hands. But that does not mean that it will stand side-by-side with hand-created art. It will get better, and society will already start to accept it. To tell you the truth, we won't make it more ethical by shouting from the outside. We do so by embracing it and joining hands. Whether artists agree or not, art will progress to include AI if society deems it so.
Agree to disagree I guess and you're right, what I said is my opinion and people have free will.
But I still think it's unfair to artists (no not just Ghibli but numerous other smaller artists). As someone who spends a lot of time in the art space, I see everyday, someone using AI to rip off specific kinds of work from a small artist to sell as merchandise. This is a small artist who is trying to get by with commissions, maybe to pay off their college fee or pay for a loved ones living expenses. They're not privileged just because they make art. But they are still being wronged in the name of entertainment.
Yes the Ghibli fiasco made a lot of noise because it's a pretty big and famous animation studio. But this has been happening to artists ever since Gen AI could recreate images. And I think that its just unfair to people who care about their work, to be silenced just because someone found happiness through this.
As for the AI tools, I absolutely have no issues with those because they're only used for a part of the process and aren't replacing the entire process. A lot of digital artists use softwares that have AI tolls in them and that's valid. What I'm against is OpenAI image generation. That's a whole other thing.
I could counter your arguments and believe me I know you come from a place of understanding. But a lot of people exploit smaller artists just because they can. And just because they can doesn't mean it's right.
Anyway I do not think the two sides will ever agree with each other and that's fine. The world will continue doing what it pleases.
My only take away from this whole situation is to push for more support and resources to fostering spaces where people can access learning to make art and also appreciate art. That now more than ever it's important to support local artists and struggling artists. 🩵
It's not an easy situation for sure. Every trade in the world right now is impacted by AI. Unfortunately that's the case with every technological advancement. Cars deprecated horse-cart drivers and computers deprecated human calculators. But the bigger question is what will people do about that? At least from the perspective of business and trade, where do we as people decide to evolve?
And I get what you say about OpenAI's image generation but the ability to generate images isn't inherently bad. I have been using OpenAI's DALL•E model from when it was in preview for this newsletter because for a personal blog with zero financial gain, commissioning illustrations when I wouldn't find a stock photo would have extracted a financial toll that I wouldn't be able to bear at a certain point. There are both sides to the coin.
In all honesty, I have no idea where this is going to go. But I do know that as AI art becomes more prevalent, human-created art will become more valuable. People who are better than AI definitely won't perish. I would hope to see more voices from the art world in tech because we definitely need a more holistic approach here. And it would definitely be amazing to see more spaces fostered to educate about art and support budding artists.
was a nice read, well done!
Thank you!
This article articulates beautifully the conflict in my mind. It's such a fresh perspective rather than an us versus them attitude which is very much needed in such a controversial topic.
The "us versus them" attitude will never work for either side, we need to find ways to intersect and integrate. But first, that needs a certain level of acceptance that this should even be allowed to occur.
Really appreciate the comment :)
This article need more eyes! Something we also discussed in Writer's meetup! This is an amazing take!
Thanks a lot :)
This was such a wholesome read. I had no idea that people's reaction to photography was same as AI art today.
Tech and art have always had a turbulent history! Thanks a ton for reading my article and for the thoughts you shared on Twitter :)
Thank you for sharing this :)