Ethical AI art generation? Adobe Firefly may be the answer

Adobe trained new AI generator on Adobe Stock, licensed content, public domain.

See full article...

 

[Tall Dwarf]

As per every dictionary ever written:
There is no such thing as AI "art", and there never will be.
Call it something else: Graphics, imagery, creations. But AI doesn't ever make "art". If you want to reference, praise or blame someone, go to the person using an AI tool, and or the people who wrote its code. THEY can create actual art with the tool called AI.
[Need some convincing? When has a paintbrush ever created art? Never. The artist uses a tool, such as a paintbrush, to create art. It's that simple. Tools create nothing and never will.]

There was no such thing, now there is. The dictionaries will be updated accordingly.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

Well, if we go into the philosophy of art, we can consider the Grand Canyon. Is it art? No, but it is beautiful. It was made by complicated processes and even a picture of it would be art, but it itself is not. Now, one might ask if an AI graphic of a canyon then is art or not? There's no expression of creative skill or imagination, for instance. So in a technical sense, we can argue it is not art, but merely looks like art, much as an earthquake knocking over a paint can might create something that looks like art.

It has nothing to do with philosophy. zunipus said there is no AI art "as per every dictionary ever written". It's semantics.

AI art exists, it is being actively discussed by millions of people, no one have any problems understanding what these words mean. No amount of sophistry can change these trivially observable facts.

New things that don't exist "as per every dictionary ever written" emerge all the time. There was no smartphone 30 years ago in dictionaries, then it was added. The same will happen with AI art.

"So in a technical sense, we can argue it is not art" - you could but why would you? No one claimed it was.

"It has to be an expression of creative skill or imagination" is completely arbitrary requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) - literally urinal, "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice".

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals. The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between the artist's labour and the merit of the work".

See, the link was severed. 106 years ago. Forever.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

As far as the output of AI image generation is concerned my personal feeling is that it shouldn't be subject to copyright protection unless it's had substantial human modification. Apparently the Copyright Office feels the same way.

To me art requires intent and the generator doesn't have intent. It has a model for interpreting written prompts. It's a more complicated, automated paintbrush.

Apparently Adobe doesn't feel the same way. And now that this thing is so "ethical", the copyright issue is resolved, and image generator is being integrated into the most widely used software for artists the Copyright Office will have little choice in the matter.

AI is a tool. It is used by a person with intent. Non-trivial results mostly require non-trivial efforts. The guy who won Colorado art competition spent hours making his piece, including redrawing a few parts.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to pretend like this massively overstated claim that applies only to conceptual art somehow affects all artists. Duchamp does not speak for everyone, he just invented conceptual art. Also, conceptual art only exists because it's in dialogue with practices and institutions of art, so this really does not apply to a consumer based pay-per-art-laundering service. Duchamp is not someone the arbiter of all IP law, art school,s individual artists practices, museums, etc etc. He's a guy who posed some interesting ideas while all those things continued to exist.

You can have a concept but unless you're actually making decisions in the process of making the thing, it's not art. Not even performance art, which is much closer to what Duchamp's intervention was (the act of exhibiting a signed urinal). Don't forget the man could also paint and was partially commenting on his own ideas and practices.

The guy is convinced that art requires "expression of creative skill or imagination", I pointed out that it is just his opinion and nothing more. "Fountain" is a good example where this requirement doesn't work.

"unless you're actually making decisions in the process of making the thing, it's not art" - this is also just an opinion. Duchamp can't decide what art is and what is not, neither can you.

I think that "making decisions" is a pretty ridiculous requirement. Midjourney users invent a prompt, then decide which generated image they like and if they want to make variations of it. Stable Diffusion is much more flexible, plenty of decisions to make. So, is it art after all?

"a consumer based pay-per-art-laundering service" - what are you talking about? Laundering of what exactly? This article is about "ethical" AI art generator. All the ethical "problems" people were so concerned about are avoidable. All you need is a corporation with good lawyers and deep pockets. Very soon paying it for the privilege of using the laundering service will become mandatory for artists who don't want to touch unethical open source models.

"Don't forget the man could also paint" - what difference, at this point, does it make? I looked through his Wikipedia page and I think "the man could also paint" is a massive overstatement. "Fountain" seems to be his masterpiece. No wonder it's the most influential artwork of the 20th century.

 

[Tall Dwarf]

I think there's some confusion here. Duchamp invented conceptual art, which is deliberately considered separate from visual art. He invented the idea of language about art as an art form. This is not visual art, which does requires your own ideas and execution. Can conceptual art comment on visual art? Yes. Does it replace it? No. Visual art requires effort-- it's not like we kneel at a statue of Duchamp whenever we enter a gallery -- and I don't think that conceptual art is considered the dominant model of art in society either. Nor do I think the didactic description of art that goes into generators falls into a parodic or reflective category, so I don't that works as conceptual art either. In any case, the generator is doing the work, and it can't have intention or creativity, so there's no art. Only synthesis.

There are many other deeply influential artists of the 20th century who were very focused on labor in art.

I'm not concerned with Firefly, primarily just with companies that didn't ask people permission before using their art for training. That seems illegal and unethical to me.

Also I don't think Duchamp got copyright over the urinal just for signing his name on it. It was the event of showing it in a museum that mattered.

Yep, you do seem to be confused. If there is no link between the artist's labor and the merit of the work in conceptual art, it is obviously not a particularly strong requirement for art in general.

"conceptual art, which is deliberately considered separate from visual art" - indeed, you are trying to deliberately separate them. 500 selected British art world professionals didn't make this separation - the urinal is the most influential artwork of the 20th century in their opinion. No separation whatsoever.

I wouldn't be surprised if Théâtre D’opéra Spatial become the most influential art piece of 21st century.

"Visual art requires effort" - AI art requires efforts, they are just different. Jason Allen spent "many weeks of fine tuning and curating" making his piece. People duct-tape banana to a wall and it's art. It is obvious who worked more.

"In any case, the generator is doing the work, and it can't have intention or creativity, so there's no art" - opinion doesn't turn into fact just because you add "in any case". Allen had intention and creative merits of his piece are obvious.

The simple truth is, art is whatever people in general consider art. They don't "focus on labor in art". Some of them do, but vast majority can't care less. Good luck convincing them that pretty picture is all wrong because someone didn't spent months making it. Especially after century of BS with urinals and duct-taped bananas.