This article really just made me think about one thing in particular- is AI art, art? And if so, who is the artist?
Personally, I would say that it depends on what you’re doing with it, but mostly yes, AI art is art, however there’s multiple people involved. There’s that who prompts the AI and then there’s whoever built and designed it. Truly, whoever coded it is the real artist as it does most of the producing of the art, granted AI art doesn’t work without a prompt.
In the case of the Rick and Morty thing, I think it should be noted that it was AI and not a drawing done (if it was AI), and it seems like it was acknowledged by the general public, which is fine, however it seems like it got a lot of “unwarranted” attention. I say unwarranted because it appears like not many people think it was deserved. I think if art or an advertisement manages to garner enough attention on its own, it’s deserved, but if it’s pushed by the creator in any excessive way, then maybe it’s not so deserved. If I did a little AI prompt and then published it to my instagram and it went viral, that wouldn’t exactly be my doing, so the AI art’s popularity would be deserved.
Do I think AI could replace digital content creation? That’s another topic brought up in the article and honestly, I have no idea. One thing that I love and hate about the digital medium is how quickly and how unpredictably things change. With oil painting the techniques used and the medium will stay pretty much consistent for virtually forever. With digital art and digital media, a technique might boom in popularity for a year or less. There’s a huge gamble in picking a digital art medium. So I hope AI will never replace digital content creation because then that might invalidate loads of other digital mediums that take “more” effort.
