Art Debates

Now as the times roll on, it seems there is now much debate over what is human made art and what is AI something or another. Obviously, this topic goes quite deeper than just with art. However, as a creator, I am often perplexed now more than ever about how exactly are we classifying this Human Made badge that some now have, including me. I mean I believe I understand the marketing ploy. Sure more people are desiring more authenticity in the work they want to purchase or look at due to the abundance of "art" that us now going to hit the streets, now and moving forward. It seems a common reaction to something that is completely new and quite foreign to most. But as "human made" artist, are we going to start sitting around and judging others who are exploring their creativity with AI? Maybe in a way, yes it's just partly a gateway drug for now and I guess the future will tell us how this will actually all pan out. But for me , I don't think I will decide to squash someone's creativity because they have chosen to start by using AI...I think we need to keep this in mind moving forward with certain discussions. Personally, I would prefer not to become now part of an elitist group that blankety shuns all AI artwork because someone else decided to use it as an interface for their creativity. And as I say for all this. Garbage in, garbage out. The way art is probably supposed to be. Just my two cents for the day..Note I have chosen to share my original poems and pieces as a whole. But I have chosen to present my poems on a background I created using AI prompts. And now back to the question, how now do we classify this?

A Van Gogh exhibit brought this to mind...should unfinished work be considered private, or fair game? Does the cultural significance of the artist change your answer?

Do galleries curate art or just gatekeep it?

Here's a very interesting and helpful video by Miriam Schulman. Many of you may already be familiar with her. She's goes into an excellent discussion of how to protect your human-made art from AI. She covers painting, photography, sculpture, writing ... https://youtu.be/0ziO5MZwF3A?si=i_t2ocaSXCvoDoFJ

She also mentions to free tools developed by the University of Chicago: Glaze and Nightshade. Well worth looking at. Not clear to me if using these will interfere with print production as the image we upload in our warehouses for prints is the same image displayed on the web page. But well worth looking at and using when publishing to social media.

https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/what-is-glaze.html

https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/whatis.html

Curious where everyone lands on this. Have you ever rejected a commission on principle?

Too many artists use modern materials now that make it too easy, like paint in tubes, brushes that are perfect and canvas and flat manufactured board. Paints made from plastic! What's wrong with fish blood and raw or burnt umber? A cave wall or an animal skin is all you need. We should stand up for REAL art the way it's been done for thousands of years. New fangled contrivances are cheating. We hear of renaissance artists using lenses and mirrors and even projecting light images on to their manufactured boards so they can do perspectives and likenesses. Using live models instead of artistic figures of people and animals that last for thousands of years on rock. Even carving on rock faces that were good enough for your great, great, great, great, great grandparents, Now they us marble from quarries and carve with saws and chisles and hammers made of metal. An evil man invented a printing press in Germany and now we will not ever have real art again. How deeply sad!

The rock walls we paint are evolving, and we can't have that. Go back before you ruin the arts! If you can't express on a cave wall, your concept is not worth sharing with the tribes. Period.

So that's how we think about this challenge?

Is a transparent AI disclosure near the image enough?

Or should AI art be banned completely from the global art stage?