Is it AI or Art? The True Value of Being an Artist

LENSA AI'S INSTAGRAM FEED

Artists have always struggled to maintain copyright and ownership of their work, and the infinite, seemingly instantaneous possibilities of the internet and AI makes this even harder.

How can we frame AI in a way that does not undermine the hard work of artists?

AI was the buzzword at the opening keynote of Adobe Max 2022 - chief product officer Scott Belsky stated that ‘AI should only ever be your co-pilot in creative endeavours … [it should] benefit creatives, not replace them.’ 

The photo-editing app Lensa, launched in 2018 by Prisma Labs, has gone viral over the past few weeks with the release of a new ‘magic avatar’ feature. Currently taking first place on the Apple and Google Play store, Lensa has had over 700,000 downloads in the past month. For $6 (USD) you can transform the banal selfies you take on your smartphone into AI-generated glossy depictions in styles like ‘Renaissance painting,’ ‘film noir’ or ‘anime’. 

Along with its instant success, however, the app has faced substantial backlash from artists and creators worldwide, accusing the app of stealing art from artists. Lensa users are concerned that the app is sampling existing artists' work to spit out AI generated imagery. 

The struggle for artists to maintain copyright to and ownership of their own art is age-old - from photography and the printing press to the difficulties of tracing where your art is reshared on the internet. 

Does that mean that artificial intelligence is inherently bad? 

Artificial intelligence, like many new technologies, comes with solutions as well as problems. While many AI softwares can benefit human productivity, the lines of use have been blurred when it shifts into the creative domain. 

It seems harmless in the realm of banal, time-consuming and non-creative tasks like generating statistics and research, but generating art is a whole other story. Creative processes have always been valued for the amount of time, thought and creativity that the artist employs. AI becomes a threat, with its instantaneous and non-stop generations. 

The main issue, however, seems to be that the app charges a standardised fee for these ‘artistic’ images. No doubt the software programmed to generate these images is the product of expensive and time-consuming research with ongoing costs to run, but it’s safe to assume that the company is making a profit as well. 

How can we integrate AI into our lives without profiting off of artists’ intellectual property? 

Perhaps it is a way of framing the situation - seeing artificial intelligence as a way of expansion as opposed to severance. Human time, resources and creativity will never become obsolete, but rather, technology could bolster their efforts. ‘AI should always enhance human creativity, not replace it,’ as David Wadhwani, Chief Business Officer of Adobe Digital Media, stated  in his address at the Adobe Max Opening Keynote. 

‘Transform night into day; move shadows; change the weather. It’s all possible with the latest advances in generative tech,’ Wadhwani concludes.

Ultimately, technology in art is only as good as the artist who harnesses it.