When Stephen Marche says”creative A.I. is going to change everything” I presume he refers to the future of Art through Artificial Intelligence ,With the help of A.I. there is a new form of art being introduced which is adapting to the modern day world and technology.A.I. has the ability to change the form of art being used .

“It’s also going to change nothing” indicates that A.I. can be used to generate art only to an extend. Marche describes how it was too complex for the author to articulate few writers work to the computer providing that not all artist have the vision and capability to produce art even with the help of an A.I. Its also going to change nothing as physical experience offers more to a person rather than a digital work. for instance ,visiting a museum provides us a learning environment ,it allows us to appreciate the art and gives a glimpse of the artists vision, seeing the pop of colours makes a certain space in our brain and an experience of visiting a museum becomes a long term memory which we are unable to experience online . The use of A.I can be both a boon and a bane.

A.I.-generated art should equally be considered art as it is the expression of human creativity in the form of visual arts. Living in the 21st century we humans are following the law of nature -human adaptation, and A.I. can be considered as a non-biological part of adaptation.Artificial Intelligence itself is an art created by humans and cannot be denied .Art can be described to express emotion and an artist is someone who is capable of creating that emotion ,be it with the help of an A.I. or a paintbrush .A.I.-generated art gives the artist an opportunity to bring his vision to life by simply describing his or her ideas which is the case with Mr Jason M Allen’s ”Theatre D’opera Spatial”.

The artist’s concerns about this innovations are not exaggerated was due to new advanced technology A.I. has made everything simpler, knowing the capability of Artificial Intelligence is fascinating at the same time also concerning as it may lead to unemployment and lack of physical skill.

AI has been around for quite a few years, recently getting a bunch of negative and positive feedback. Most people think that its the best thing to ever exist, while others may think the complete opposite, bickering over the good and bad aspects of AI. When Stephen Marche said “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing”, he meant that AI is a useful yet useless tool. Its a blessing and a curse at the same time. While you can tell it to generate a perfect few paragraph summary about a book you just read, it will also generate a picture of a mutated dog at times.

I feel like AI can be considered art in its own way, however I believe it also shouldn’t be allowed to compete with hand made art projects. The problem with AI art is that it takes away creativity from people. Now people could just write out a thought and that picture comes to life in a flash. Most times the reason why people are fascinated with complex art is because of the challenge and dedication that came behind it. If everyone were to be able to do something then it wouldn’t be as valuable. I feel like artists have every right to be upset, especially when they work hard for their artwork and it ends up being subpar to something that was made by AI in a matter of seconds.

I feel that A.I.-generated art should not be considered art. A.I generated art is something that takes little to no effort from humans, whilst being generated by artificial intelligence, artificial being a key word here. It shouldn’t be considered art because art is something that humans use to express themselves. So, where is the human expression within A.I generated art? Sure it can be seen within the prompts given to A.I from humans, but thats simply just a few words put together to form a demand given to a computer to do all the work. For example, photoshop, digital art, digital art manipulation are all still considered art. They are still using human expression, human effort, not entirely made up by A.I at all. While Jason M Allen had good intentions for his A.I product of “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial”, it didn’t have a positive execution, or all around positive reaction from social media. One of the points of A.I is to come off as realistic and human made, but it isn’t. Its deceiving, and artificial. It shouldn’t be considered art because it is missing the human creativity part of it, the human effort. Artist’s concerns about this innovation are not exaggerated. I feel that they have a point, because now, their own art might get diminished because of new technology. Art has existed for ages, its one of the most beautiful things about human ideas and creations. A.I has already begun to take over many human roles in the world today, jobs for example. Artist’s are have talent that should be appreciated, but how will we appreciate it if A.I is doing all the artificial work by itself, to deceive us humans, and take credit for other people’s authentic work.

Throughout history things always seem to change “the one only constant in life is change” Heraclitus once said. There will always be new resources as time goes on. While I believe that A.I-generated art is scary, I believe that it should be considered art with the knowledge that art takes on different forms. While I am aware that this is scary for artists who upload their work I disagree when they state that they are “unwittingly helping to train their algorithmic competitors.” I don’t believe that there is a difference as to when someone else stumbles onto their work and takes inspiration from their art to create their own interpretation. As long as the artwork presented is authentic and not a duplicate I believe that it is art as it came from an idea or vision just like how any other art process starts. New innovations always come with concerns. It is inevitable and I believe it is reasonable we are in a century where technology is evolving faster and just like many other inventions there will always be a group of people that are negatively impacted for example with new software helping people do there own taxes efficiently and without the help of a third party many accountants have had to turn to different areas in there field. I believe that it will always boil down to how adaptable and flexible we are willing to be.

Jason M. Allen, winner of Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition has caused an uproar in the artist community due to his winning piece being entirely created by an AI art generator midjourney. It has sparked the question should AI art be considered real art?

Throughout history, new mediums and technology in the art world have tended to cause controversy among the artists of the time. In the 19th century, the invention of the camera was seen as an aberration of true human artistry, in more recent times when digital art tools became more widespread, it was seen as inferior compared to traditional art. Unlike its predecessors AI-generated art isn’t used as a tool to aid the person making the art, instead it’s being purely produced by an algorithm. An algorithm that works by being fed large quantities of data in which it scours the internet for photos, pictures, illustrations, etc to learn to identify patterns and themes. This can be seen as a form of art theft and plagiarism as anyone who posts their art online can find their art stolen and replicated by AI. Since AI can replicate and create faster and cheaper than a human many artists believe this is the end of art as we know it.

While I do believe their fear is valid as it’s more than likely many if not all artists are going to be put out of work due to AI being cheaper and faster- seeing as most companies appear to only about the bottom line- I don’t believe it can ever fully replace human art. Art is made to be much more than just an end product you can commercialize, it’s how we as humans express ourselves. It is how we convey our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Art cannot be art without humanity, it is what makes us human, and art special. So no I do not believe AI art is real art. AI cannot feel, it cannot express, it is but soulless imitation.

References: Roose, K. (2022, September 2). An a.i.-generated picture won an art prize. artists aren’t happy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html

Technology is always advancing, and it does so faster than most people comprehend. Within recent years, new A.I. has emerged which allows people to create their own visuals by typing a simple prompt into an A.I. generator. This development has created turmoil among artists. Is this type of art generation valid? Can it really be considered art? Some artists argue that it should not be considered art and that any A.I. generated submissions should be disqualified from competitions. Other artists say that the time for technological art has come and the time for human or camera-made art has gone. I believe that A.I. generated art should still be considered art even if people say it’s taking the easy way out. While it may not be as difficult, time consuming, or skillful, I believe A.I. art should be recognized as such. It is a chance to show how far we’ve come with technology in such little time, and also shows the difference between lines of code and a steady hand. While A.I produces beautiful images, it can’t do everything a human does yet. That is why I believe it should still be considered art and why it should be valid in art competitions. It is a challenge to other artists to show what years of experience can do against a non sentient being.

Artists have shown concern about the revolutionary class of A.I. generated art. They believe it will challenge and outshine their work just as the camera did to hand paintings and sculptures. While this concern is valid, it does not permit the ostracizing of A.I. art. Hand paintings and sculptures are still extremely popular and have been classified as their own type of art. Just as cameras were insulted but now widely accepted, I believe that A.I. art will follow the same path. We will come to realize that both types can live in harmony. Is art not in the eye of the beholder? Does art have a set definition and parameters? Everyone has their own ideas of what they consider “art.” Some people align in their ideas, some don’t. I believe that A.I. will become its own genre of art and live alongside hand-created or camera-taken art. While it is true that people will argue over which type of art is true, I believe that the utilization of A.I. to generate art will not disrupt or overshadow the status of paintings, sculptures, or camera art. Rather, I believe that its future will be akin to the camera, and over time, become widely accepted as an artistic tool.