Evaluating AI-Generated Art with an Unbiased Perspective

[GYG]

The debate surrounding AI-generated images on platforms like Zazzle has sparked discussions about the identity and value of creators. This article aims to refute the notion that AI-created images should be marked and removed, emphasizing the importance of evaluating artistic merit rather than perceiving AI-based creations through a biased lens.

As an innovative technology that continues to advance artistic expression, artificial intelligence (AI) has gradually entered the realm of art creation. AI-generated artworks have raised questions about the identity and value of “creators.” Some argue that these images should be labeled and removed from platforms because they are not created by humans. However, I firmly believe that artistic creations should be judged based on their quality and creativity, regardless of the creator’s identity. Therefore, we should evaluate AI-generated artworks with an unbiased perspective.

Firstly, the criteria for assessing art should be based on the uniqueness, aesthetic appeal, and artistic intention of the works themselves, rather than the identity of their creators. The power of art lies in its ability to express and evoke emotions, and whether generated by AI or humans, these works have the potential to resonate with viewers and provoke thought. It is unfair to dismiss the value of AI-generated art simply because an AI was the creator. Throughout history, artists have embraced various mediums for their creations, ranging from sculpture and painting to photography and modern digital art. AI, as an emerging medium, brings limitless possibilities to the art world, and we should welcome this new form of creativity with an open mind.

Secondly, AI-generated artworks possess their own uniqueness. AI does not create independently through algorithms alone; its training data still originates from human input. Artists provide a wealth of materials and guidance during the AI model training process, with AI serving as a tool for integration and reimagining. Hence, AI-generated works often represent a collaborative effort between humans and machines, leading to the creation of new artistic styles and forms of expression. Therefore, AI-generated art should be seen as a result of joint artistic creation between humans and AI, rather than being perceived as mere “machine products.”

Lastly, embracing the artistic innovation brought by artificial intelligence helps broaden our aesthetic horizons. AI technology can not only mimic existing art styles but also generate new and unique styles. This introduction of technology offers art fresh possibilities, sparking the imagination of artists and expanding the boundaries of creativity. Exhibiting AI-generated artworks in galleries and museums not only provides more artistic experiences for audiences but also encourages contemplation about AI ethics and technology. Thus, we should encourage the exploration and appreciation of AI-generated art to foster the exchange and progress of human culture and technology.

By approaching AI-generated art with an unbiased and open mindset, we can appreciate the inherent beauty and creativity within. The value of art should be assessed based on its quality, uniqueness, and artistic intention, rather than simply discriminating against or belittling creations because they were made by AI. Art transcends boundaries, and AI-generated artworks offer new possibilities to our aesthetic world. Let us embrace this era of innovation with an inclusive attitude.

However, it is important to not blindly accept any artwork, but rather approach it with a critical eye. In the debate surrounding AI-generated art, more dialogue and discussion are needed to form a comprehensive and well-rounded perspective, allowing us to face this issue correctly and encourage more people to do the same.

GYG nature and art

[PenguinPower]

That sounds like an AI generated critique of AI art… 

[LMGildersleeve]

OK let me just say your tags (which you’ve been told about before) need fixing. This lunchbox includes tags that have nothing to do with your design. “Pumpkin, thanksgiving, fall and autumn” are considered tag spam.

Also, though you are saying your little green monster is creative art, I’m saying it looks a lot like a mash up of two of Disney’s characters from Monsters Inc.

And lastly, you need to read this. You have to tag your AI generated designs on Zazzle.

[jadendreamer13]

Yes, it does. I have no intention of using AI to generate artwork or any associated written material. What do I bring to Zazzle, and this forum? Me. The artwork, the writing, the personality: it’s all me.

[ColsCreations]

I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this article, which was

The value of art should be assessed based on its quality, uniqueness, and artistic intention, rather than simply discriminating against or belittling creations because they were made by AI

I liken the situation to gemstones. I happen to love Mystic Topaz even though I know it’s not “real”. It’s made by applying a coating to white topaz, which is a natural occurring stone. So Mystic Topaz is both natural and man-made but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating the beauty of it. Many stones, such as rubies, sapphires, and amethyst, are commonly heat treated to alter color and improve clarity. It’s estimated that 95% of rubies on the market are treated; it’s become acceptable industry practice. So like Mystic Topaz these treated stones are both real and not real. Then we have things like lab-grown diamonds and cultured pearls (“natural” pearls are EXTREMELY rare). Both are identical to the natural occurring versions, they just didn’t occur naturally. The biggest difference with all these things is $ value/cost. The natural, unadulterated stones come with a much higher price tag because A) they are rarer and B) human psychology. People are willing to pay more for the bragging rights to saying “my ring is REAL” (and thus I dropped a bundle on it) even though the not-quite-real one next to it is just as beautiful if not more so.

When we use Photoshop on a photo we took or a painting we made, we’re heat-treating rubies, taking something natural and making it better, and that is def acceptable industry practice. (It would be hard to find a photo these days that hasn’t been edited in some way even if just to up the contrast or saturation.)
When we use AI to generate works, we’re lab-growing diamonds and seeding cultured pearls, often with heat-treating on top of that. The resulting works can be just as if not more-so eye-catching, beautiful, interesting, unique … as a 100% traditionally/naturally done art. But an awful lot of people are hung up on B, unwilling to appreciate the “uniqueness, aesthetic appeal, and artistic intention of the works themselves” solely because they were AI based creations.

For me, I believe the biggest problem is disclosure. In the gemstone world, the FTC  makes it legally necessary to disclose when things have been treated, and in the case of lab-grown stones, it has to be disclosed prior to sale and in all advertising. AI needs work in this area, any kind of law would be extremely problematic, but at least an honor-system in the creative community with folks voluntarily disclosing the origin.  I was really impressed by the OP post here, never occurred to me it might have been AI written until I read the comments so now I don’t know and feel played. Pinterest and an interior decorating group I follow on FB have been invaded by AI images. I see everything from fashion to furniture to entire rooms or houses that aren’t real and the people sharing them often don’t even realize it.

It’s always been important to me to know the origin of an art. I have zero talent for hand drawing, painting, sketching anything so have lots of admiration for those who do. So when I see something I like it’s important to me to know whether it’s their own work and how they created it, or if it’s licensed art or public domain etc. It’s not going to stop me from liking it, but it will stop me from promoting it. And now we have all the AI work complicating things more.

Second, the proliferation of free AI generators has created a tidal wave of new POD “designers” expecting to get rich quick and well, that’s another post. But I do agree with the basic of the OP post, that we shouldn’t reject AI art soley because it’s AI.

[KeeganCreations]

• I agree with the points made in the post.
• I also assume it was made by ChatGPT. Having trained on millions of blog posts and articles written by journalists, ChatGPT has acquired a certain writing style. Many humans also have this writing style, but not the OP, hence the assumption.
• I am not bothered by it having been written by ChatGPT (assuming it was) because the arguments it makes are coherent. ChatGPT excels at coherent arguments that are based on opinion. (This makes it good at coming up with product descriptions for Zazzle 😄.) It falls apart on cold, hard facts and has been known to make them up. 
• I judge art and writing in the same way- does it speak to me? Is it coherent? Humans and AI can succeed at both and fail at both so I judge on a case by case basis. 

My prediction for a future I will not live to see: I predict that we who are alive today are the last people who will be so invested in distinguishing between human and machine made. It started with the Industrial Revolution with clothes, furniture, tools and home goods. People born after the Industrial Revolution grew up accustomed to these things being machine made. Things made by hand were still considered special, but also considered the exception.

Each year more and more things could be done by machine. You didn’t have to see a play to watch humans perform. You didn’t have to see a band or orchestra to hear music. You didn’t have to cook everything from scratch (a concept that didn’t used to exist, it was merely “cooking”). And each year people were born who grew up surrounded by machine made things that their parents only knew by hand. GMO food, lab grown diamonds (thanks ColsCreations), artificial hearts, Photoshop. It has all been normed for those who grew up after each thing was invented. 

Now we are on the cusp of AI. It may be as world changing as the Industrial Revolution was and people are grappling with it as people did then. It potentially changes everything. But we now take the fruits of the Industrial Revolution for granted even though we do appreciate sometimes dabbling in the handmade or made from scratch. People not yet born will grow up in a world where AI has changed everything and they will not worry about whether something is or is not made by a human although there will be an appreciation for thigs made by humans just as we like a hand knit sweater even though everything else we wear was machine made and we don’t care.

ChatGPT did not contribute to this post but it has contributed to some of my product descriptions.

[chefcateringbiz]

Customers really aren’t that picky. It’s really all about exposure. Doesn’t matter if it’s the greatest human art of all time, if it’s the green AI-generated monster gets the exposure instead, then it’s likely it gets the sales. There’s no reason to be or not to be biased. I like making my own designs, and really couldn’t care less what everybody else is doing. Probably the majority of people here are better designers than I am. So what? Better at marketing. So what? This is a hobby. If I get paid, I’m happy and will continue. If I don’t, then I’ll find something else to do.

[Barbara]

The single thing AI will never be able to generate is its own soul, and when it comes to the arts–all of them–it’s the soul that shines through. it isn’t just visual now being synthesized but also music and writing, all three having lost that extra little special something. Sadly, as each new generation comes of age, they’ll be less capable of recognizing the soul of art, the humanity in it. I’ve used high-end music software for a number of years, and with it, I can get it to “create” music, but it’s missing all the nuance of a human creation. Might as well play a metronome. And that’s how I see all of AI as it currently is: it’s a metronome. But what if people end up not having heard or seen anything other than a metronome? Will they not turn into metronomes themselves?

And who, by the way, are we reacting to in this thread? A person or an AI-generated collection of ideas taken from here and there?

Colorwash's Home

[KeeganCreations]

We’re reacting to the OP (and each other). Just because he told ChatGPT to make a post that argued points x,y,z doesn’t mean those aren’t his points. ChatGPT just arranged them in a journalistic format.

[Barbara]

That was a side comment concerning irony, not my main point at all.

Colorwash's Home