Artificial Intelligence – Is there a place for it in the creative industry?

From the appearance of numerous filters on social media to the increasing popularity of art generators like Midjourney and Lensa, it’s no secret that A.I. generated art has recently been on the rise. For many, it’s a fascinating new feature that can help create beautiful pieces regardless

An over-sexualized image of Melissa Heikkilä generated by Lensa

of skill level. But, for some others, it’s a harmful practice that can be detrimental to their livelihoods.

Since its release, Lensa, a photo editing app under Prisma Labs, has been garnering criticism from both artists and users alike. Lightening dark skin and producing semi-nude images of fully-clothed

women are just a couple of the issues users have faced when using the app. In one instance, Melissa Heikkilä of MIT Technology Review decided to test out the program with her colleagues. While her male colleagues received realistic and admirable images from the generator, 30% of Melissa's generated images were half-nude or depicted her in a sexual manner. Many of her female colleagues results were similar, though being of Asian heritage seemed to be a factor in the production of generic, overly-sexual images. However, the most widely debated issue of art generating programs like Lensa lies with ethics.

To understand the full issue, it’s necessary to know how artificial intelligence generally works. David Holz, the founder of one of the most popular programs, Midjourney, shared how it functions: “It’s just a big scrape of the Internet. We use the open data sets that are published and train across those.” If you put that into context, this means that art generator software like Lensa and Midjourney produce art through combing through the web for artwork, then train themselves through imitation of the art it comes across.

---

The arguments against this transformative technology

To many frustrated artists, this is the same as theft, and the cheap price of Lensa undermines the work that artists put into pieces of similar appearance. For $7.99, Lensa can create 50 different portraits, vastly cheaper than most artist commissions which generally start at a couple hundred dollars on the low end. When prompted about these concerns, Holz replied that “There isn’t really a way to get a hundred million images and know where they’re coming from,” and that “[Midjourney hasn’t] encountered anyone who wants their name taken out of the data set that [they] could actually find in the data set,” Though I’m not well-versed in the mechanics of AI, I’m aware that numerous artists have asked for their works to be taken out of these programs to no avail, and at this point, the founder of a major program has admitted that his software has stolen millions of artworks from the internet.

What’s worse is that artists are losing money. A large majority of artists earn money through commissions, but when many of their clients turn to the cheaper option of art generators, it takes a toll on finances. Karla Ortiz, a concept artist, tells CBC, “‘I have a friend of mine from Romania. She was telling me a lot of illustrators there do a lot of work for musicians, and they're losing out now. They're cancelling commissions left and right because a lot of these musicians are just using [AI-generated art] as covers.’”

Due to the much cheaper cost, many organizations have turned to using AI rather than commissioning artists, not to mention the much lower wait time. For those not looking for quality over quantity, AI is the clear option.

---

But there are benefits

Let’s not wholly discredit AI users. On the other hand, there’s the question of how artificial intelligence could benefit the creative industry. According to Holz, Midjourney’s primary mission is to “expand the imaginative powers of the human species,” making humans more imaginative rather than turning us into “imaginative machines”.

In one way, AI programs could be seen as just another tool for artists to use to further their craft. As put by Benjamin Wolff in his article, ‘Why The Creative Economy Shouldn’t Fear Generative A.I.’, when cameras were invented in 1839 by Louis Daguerr, “The enthusiasm for his invention, the daguerreotype, was immediate and off the charts.” Paul Delaroche, another painter from the time, claimed, “From today, painting is dead!” after witnessing the new invention. However, almost 200 years later, painting is still around, and cameras have brought a whole other type of art to life. So how can this similar situation be applied to what’s happening today?

As an artist myself, I know all too we

ll the struggles of the initial planning process of each piece. Prompt based art generators could help artists with generating ideas and speeding up the creative process, or with aspects of pieces they struggle to bring to life, like confusing perspectives or intricate backgrounds. A quick prompt put into a generator could save hours of brainstorming and frustration, and allow artists to put their time into something more time-efficient.

A landscape background created by an AI generator

For concept designers, art generators could rapidly speed up their process. Rather than meticulously drawing hundreds of designs, many of which will be discarded, an art generator could be used to quickly generate initial ideas, then be built off of using the artist’s own thoughts, which would primarily save on time. On the other hand, since AI art programs use existing work to produce new pieces, it’s possible that the produced designs would not be original, and therefore ineffective for unique characters or designs.

For comic artists, drawing backgrounds is a largely time consuming task; one which they can’t afford to spend too much time on. Using AI software, quick backgrounds could be created with little effort, or used as an initial sketch for inspiration, though the issue of originality would still be present.

---

On Balance

In regards to my own stance, I lean more towards the side that most artists are on. Though I have little experience with my own work being stolen with no credit, I’ve seen too many artists have their pieces they’ve tirelessly worked on be taken by companies without permission for no profit. I do agree that AI could be used to benefit artists, however, with the way that these programs function, I’m not able to confidently say that I would be content with essentially stealing others’ hard work for my own benefit.

Regardless, AI will continue to develop at a rapid rate whether we like it or not. Artists will have to adapt to this new technology and move forward in an industry where the use of AI is highly integrated. But really, it may not be as bad as many think. The likelihood is, the majority of people will still rely on artists for commissions. At this point in time, AI art is nowhere near the level that professional artists are, with visible flaws in most pieces. Unless these generators get to a point where they can perfectly apply copied styles into a flawless piece, artists will continue to be a fundamental piece in the industry for many years to come.

I won’t condone those who enjoy using art generators, but I encourage those who do to understand where their pieces are coming from, as well as to be aware that they may not have full credit over the work that they’ve created through these generators. After all, the beautiful work produced through a single click could be the product of long hours of practice from numerous artists.