Is AI killing art?

Or are we?

👋 Hello! We’re The Z Link, a global Gen Z-led social media agency that helps brands connect with our generation. The Digital Native deconstructs the best campaigns in the Gen Z social media marketing world, so you can be the most informed marketing baddie in the office. For any feedback, questions or suggestions, just reply to this email!

Looking for a social media strategist? Book a free call with our team anytime. 😙

You know we had to talk about this. We’ve had a similar article before but this is specifically focusing on the AI and art. Why, you must be thinking, and I’ll tell you why. Because it’s getting out of hand. It started with Ghibli, then the AI doll box, and now, there is a new AI art trend every week. That right there? Dangerous territory. Let’s talk about it. 🤖

Playing the devil’s advocate

Let me start by playing the Devil’s Advocate for a quick second. I might be biased, but I’ll still play fair. It’s just morally grey journalism at its finest.

The biggest and most used argument in favour of AI art is, drum roll please, accessibility. It’s the only argument, if anything. There’s also a sub-argument within this central argument that brings up how, in the initial days of photography, it wasn’t considered ‘art’ and that anybody could do it. Which, okay, sure. The counter-argument is that you need a specific skill set to be regarded as a professional photographer vs a hobby photographer, again supporting the AI art arguments. How? Because the argument becomes “Oh, you need to learn how to write specific prompts too” or “Writing prompts is also a skill”, which I’m not denying. However, knowing what to feed a machine isn’t something you should use to call yourself an artist. 👀 Too controversial?

Now, I can agree that it is accessible, especially for small businesses that don’t have the capital to fund a proper shoot, because essentially, all you have to do is know your vision and describe it to AI. But it makes me wonder if AI is better utilised in non-creative fields. All the repetitive and mundane tasks being done by AI. Because I’d much rather AI do the dishes (and maybe mask hair out of an image, maybe) while I do all the heavy lifting in a creative job.

Now we’re going to talk some sense

With the growing support being shown to AI art, people have mostly been speaking in binaries — a major flaw of this entire discourse — because many bigger issues are largely ignored. But what are the bigger issues? Most of it is ethical regarding copyrights, trademarks, and ownership. Because for GENERATIVE AI to GENERATE ART, it needs to be fed. And I bet my bottom dollar that it’s a gluttonous beast. For all it eats, the results it produces aren’t all that good (although we’re getting to a point where it’s difficult to distinguish between human-made and AI). So the entire “putting creatives out of a job” argument becomes moot.

But let’s talk about the accessibility. Is it it truly accessible or is that just a privileged take? Because the way I see it, the easiest way to access art is to pick up a pencil and paper and just… draw. YouTube to learn how to draw and that’s free and a lot more accessible than an AI model you possibly have to pay a hefty, recurring amount for. Disability hasn’t stopped people from creating art before, so why now? Is it just laziness? Complacency to the tech overlords?

But let’s talk about a perspective I’ve only seen a few people across the board talk about…

What do you define as art?

Now, obviously, the definition is very subjective because art itself is so subjective. But there’s always a baseline, so what’s the baseline when it comes to art? Is it the process? The end product? Or does a piece need context to be considered art?

My take? It’s everything. A piece of art is always so layered. It’s like Shrek; it has layers to it. Art IS the end product, yes. But it’s also the process. The artist and context in which it was created ADD to that art. AI cannot provide that.

Art has a soul; humans add that soul to something non-existent to make it come alive. That’s why a song by Two Feet has more soul than anything AI will ever produce. You could argue that the end product made via AI can still have context because a human still had to put in the prompt. That piece was still born out of the human need to create, but ultimately, it’s a weak argument. It stole from existing pieces with other people’s souls in them. It’ll never amount to the same level as a piece made by humans.

So, no, I don’t think AI-made ‘art’ is art at all, and no, I don’t think ‘AI artists’ exist.

So, what now?

I thought back in 2023, when the initial fears of AI taking over creative fields started brewing, that because AI art might dominate, human made things would be much more valuable. It might even make people appreciate the humanities a lot more because if all you see is AI slop where Brad Pitt has 6 fingers, you’ll want that human precision back. You’d much rather see a Starbucks cup in a medieval show than, you know, Will Smith gorging on spaghetti (iykyk).

Now listen, one argument FOR AI art is the advent of filters and presets in photography. But art, even photography, is inherently human. The camera is just an AID. With AI, the machine does the work. I’m personally against AI art and think it’s making us lazy, but shaming other people wouldn’t make them change their ways because of spite.

So, do we need to be worried? Not yet, but we could do with some regulations. Art is about collaboration. You can’t collaborate with AI.

---

Thanks for reading! Stay tuned for the next issue covering latest marketing campaigns and strategies winning over Gen Z. Any questions/suggestions as to what we should cover next? Reach out to us and we’re always here to chat!

— Brought to you by Shaurya, Trends Reporter at The Z Link