Thousands of artists are urging the auction house Christie’s to cancel a sale of art created with artificial intelligence, claiming the technology behind the works is committing “mass theft”.

The Augmented Intelligence auction has been described by Christie’s as the first AI-dedicated sale by a major auctioneer and features 20 lots with prices ranging from $10,000 to $250,000 for works by artists including Refik Anadol and the late AI art pioneer Harold Cohen.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    AI is a red herring, in my opinion.

    Some artists have spent over a century trying to one-up each other to the bottom, starting with Dadaism and even before that (anyone remember Salieri’s populist operettas?). It’s got to a point, where a black square on a canvas, or a banana taped to a wall, got called “art”.

    Other artists, have been trying to transmit emotions and feelings through their work, using whatever tools at their disposal. Be it through words, paints, shapes, interactions, etc. With more or less success, but they’ve been trying.

    An AI is another tool, like a camera is a tool, a brush is a tool, a chisel is a tool, a keyboard/typewriter is a tool, and so on. People can use their tools to produce low effort trash… or they can put effort and thought into what they want to transmit.

    Good AI art, takes the same or more effort as good non-AI art, to make the AI produce what the artist intends. Retouching parts of the output, either with more AI or some other tools, refining or retraining the whole model, creating complex prompts to make the tool output something closer to the artist’s vision. That vision, is the core of the art.

    Low effort AI art, is mindless theft, no dispute there, good for quick memes and little more.

    Thoughtful AI art, is a conversation between an artist, and a tool with massive experience in observing other’s art, in order to extract the essence of what they can apply to their own. An AI works best as a brain extension, capable of reading all the books, seeing all the paintings and photos, watching all the movies, listening to all the sounds and songs, way beyond what’s possible in a single human lifespan. Then it’s the artist’s job to sift through that.

    Focusing on just the “AI” part, does a disservice to the whole art community. Focus on the person instead… and if they’ve put no effort, then go ahead, feel free to laugh at the “art”, no matter which tools they’ve used… unless they admit to be still learning, in which case some encouragement and tips might be a better way.

    • turdburglar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      chisels, brushes, and cameras don’t train on the existing work of humans and then “create” art. they are actual tools. ai is not able to do anything without training on and directly taking from the work of others.

      if i’m inspired by dalí and rothko i can make work that references them, or even steals from them but my hand is also undeniably involved. ai is not inspired by works, it is trained on them for the purpose of copying. it’s stealing in the laziest possible way and can’t possibly include the hand of the maker because there isn’t one.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Under this logic you should pay royalties to the maker of your brush and the teachers who taught you. Maybe not everything is about owning shit.

        • LANCESTAAAA@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          I mean typically you buy the brushes and pay for the teaching one way or the other. AI isn’t paying any artist for training upon their work.