Why AI Art Sucks - ISSUE 002

And why it really isn't "art" at all.

Before we begin, I want to say that “AI Art” is a bit of a misnomer. To understand why, let’s take a look at a couple of the leading definitions of “art”.

From Merriam-Webster:

art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

With this in mind, I’ll get into my objection to AI images being categorized as art. Although we can pick apart this definition to its bones and find, I feel, many more reasons to reject AI images being filed under it, for the sake of brevity I’ll choose only one component: “the conscious use of skill”.

Honestly, the idea of consciousness deserves its own post—but for now I’ll hope we can all agree that computers are not conscious. Modern computers are complex, and with the rise of quantum computing are rapidly progressing in their efficiency and quantitative capabilities, but however intricate an algorithmic network may be, it is always following the instructions it has been given. It is not consciously thinking.

We’re more than complicated computers!

I hear often that the brain is simply a complex computer, and I’m sure you hear it, too. But the truth is—and this is something I see greater evidence of every day as I’ve entered the field of neuroscience research—that this absolutely fails in all respects to capture the truth of our neuronal networks’ functionality.

[If you want to read more, I found a really non-scientist-friendly article here ]

As far as our scientific understanding has progressed, I feel it’s absolutely unfounded to ascribe any form of consciousness to a computer—in all honesty, I think the commonality of that idea today springs more so from an emotional, sort of primitive “if communicating with me, then how not ALIVE?!” feeling rather than any sort of fundamental understanding of computational and neurological functioning.

TLDR: “The computers are becoming conscious!” is pop-pseudoscience.

---

Let’s look at another definition of art, this time from Oxford Languages:

art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

To start with a subjective, admittedly logically-invalid counter (and I think some of you will agree with me on this): AI art is generally ugly and emotionless. More on that in another post.

Of course, AI images’ appearances have nothing to do with the argument at hand. But boy, is that ugly.

Much more important is the definition’s specification of “human creative skill”.

Human.

Human.

You might say: “Wait! But we made computers! So it is human creative skill and imagination!”

To this I’ll say: You’re right that human creative skill and imagination are at play here. But the human creative skill and imagination are found not in whatever the program has happened to spit out, but in the (unfortunate) creation of the generative AI programs. The minds that made these programs are in no way made the proxy “artists” of the generated images.

So that leads us to our conclusion: AI images are not art.

They’re unconscious products of code—mere pattern recognition, minus any comprehension of subject matter.

---

“AI art is just like digital art—it’s just a new tool!”

Oh, dear.

Ohhhhhhhhhh, dear.

You know, this one doesn’t even need a rhetorical response—just give them your iPad and say “Go on. Do the thing. Make art.”

It would be negligent of me to ignore the many facets of digital art that diminish the extent of the artist’s input (easily being able to trace using layers, using brushes with pre-patterned hair, using mirroring tools to automatically make your art symmetrical)—it is true that there are ways for digital artists to “cut corners” (and it’s for this reason that I’ve chosen to avoid any of these shortcuts in my own processes—but that’s another discussion).

It would be even more negligent to conflate the use of stamps and layers in digital art programs with punching “hot vampire dude” into Midjourney and wiping the sweat off your brow from the arduous journey of creation you’ve just endured.

In short, the concept of “AI Artists” is pathetic and embarrassing. They are no more involved in the creation of art than are the people who commission you to create art and describe what they want you to make.

---

Alright, enough with the morality. What about the practical consequences of AI art?

If you’re reading this, I’m sure you are no stranger to the cutthroat grapple that is the art industry.

The use of AI art isn’t just a matter of convenience. It’s a matter of livelihood.

Even as someone who works as an artist only part-time, I’ve felt the bite of the growing popularity of AI images. I’ve seen music venues I used to make fliers for turn to AI images. I’ve seen bands I used to make cover art for turn to AI images. And to my full-time artist friends, the effect has been all the more grave.

Not to mention the brash art theft that’s at play in stable diffusion—AI models are actively being trained on artists’ intellectual property and mindlessly regurgitating it with no regard to the artists’ rights. If you’ve posted your art on social media, there’s a hefty chance it’s been swallowed by an AI model and used to train it.

---

If we don’t consciously make spaces for art, the artistic profession will die.

A lot of the people using AI images say they don’t want to, but it just makes more financial sense. It’s cheaper. And that’s true—it is cheaper. But it’s not just cheaper monetarily; it’s cheaper in its inherent value.

And let’s not forget that a lack of funds is by no means the only circumstance in which we see AI images. Even massively successful groups are turning their backs on hiring artists—including artists themselves! Take a look at Tears for Fears’ cover art for their 2024 album ironically named Songs For A Nervous Planet:

Don’t you hate it when leaves melt into the buttons of your astronaut suit?

And if that rubs you the wrong way, that’s because it should. We’re called to support each other (especially as artists) and consider how our actions will affect others—not take the easy way out.

But regardless of whether it’s used or not, human-made art will always be inherently more valuable than AI-generated images, no matter how “bad” the art is, by nature of it being a conscious creation.

Even if the art in question is a tiny stick-man on a Sticky Note—it’s a creative product of a living mind. It’s a culmination of your emotions. The way you hold your pen. All the past drawings of stick-men you’ve seen before that still hang out in the back of your head.

It’s yours.

And no machine can, or ever will, surpass that.

But the fact of the matter is that fighting against technology that’s cheaper (and bows down to whatever the prompt-writer asks of it) is a difficult undertaking that necessitates firm resistance—and whether that means spreading the word about the harm AI images do, or continuing to create, you’re helping.

So take up your weapons and draw!