How AI Short-Circuits Art
When we cut out creative processes, we diminish what gives art its true value.
This year, the ad agency Design Army created an entire campaign using only generative AI. In it, models seem to stand in surreal sci-fi landscapes. A world of impossible buildings, floating hats, and gigantic eyeballs announces the opening of a high-end eyewear retailer.
As Design Army cofounder Pum Lefebure explained to Fast Company, “in a typical project like this, she would hire models, makeup artists, and wardrobe specialists, scout and secure shoot locations, and ultimately it would take at least three months to execute.” But the budget was tight and time was short, so they turned to AI. Though there’s a touch of uncanny valley in the resulting imagery, the visuals are impressive. The campaign appears as if it took a long list of artists to create it.
Always aiming for faster output and grander scale, leaders across industries are excited about the potential for this new tech. But AI technology raises real concerns for the creatives whose original work could be replaced or copied by these tools. Books are being used to train text generators to write like modern authors. Illustrators and photographers are filing lawsuits over copyright infringement as AI-generated images appropriate artists’ unique styles. Songs are being released that synthesize the likenesses of musicians without their consent. This growing threat of replacement is one reason why screenwriters and actors went on strike this fall.
As an art director and illustrator, I am quick to point out (and relish) the current shortcomings of generative AI. But I know that, as with all technology, its performance will improve. What it does poorly now it will do brilliantly in the future—and people are already …