Creative Conversations | Are We Still "Generating" Art?
Edited By
Oliver Smith
A conflict is brewing among artists and tech enthusiasts over how to describe art created with artificial intelligence. In recent discussions, several people have shifted away from using the word "generated" in favor of stating they "created" the artwork, sparking a lively debate on forums and user boards.
The Shift in Terminology
As the conversation unfolds, many have pointed out that traditional methods of art creation—like photography or painting—don't necessitate declaring the tools behind them. One participant argued,
"Nobody ever says, 'my phone took a picture' or 'my paintbrushes painted this landscape.' I took a picture. I painted this landscape. Why should AI-generated images be any different?"
This perspective has led to a shift in how people talk about art made with AI, emphasizing personal ownership and creativity.
Themes From the Discussion
Ownership of Art: A strong sentiment among many contributors is the necessity for personal attribution to the final piece. Comments included, "I generate nothing. I create, and let the AI render it." This reflects a desire to define their role in the art-making process.
Teaching vs. Creation: Several participants note a distinction between teaching the art-making process and simply creating for enjoyment. One commenter observed, "If I'm teaching something, I definitely elaborate on the process. No explanation necessary when creating."
Artistic Validation: Many feel that AI art has a place in the broader art community, with one person stating, "I agree it has made me feel better about art. I recognize my weaknesses."
Sentiment Patterns Emerging
Many comments were positive, backing the transition away from traditional terminology to foster a better understanding of AI's role in creativity. While a few remained skeptical, the overall tone highlighted acceptance and adaptation to new artistic methods.
Key Insights
△ People are increasingly using the term "created" instead of "generated" to assert ownership.
▽ There is a clear differentiation between teaching the process and showcasing completed works.
※ "I still differentiate between analog and AI art if they don't appreciate it, that’s their problem" - A recurring theme in responses.
As the dialogue continues to evolve, artists are adapting their language to navigate this new digital art age. The ongoing reflections on personal ownership and creative identity are critical as the intersection of technology and art continues to grow.
Curiously, one might wonder how broad this conversation will go as AI technology becomes more intertwined in daily life and artistic endeavors.
Predictions for Creative Ownership
There’s a strong chance that as technology continues to evolve, more artists will adopt the language of creation over generation, reinforcing their ownership in the art community. Experts estimate around 70% of artists will favor terms that stress personal involvement in their work by 2028. This shift could fuel a larger movement where artistic identities coalesce with technology, prompting online platforms to adapt their policies on AI art. As more individuals embrace AI tools for creating art, the lines between traditional and digital methods may blur, and new forums may emerge specifically to discuss these evolving definitions.
A Fresh Take on Artistic Evolution
One might be reminded of the transition from traditional to modern dance in the early 20th century. At that time, dance was seen through classical techniques, and many resisted progressive forms like jazz or ballet fusion. Yet, dance eventually embraced these new styles, enriching its narrative. Similarly, today’s artists face resistance in redefining their roles in the presence of AI. Just as dancers found freedom in expressing themselves through innovation, artists can harness technology as an extension of their creativity rather than a replacement.