6 Comments
Feb 27, 2023·edited Feb 27, 2023Liked by Elnora Fareman

I've been thinking about AI art plenty over these last few months, watching the explosion of improvement in the space very curiously. Two trailing thoughts come to mind...

1) I think in full cinema HD. Scenes, framing, panning shots, visual texture and detailing everywhere I want to 'look'. My partner has aphantasia. While his inner sphere of creativity is livelier than mine, he and I don't 'speak the same language' when it comes to sharing our creative thoughts. We tabletop roleplay, spending a lot of time languishing in the space where he explains and I struggle to imagine. As these tools have evolved, I've personally encouraged him to explore AI art generation tools to bring to life ideas of his own in visual ways that I can better understand.

2) "If anyone can type in a prompt asking for an image in my style for $10 per month ... then why would anyone ever again pay me a commission to make my art?" I've heard this in a few different places and my honest reaction is always: Were they really ever going to commission said artist? As I entered the professional visual art space, I often thought to myself: what happens when someone sees my style and creates copy-cats? You sell a painting for $500? I'll do it for $50. Part of my journey was accepting (or at least trying to accept) that that's out of my control. While I've got pretty mixed feelings about the use of images for training data (how is feeding an AI a selection of images different than when I trawl through publicly posted art for inspiration?), I don't fundamentally see how AI art is different than paying an entirely different artist to imitate a style for less money than it costs to commission the original artist.

Ultimately I think it will come down to how these tools are litigated in courts for commercial use - I do not think AI art is ever leaving the personal use domain now. 🤔

Expand full comment