Is Ai the Death of Art?

There are those in the creative arts community who are terrified that the incorporation of Ai into the creative arts will be the death of art as we know it.

To those screaming "the sky is falling", here is my response. I am hesitant to use the word "never" but I think I'm safe with this one - Ai will never replace your own creativity.

If an artist is confident in their own ideas and creativity, then they should not be threatened by Ai.

We have all been using forms of Ai in our creative processes for a long time. If you use Photoshop (or other image processing) you are already using AI. Photoshop has expanded the creative possibilities in photography in unimaginable ways. To discount that fact and refuse to use Photoshop is robbing yourself of tremendous creative abilities.​​ 

I saw digital photography coming of age back in the early 2000s and I could see that it would completely dominate at some point, but I had to wait several years for it to finally got to a level where it was usable for me in terms of image resolution quality.

Now, that digital has fully come of age and is completely dominating the world of photography, I fully embrace it because it allows me to do so much more creatively than I could ever do using film. 

Digital photography does not in any way restrict or minimize my creativity, on the contrary, it dramatically expands my creativity. I had ideas decades ago in college for creating photographic art with multiple images and adding and subtracting components to my visual creation much like painters can do. But I could not execute those ideas because of the limitations of film.

Since becoming competent with Photoshop, I have been able to create photographic works of art that combine up to 10 photographs into a single image that looks completely like real life. I can create photographs that are far superior to unedited images using Lightroom - by using dehaze, vibrance, shadow, contract, saturation, and more. The images are often closer to reality that I see with my eye than what the camera is limited to. HDR is a good example.

I've met photographic "purists" who think that any digital image manipulation is a "sin". To which I reply, "what do you think Ansel Adams was doing in the darkroom?" He was manipulating his images using the technology available to him to improve his images - punching the contrast, bringing up the shadow detail, getting richer blacks - exactly what we can do in Photoshop or Lightroom now (in seconds rather than hours).

​Sure, if you use AI to create an image from scratch and then do nothing else - you're not really creating. But even starting with an AI generated image requires skill and understanding how to use and manipulate prompts to create an image you envisioned.
​
​And if you use Ai to add components to an original photo and modifying them, then you're doing what a painter does - just using a different tool. 
​
​Selective acceptance of technology is silly. Where do we draw that line? A camera is technology, so is film, so is digital, so is AI, and several other aspects of photography. The same goes for painting - paint, canvas, pen and ink, and paint brushes are all technological creations. Artists readily embrace all these as part of their CREATIVE process - but then decide that AI isn't allowed?

It is not dissimilar to the Luddites or Amish who adopted all kinds of technologies, but then refused to accept newer ones. A buggy is OK, but a car is not. What?

Back to my comment about the word "never". I remember an experience in the late 80’s when personal PCs were just coming of age. Up until then, to have a brochure or ad typeset for printing you had “spec the type” (style, font, point size, etc.) then take that to a professional “typesetter” (service bureau) for output. Then you would paste up the copy and photos would be stripped in by the printer.

I remember one day commenting to the typesetter about setting the type on my own computer. His reply was “those little PCs will NEVER replace professional typesetting”. Six months later his services were obsolete, as I could create the full design and layout in PageMaker on my Mac SE and take that file directly to the printer.

The same is true now. Ai is rapidly being adopted and integrated into many creative processes. It is here to stay.

It is hypocritical to use a computer and Photoshop to create, then use the internet and search engine algorithms to promote your work - and then moan about Ai.

Again, if you use AI to fully create art and do nothing else. Then, yeah, it like cheating. But that is seeing a very small slice of a much bigger picture.
​
​What we SHOULD be doing is learning how to use AI to our maximum creative benefit, rather than dismissing it (without really understanding it) as if it is somehow usurping our creativity.