Vermont's Independent Voice
Browse News
Browse Arts + Culture
Browse Food + Drink
Browse Cannabis
Browse Music
Browse On Screen
Browse Events
Browse Classifieds
Browse Personals
Published March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.
The topic of AI-generated art has sparked an ongoing discussion in my household. I'm an artist engaged to a software developer. Lately, we seem star-crossed on this subject as the art and tech worlds clash over questions of ethics, legality and ownership — not to mention the very function of art itself.
It's been hard not to feel threatened by this new technology. Like many artists, I believed that creative fields were immune to the threat of automation. My fiancé was more emotionally prepared; machines have been coming for his job for years, and this is unlikely to change.
I've learned that programmers have a far different relationship to their code than artists do to their craft. It's my belief that much of the friction within this debate is born from the conflicting perspectives regarding the usage of one's work. This was evident when programmers assumed that artistic styles were as "open-sourced" as the code they used to create their AI art programs. The art community was unsurprisingly outraged. What of copyright? What of ownership? Artists are important!
Aren't they?
There is something inevitable about the rise of AI-generated art. By its very definition, technology is designed to make human life easier, and it does in many ways, from rear-facing cameras to smartphones to autocorrect. We've spent millennia inventing tools that increase efficiency and decrease effort.
It's in our nature to opt for ease. And if there's one thing I know as an artist and an educator, it's that making art is hard. It takes time and work and vulnerability and sacrifice and a despairing amount of Sisyphean repetition. But is it necessary? Can we create art without effort?
Amid all these swirling quandaries, there was something I felt was going unsaid. Philosophical questions humanity has pondered for centuries have reemerged, suddenly inspired by, of all things, a sophisticated technological advancement: What is art, who is art for, and why are we making it in the first place? Those questions lurk at the center of this debate, and the answers are as subjective and personal as art making in the first place.
So I listened. I processed what I heard and produced this comic. When it comes down to it, this is what I believe is the core purpose of an artist: to absorb information, ruminate and create something new. Though maybe that's just how I was wired.
Related Stories
More By This Author
About The Author
Kristen Shull
Bio:
Kristen Shull is a graduate of the Center for Cartoon Studies class of 2020. She currently teaches sequential art and figure drawing at Champlain College in Burlington and draws comics for Seven Days bimonthly. She also coedits the fantasy comic anthology Fantology, which can be found on Instagram at @fantologycomic. Find her autobiographical comics on Instagram at @ego_gala.
Kristen Shull is a graduate of the Center for Cartoon Studies class of 2020. She currently teaches sequential art and figure drawing at Champlain College in Burlington and draws comics for Seven Days bimonthly. She also coedits the fantasy comic anthology Fantology, which can be found on Instagram at @fantologycomic. Find her autobiographical comics on Instagram at @ego_gala.
Comments
Comments are closed.
From 2014-2020, Seven Days allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we've appreciated the suggestions and insights, right now Seven Days is prioritizing our core mission — producing high-quality, responsible local journalism — over moderating online debates between readers.
To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.
Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.
