Dispelling Misinformation

I started using AI in my art practice a few years ago. I came across an article about Playform, and joined their artist studio. I had no idea how much I would love it, I was moving towards a glimmer of something catching the light, to see what it was. It felt reflective and magical, and it fit right into my work.
My affections towards technology are at least partially genetic. When I look at the familial lineup of mechanics, tinkerers, technology enthusiasts, information lovers, and wonder seekers, I shouldn’t be surprised. Many of the people close to me weren’t afraid of technology or people or ideas. And I mention this because it did surprise me when people reacted with fear and suspicion about my use of artificial intelligence in my art. (this was even before 2022 and the text-to-image cultural phenomenon)

As of now, everyone has pretty much heard SOMETHING about creative AI tools - but what they’ve heard is mostly misinformation and clickbaity opinion pieces aimed at getting a reaction. As a trained professional artist with a master’s degree, and with education in art therapy, art history, everything studio art, fine art, design and photography. Traditional media and new media, analog, digital, philosophy of art, ethics… and decades of experience, I’m absolutely qualified to speak on this.

I feel like I’m shouting facts into the wind sometimes, but then someone listens in and gets it, and it’s AWESOME. Because these tools are full of wonder, they are great for exploration, reflection, and I believe they have an immense capacity for healing and moving us forward.

One of the things I’m shouting - creative AI tools don’t “steal” other artists’ work and implement them into a kind of collage. That’s not how the AI tools work at all.

To explain in a relatable manner how they do work, I want you to imagine an art student, going with their class, to a museum, to study impressionist paintings. They look, they make sketches, they study them to figure out what makes them impressionist paintings, how the paintings were made, what they were made with, when they were made… they learn the concepts of what makes up impressionist paintings. Now, all of those students leave the museum and go to a painting studio, where they’re told to paint something in the style of an impressionist painting. Do they pull out paintings and copy them? Do they look at photographs of paintings and copy them? Or do they draw upon the concepts that they learned in order to make choices about color, composition, materials, etc.? When they reference these concepts, are they infringing upon some artist’s rights, living or deceased? No.

Another example - If you handed a group of people all some crayons and asked them to draw an apple, they could probably do it. Some might be red, some green, some more round, or some with spots, but everyone understands the concept of an apple. No one draws a bird or even another fruit. Those things are not part of the concept of “apple”, and the concept of an apple is so well trained in our minds that we don’t need an apple to be present to draw one.

Training isn’t stealing, and the original pieces of information that were studied are no longer present after training.