But this argument has been made over and over throughout history and was proven wrong everytime someone made it, in the subsequent years, decades and centuries. Evolution in the medium or tool never made art cheap -- in fact, it made it better. People today have access to a professional grade camera in their smartphones -- that's didn't lower the quality of video content. In fact, we are living through an explosion of high quality content. One simply can't keep up with great content coming out on YouTube, Instagram and our streaming services. Today is the era of peak TV -- great TV series are being produced, more dollars being invested, more viewership being acquired. But great movie making was never impacted negatively because all people were handed a professional camera and anyone could now shoot a video. Rather, think of these tools as a ramp -- inviting many to engage more deeply with the craft. Figma or Photoshop didn't damage design, but made it better!
It only exists because it stole the work from thousands of people who truly put the effort. Imagine if you were a digital artist for decades and someone could just type "Make a drawing of Scooby-Doo in Samir Jaju's style" and the result is nothing you would ever actually do? It's much worse and it is still connected to your name and your career. How would that make you feel? I would be pretty piss-offed. AI companies are just thieves charging for what they stole.
That is a complicated area. The original artists must be compensated in some manner, I guess? But styles are copied all the time. I'm sure existing principles of copyright can help clarify how much is due to the original artists. I don't know the answer here but if existing copyright don't protect an artistic style once it has been made public by an artist, don't think AI companies are any way in the wrong. I, as an artist, may feel bad about it, but that's how law works.
Take an absurd example: say a relative of yours is murdered. You'd feel enraged and might feel entitled to revenge. But this idea doesn't scale well to a large, modern society, hence we don't allow it. Murder done as part of revenge is still murder and is prosecuted as a new crime. Similarly, sentiments of the artists may not be relevant to operating a copyright regime for the whole society that typically aims to balance protection of intellectual property and innovation. For e.g. mechanics of board -- can't be copyrighted. Someone will copy it, sell under a new brand name, may even earn more money. You may feel bad, but that's how our existing laws works.
The point I tried to make in my first comment was about AI generated art. The OP began her essay about Studio Ghibli, but soon pivoted in general in the nature of AI generated art. She is clearly does not like art has become a commodity in the age of generative AI. I just wanted to make the point that every time a new medium or tool was developed, art did become a commodity for a while and then improved greatly in quality.
The fundamental difference lies in who makes the creative decisions. A camera does not pick itself up and shoot - you decide. Figma or photoshop don't create designs by themselves (AI features notwithstanding). The question is NOT whether the tech is helpful, the question is *who* is making the creative decisions? Tools help you make better art, but AI outputs only prove you can write a sentence piggybacking off the 10,000 hours of effort of other artists.
That's a very limited view of the decision making involved when using an AI tool. In the hands of a skilled craftsman, I'm sure, they'd making a lot of decisions while employing the AI to make their job easier. They'd be directing how AI should create the art much like a co-pilot. I can imagine many painters thinking that photoshop will make painting so accessible and cheap, that art will get degraded. It's the same logic, same argument, made countless number times in history -- well, it never proved to be true.
Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to tell nowadays.
My argument only pertains to the current instances of Ghibli art being used as filters. Not tangential cases on how a skilled craftsman would use AI, because that's not what's happening here.
Yeah, but I was replying to the point made in the blog post that this tool would lead to "everything starts feeling and looking the same" and "quality gets lost in quantity", as the author put it.
This is one of your finest writings, Sindhu. Every sentence, every line, and every word hits home. Your views strengthen the need for a wider societal discourse. By the way, I couldn't hep but notice this might be one of the very few (or the first?) publication of KindredSpirits that starts with a capital letter!
"Perhaps we need to be more precise with our language, and differentiate between ‘generating’ images and ‘creating’ art."
Yes! This is exactly what I've been thinking. How we talk about AI will define how we deal with it and how it reshapes human culture in years to come. One of the clearest essays I've read on the topic.
But this argument has been made over and over throughout history and was proven wrong everytime someone made it, in the subsequent years, decades and centuries. Evolution in the medium or tool never made art cheap -- in fact, it made it better. People today have access to a professional grade camera in their smartphones -- that's didn't lower the quality of video content. In fact, we are living through an explosion of high quality content. One simply can't keep up with great content coming out on YouTube, Instagram and our streaming services. Today is the era of peak TV -- great TV series are being produced, more dollars being invested, more viewership being acquired. But great movie making was never impacted negatively because all people were handed a professional camera and anyone could now shoot a video. Rather, think of these tools as a ramp -- inviting many to engage more deeply with the craft. Figma or Photoshop didn't damage design, but made it better!
It only exists because it stole the work from thousands of people who truly put the effort. Imagine if you were a digital artist for decades and someone could just type "Make a drawing of Scooby-Doo in Samir Jaju's style" and the result is nothing you would ever actually do? It's much worse and it is still connected to your name and your career. How would that make you feel? I would be pretty piss-offed. AI companies are just thieves charging for what they stole.
That is a complicated area. The original artists must be compensated in some manner, I guess? But styles are copied all the time. I'm sure existing principles of copyright can help clarify how much is due to the original artists. I don't know the answer here but if existing copyright don't protect an artistic style once it has been made public by an artist, don't think AI companies are any way in the wrong. I, as an artist, may feel bad about it, but that's how law works.
Take an absurd example: say a relative of yours is murdered. You'd feel enraged and might feel entitled to revenge. But this idea doesn't scale well to a large, modern society, hence we don't allow it. Murder done as part of revenge is still murder and is prosecuted as a new crime. Similarly, sentiments of the artists may not be relevant to operating a copyright regime for the whole society that typically aims to balance protection of intellectual property and innovation. For e.g. mechanics of board -- can't be copyrighted. Someone will copy it, sell under a new brand name, may even earn more money. You may feel bad, but that's how our existing laws works.
The point I tried to make in my first comment was about AI generated art. The OP began her essay about Studio Ghibli, but soon pivoted in general in the nature of AI generated art. She is clearly does not like art has become a commodity in the age of generative AI. I just wanted to make the point that every time a new medium or tool was developed, art did become a commodity for a while and then improved greatly in quality.
Mechanics of board games*.
The fundamental difference lies in who makes the creative decisions. A camera does not pick itself up and shoot - you decide. Figma or photoshop don't create designs by themselves (AI features notwithstanding). The question is NOT whether the tech is helpful, the question is *who* is making the creative decisions? Tools help you make better art, but AI outputs only prove you can write a sentence piggybacking off the 10,000 hours of effort of other artists.
That's a very limited view of the decision making involved when using an AI tool. In the hands of a skilled craftsman, I'm sure, they'd making a lot of decisions while employing the AI to make their job easier. They'd be directing how AI should create the art much like a co-pilot. I can imagine many painters thinking that photoshop will make painting so accessible and cheap, that art will get degraded. It's the same logic, same argument, made countless number times in history -- well, it never proved to be true.
Should've paid closer attention to your comment to realize it's been written by AI.
Wrote it myself.
Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to tell nowadays.
My argument only pertains to the current instances of Ghibli art being used as filters. Not tangential cases on how a skilled craftsman would use AI, because that's not what's happening here.
Yeah, but I was replying to the point made in the blog post that this tool would lead to "everything starts feeling and looking the same" and "quality gets lost in quantity", as the author put it.
This is one of your finest writings, Sindhu. Every sentence, every line, and every word hits home. Your views strengthen the need for a wider societal discourse. By the way, I couldn't hep but notice this might be one of the very few (or the first?) publication of KindredSpirits that starts with a capital letter!
Thank you for saying so sharply and eloquently what so many of us are feeling. 🙏🏻
"Perhaps we need to be more precise with our language, and differentiate between ‘generating’ images and ‘creating’ art."
Yes! This is exactly what I've been thinking. How we talk about AI will define how we deal with it and how it reshapes human culture in years to come. One of the clearest essays I've read on the topic.