Artificial Intelligence (AI) has taken over the internet over this past year, and this takeover has spread to the creation of art. Artificial intelligence is not something new to our society, and despite its short history, AI and computers have changed the way humans perceive what’s around them. Starting with the invention of computers to the online usage of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence has helped humans evolve and create. Recently, on social media, the art community has been in discord with the usage of artificial intelligence to create art.

What are those on social media saying?

Sonnylikescows, an artist on TikTok, posted about the controversy early last month. “But AI makes art accessible to those with disabilities!” While some might argue that this is true, Vincent Van Gogh had temporal lobe epilepsy, a brain lesion (most likely aggravated by his use of absinthe in his art) as well as bipolar disorder, which are both now categorized as disabilities. Michelangelo, famously known for his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, despite mobility issues, continued creating iconic art until his old age, showcasing resilience despite his disability. The artist struggled with gout and osteoarthritis, which regularly caused him trouble using his hands and experienced pain almost daily, which limited his mobility. Yet, he still managed to bring countless works of art to the world, chiseling and painting until he was over 80 years old. 

What are artists saying? (What is art) 

Independent animator Ruth Stella Lingford is a senior lecturer of Art, Film, and Visual Studies, and her films have been broadcast by Channel 4 in the UK and have won many awards worldwide. Lingford’s opinion on AI is that “Generally speaking, AI does threaten jobs in the animation industry… But it will also be a collaborator.” When the hypothetical for AI to be trained “on her style” was proposed to Lingford, she saw how this could be useful but was not personally interested in the idea. She revels in the repetitiveness of animating and states that it “gives [her] access to a less conscious, intentional side of the creative process, which I think makes the work richer and more nuanced.” Can AI replicate this? Lingford says that, in a way, it could. By “melding… images from different sources, with large elements of the random, [AI] closely approximates some aspects of the creative process.” Artists look for and find inspiration from all different sources– the real world, others’ works, and sources from the internet. AI, as some would describe, meticulously meshes and blends found ideas into one picture, video, etc, like a human would. While AI is limited to the digital realm, it can tap into the real world from what is present of it online. What AI can’t recreate, however, is the emotion, intention, and precious time put into manmade art. But as a collaborator, could AI be useful? When Lingford talked to other artists at a film festival about utilizing AI, many said to “ride the shark”– harness its power without it getting out of control. If used to ease the more repetitive aspects of animation specifically, AI could be a useful collaborator. Lingford states, “I don’t suppose that animated films made entirely by AI would be very successful, but used with human guidance throughout the process, they could probably work very well,” (The Harvard Gazette).

Mixed-media artist and art professor Matt Saunders says that, in regards to AI, “we should be grateful to be challenged and knocked out of our habits and assumptions.” This struggle or allegiance (depending on how you look at it) against or with AI has the possibility of producing lots of great work from artists. Depicting this struggle or unity is a basis for inspiration, and, as Saunders states, “Art means what we ascribe to it.” It is a “conversation” about what the artist intended and what the viewer interprets (The Harvard Gazette). AI art is still being brought into the world by a person with some motivation and intention. Does the fact that the finished product was not made by a human hand painting, drawing, or clicking a mouse to produce something– the fact that significant human time and effort is absent– discount the work? Ultimately, it’s up to the viewer to decide. Can one see emotion in an art piece made by an emotionless machine with an emotional person behind it? Does emotion need to be present in the artist for it to be considered art?

What effects are there on the environment?

Past the issue of whether AI art is creatively valid is the question of whether its cost is worth it. “The computational power required to train generative AI models… can demand a staggering amount of electricity, which leads to increased carbon dioxide emissions and pressures on the electric grid.” The main perpetrators of this energy consumption are the AI data centers. There are many already established data centers, such as those of Amazon, and they are not a new thing, with centers dating back to the 1940s. The difference with AI data centers is the amount of power they consume, with them consuming “seven or eight times more energy than a typical computing workload” (MIT News). This is then amplified by the efforts of making these programs suitable for “real-world applications”– which includes attempts to extend AI to millions. Researchers estimate that a ChatGPT query consumes about five times more electricity than a simple web search. 

Additionally, electricity isn’t the only resource needed to run these servers– water is needed as well. A “great deal” of it is required to cool the machinery and keep programs running. The amount of water used “can strain municipal water supplies and disrupt local ecosystems” (MIT News), and there doesn’t seem to be a sign of stopping. AI is only getting more popular, and thus, more companies are interested in hopping on the bandwagon. It seems like every week, a new AI program is released or improved from an existing one, consuming more resources and putting the old ones (namely electricity) used to run previous programs to waste. 

Early this year, on TikTok, an AI filter that turned a photo into a Studio Ghibli character. Hayao Miyazaki, a Japanese artist and animator (known for his work in the studio), commented on the usage of ChatGPT. He said it expresses “an insult to life itself,” expressing deep discomfort at the idea of removing human intention and emotion from animation.

Sources
We encourage you to do your own research and form your own opinions about art and AI!
If it wasn’t created by a human artist, is it still art? (The Harvard Gazette)
Explained: Generative AI’s environmental impact (MIT News)
For some statistics:
AI Art Statistics: The Ultimate List in 2024 (Academy of Animated Art)