Is Generative AI Killing Art... and Artists?

The massive use of generative AI in the creative industries has sparked intense debate, particularly among artists who see their livelihoods under threat. With AI technologies like DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion producing stunning visual artworks at the click of a button, the traditional concept of art is being challenged in unprecedented ways. This technological shift raises a critical question: Is generative AI killing art—and, by extension, the artists who create it?

A Crisis of Ownership

Kris Holland, a futurist, seasoned artist, and owner of Mafic Studios, Inc., has been vocal about the dangers generative AI poses to the art world. His concerns center around the erosion of ownership and control over artistic creations. “My art is mine; while the ideas behind it are subject to inspiration and use by others, my embodiment is mine,” Holland insists. His perspective highlights a fundamental clash between traditional notions of intellectual property and the way AI algorithms operate. Generative AI models, trained on vast datasets of existing artwork, can produce new images that mimic the styles of countless artists without their consent or recognition.

You’ve got to admit Kris Holland has a valid point. Read his many postson this subject on LinkedIn, which inspired this article.

This conflict over ownership is exacerbated by outdated copyright laws, which, as Holland points out, are often manipulated by large corporations to their advantage. “We live in a reality where I don’t own my art, creations, or text. No matter what the ethical and moral stance I might have,” he laments. The result is a chilling scenario where artists like Holland find themselves increasingly sidelined by a technology that can replicate their work without attribution or compensation.

The Ethical Dilemma

The ethical implications of generative AI extend far beyond individual artists’ grievances. The technology’s ability to replicate art raises questions about authenticity, creativity, and the very definition of art itself. Holland describes generative AI as a “mathematical transformation based on a complex matrix,” arguing that it lacks the intentionality that characterizes true artistic expression. “Art is intentional on the part of the artist, independent of skill. While there are inevitably happy accidents, experimentation, and so forth, the human is 99.9% of the required effort for a result to have any meaning,” he explains.

This perspective challenges the notion that AI-generated art can ever be considered equivalent to human-made art. While AI can produce visually appealing images, Holland contends that it does so without the depth of thought, emotion, and intent that human artists bring to their work. As a result, he fears that the proliferation of AI-generated art will lead to a “tidal wave of crap”—a deluge of aesthetically pleasing but ultimately meaningless images that drown out the genuine creativity of human artists.

A Dystopian Future for Art?

Holland’s concerns are not just theoretical. He warns that the widespread adoption of generative AI could lead to a future where new art becomes increasingly rare, with most creative output consisting of derivative works produced by algorithms. “After a few years, there will be very little new art. All we’ll have is billions of generated images that are somewhat better than what we have today but decidedly similar to everything else,” he predicts. This homogenization of art, driven by AI’s reliance on existing data, could stifle innovation and reduce the cultural significance of art in society.

The potential for generative AI to displace artists is not lost on Holland. He notes that many artists, particularly those working in commercial fields, are already feeling the impact. “I got into commercial art knowing that I had some degree of control—the idea that my art, my effort, could be dismantled and used to compete with me wasn’t something that could be done,” he recalls. Now, however, artists are finding it increasingly difficult to protect their work from being co-opted by AI, leading some, like Holland, to consider leaving the field altogether.

Corporate Greed and the Loss of Human Creativity

At the heart of the issue, Holland argues, is the greed of the corporations driving the development of generative AI. “Corporations will set fire to the future if it improves the next quarter’s EBITDA,” he asserts. The relentless pursuit of profit, he believes, has led these companies to disregard the rights of artists and the value of human creativity. Instead of investing in ethical AI that respects intellectual property, they have adopted a “do what we want, and leverage our money to change the rules” approach, further marginalizing the artists whose work they exploit.

Holland’s critique extends to the broader societal implications of generative AI. He warns that the technology is not just threatening individual artists but is also eroding the cultural fabric of society. “This is not about technology. It’s about corporate greed steamrolling humanity’s soul,” he declares. By reducing art to a mere commodity that can be mass-produced by machines, generative AI undermines the role of art as a means of human expression and cultural preservation.

A Call for Ethical AI

Despite his deep concerns, Holland does not reject technology outright. Instead, he advocates for a more ethical approach to AI development—one that prioritizes the rights and interests of creators. He envisions a future where AI tools are built from ethically sourced datasets, with full traceable permission from the original creators. “I believe the tool version can be built from a fully ethically sourced dataset. Due to limited subjects, the result would be less capable to start, but evolve quickly,” he suggests.

Holland’s proposed solution involves creating massive datasets of ethically sourced images, captured with the explicit consent of the subjects. This approach, he argues, would allow AI to develop in a way that respects the rights of creators while still providing valuable tools for enhancing productivity. “With a single system, I could capture over 50,000,000 photos a year with a single setup,” he notes, emphasizing the feasibility of his ethical AI model.

A Path Forward

As the debate over generative AI continues, artists like Kris Holland are calling for a more balanced approach—one that recognizes the potential of AI while safeguarding the rights and livelihoods of human creators. The challenge lies in finding a path forward that allows technology and art to coexist without diminishing the value of human creativity.

Holland’s insights underscore the need for a broader societal conversation about the role of AI in the arts. As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into creative industries, it is essential to address the ethical, legal, and cultural issues it raises. By doing so, we can ensure that technology enhances, rather than undermines, the rich tapestry of human creativity that has defined art for centuries.

In the end, the question remains: Can we harness the power of generative AI without sacrificing the soul of art? The answer will depend on the choices we make today—and the future we envision for the artists of tomorrow.