Art in the Age of Algorithms

By Samaira Kalia

When photography was invented in the late 1820s, many artists feared the end of art.  When digital photography arrived, photographers were worried about proving their pictures’ authenticity. Sounds familiar? Today people have been using AI to generate masterpieces in seconds – that once would have taken weeks or even years. History seems to repeat itself. Are we witnessing the death of artists, or the birth of a new form of expression?

A vast majority of people argue that art created by AI doesn’t follow the definition of “true” art. Traditionally, art is a way humans express themselves, their thoughts, and their emotions. Countless artists, past and  present, have spent years trying to create the perfect image, capturing just the right emotion, feeling and expression. Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, worked on the Mona Lisa for 16 years. In contrast, AI has the capability of generating a piece of similar style and value in mere seconds. While artists dedicate years or even lifetime mastering their craft, is it fair for anyone to open an AI service and create something that doesn’t require any effort?

Furthermore, it’s also questioned that if a masterpiece is generated instantly, with zero effort, and by a machine, does it count as a person’s mode of expression. What makes art so valuable, regardless of the form, is the creator. Pieces of art say so much about the artist themselves : their choices, struggles and emotions. It is a means of speaking without words, saying things that could not be said. Think of Vincent van Gogh, whose turbulent emotions breathe through every brushstroke of Starry Night, or Frida Kahlo, who turned her personal pain into vivid, symbolic self-portraits, while Picasso’s abstract forms reflected a lifetime of experimentation. Every small, barely noticeable detail can be interpreted as a hidden message from the creator. Simply giving AI a prompt and watching it create an image before your eyes lacks depth, emotion and originality of a human made painting.

Despite all these issues, many  people regard it as something incredibly helpful in the real world. It allows non-artists to instantly visualise their ideas without having to painstakingly learn all the required skills, making art much more accessible than ever. By lowering barriers, AI enables more people to experiment creatively with no boundaries and share their vision. It is fast and convenient, producing polished visuals instantly. It may not be the best for self expression, but it certainly expands creative possibilities. 

AI generated images are also a blend of traditional art and the user’s input. When a user interacts with a bot and gives it a prompt, the AI analyses different databases and generates an image based on images that it was given, giving people the chance to create art in different ways. By using different images created by an artist, a bot can create a new image that follows both the user’s prompt and the artist’s style. 

So doesn’t AI art technically help people get their ideas and thoughts out? Or is it stealing other people’s ideas and talents?

The use of AI art is a widely argued topic, with people both going against and defending it. For example, earlier this March, the Studio Ghibli trend was an internet craze where users would transform their personal photos and images to resemble the distinctively hand drawn art style with different AI tools. The trend was incredibly popular, to the point where you could open up any social media platform and find someone who generated another image. It’s incredibly fun to see how you would look in a world that’s adored by so many people globally, and it’s even more fun to see yourself in a completely different style. Alternatively, controversies mostly circulated around Ghibli’s animation style, since it would take Ghibli’s animators months and months to animate a single minute of footage, yet AI generated hundreds of thousands of pictures every day, following the exact same complex art style. People have also argued that the images lack artistic value and show the devaluing of human artistry, with sources such as CNA also bringing up the environmental costs of millions of people using AI at the same time.

So is AI art good or bad? Are artists doomed or do they have a powerful new tool? The answer  varies, depending on people’s opinion. AI has both advantages and drawbacks, and ultimately the impact lies on how people choose to use it. Personally, I believe that AI art isn’t the best way to express deep self- expression, but it can definitely be helpful with visualising ideas and creating images that might otherwise be difficult to produce.  A robot may never be able to capture the soul of a human’s craftsmanship, but it can open doors to imagination that were once locked. Instead of asking if AI is killing art, maybe we should ask: how will artists use this technology to tell stories only humans can tell?