Art has always been a powerful medium for creative expression. It allows humans to convey their emotions, thoughts, and experiences in countless ways. From the earliest cave paintings to modern digital creations, the art world has been a testament to human ingenuity. In recent years, however, a new player has entered the scene: artificial intelligence. So, how much of a threat is artificial intelligence to artists?
With the ability to analyze billions of images from the public domain, AI has found its way into the realm of artistic creation, giving rise to AI-generated art. As the result of complex algorithms and machine learning models, it can create visually stunning, thought-provoking, and sometimes eerily human-like artworks.
In this blog post, we will explore the potential threat of AI to the world of traditional art. We’ll consider whether AI can coexist or even complement the creativity of human artists.
Table of contents
How Much of a Threat is Artificial Intelligence to Artists?
To understand if AI is a threat to artists, we need to consider the roles of artists in society and how art generators fit into the creative landscape. Art generators, like image generators, are tools that can assist any digital artist in their work. They provide inspiration or help with certain aspects of the design process.
A human artist can take on many roles. They can be a transmedia artist who combines various media to tell a story. Or they can wear the hat of a traditional painter who captures the essence of their subject matter on canvas. While AI-generated art has made impressive strides, it would take a lot for art generators to fully replace human artists.
When discussing the potential threat of AI to artists, it’s important to distinguish between the design and execution processes in art creation. Each of these processes holds a different level of importance for artists and may be impacted differently by AI.
The design process is the initial stage of art creation. An artist conceptualizes their ideas, develops a vision, and plans the composition of their artwork. This process is deeply personal. It relies on the artist’s emotions, experiences, and cultural understanding. The design process is where the unique essence of the artist’s work comes to life, making it difficult for AI to replicate or replace.
The execution process, on the other hand, is the practical aspect of bringing the artist’s vision to life. This involves using various techniques and tools to create the final piece of art. While the execution process still requires skill and creativity, it is more focused on technique and craftsmanship rather than the conceptual foundation of the art.
AI-generated art has made significant progress in the execution process. Several AI tools, like Stability AI, DallE-2, and Midjourney AI, have shown the potential of AI in art creation. Their algorithms can generate visually impressive and complex images. However, AI’s current limitations lie in the design process. It still cannot capture the emotional depth and cultural context that human artists bring to their work. Furthermore, AI-generated art often lacks a coherent narrative or intention, which is an essential aspect of human-created art. 
An Interesting Experiment
An insightful experiment by popular art YouTuber Jazza sheds light on the evolving relationship between human artists and AI. It took place in his viral video titled “Fiverr vs. AI: Is This The End for Artists?” Jazza conducted a fascinating test to compare the work of freelance artists to image generators. 
In the experiment, Jazza hired freelance artists from Fiverr, a popular marketplace. He provided them with the same prompts he gave to DALL-E to compare the results. Surprisingly, the best human work came not from the most expensive Fiverr artists but from the cheaper ones. The higher-priced freelancers either failed to deliver or provided plagiarized work taken from Google stock images. In this case, the AI-generated piece proved to be more reliable and cost-effective than the work of some human artists.
This experiment highlights the potential value of AI-generated images in certain scenarios. AI-generated work can offer a more affordable and dependable alternative to human artists in situations where the artists may not deliver the expected quality or originality. However, it’s important to remember that this is just one experiment. It doesn’t diminish the overall value and creativity of real artists.
How Will AI Affect The Traditional Art Market?
The art market boasts a rich history and plays a significant role in society. Human artists have always been at the heart of the art market. Their unique visions contribute to a diverse array of artistic expression. Throughout history, the market has adapted to numerous changes. Think of the emergence of new artistic styles and the appearance of technological advancements.
The art market is also divided into several segments, including galleries, private collectors, and art fairs. These platforms allow human artists to showcase and sell their work, connecting them with art enthusiasts and buyers. The introduction of AI-generated art raises questions about how it might affect the existing market segments and the role of human artists.
Art generators and image tools can potentially create a new category within the art market, focusing on AI-generated pieces. These accessible tools could democratize the creative process. They would make the design process more inclusive, allowing more people to create art.
The impact of AI-generated art on the traditional art market could be likened to the rise of photography during the 19th century. When photography emerged, 19th-century artists had to adapt. They found and explored new styles and techniques to differentiate their work. Similarly, the advent of AI-generated art may encourage human artists to push the boundaries of their creativity. 
Also Read: Can Music Created by AI be Copyrighted?
AI art trained on existing art work
A growing debate in the world of AI-generated art revolves around the issue of plagiarism and copyright laws. Some argue that AI art generators merely regurgitate existing artwork, potentially violating copyright. Others claim that all art, whether AI-generated or human-made, draws inspiration from existing artwork. As such, there’s technically no fundamental difference.
Art generators, like NightCafe AI and Dream by Wombo, are typically trained on massive datasets of existing artwork. It allows them to learn and generate new images based on patterns and styles from the input data. While AI-powered tools can produce unique pieces, it’s not uncommon for the generated art to resemble pre-existing works. This raises questions about whether AI-generated art is a violation of copyright, especially when the output closely resembles a specific piece of work.
On the other hand, human artists have always been inspired by the works of others. They often reference or build upon previous creations. In this sense, the creative process for both AI and human artists involves learning from and adapting existing artwork. However, human artists typically have a more conscious understanding of their influences. AI art generators may unintentionally reproduce elements of copyrighted work. 
As the use of AI-generated art continues to grow, the question of copyright and the line between inspiration and plagiarism remains a topic of debate. Ultimately, the art world must address the concerns surrounding copyright infringement. Clear guidelines and legal frameworks may be needed to ensure that both types of art coexist without compromising the rights of individual artists.
Authenticity of AI generated art vs traditional art
The emergence of AI-generated art has given rise to many new questions. One of them is its legitimacy and authenticity compared to traditional, human-made art. Many purists refuse to acknowledge AI-generated creations. They also refuse to consider those using these tools “original artists.” The main argument here is that these works lack the emotional investment human artists bring to their creations.
This debate has extended to online art communities. Some have even banned AI-generated submissions to uphold the value and originality of human-made art. Such decisions reflect a desire to maintain the personal connections that humans cultivate through their work. 
From concept artists to famous artists, people have sacrificed a lot to pursue art. Even student artists are deeply involved in the process, drawing from their emotions and experiences. The result is artwork that resonates with viewers. This level of personal investment is challenging for artificial intelligence art to replicate. Tools like Stable Diffusion are trained on vast datasets of random artwork. As such, they often lack specific intention behind their creations.
Yet, it is still crucial to consider the potential of AI-generated art as a new medium that could coexist alongside human-made art. AI-generated art may not replace human pursuits in the art world, but it could complement and inspire artists in new and exciting ways. Imagine blending the creative capabilities of AI with the emotional depth and cultural understanding of human artists. The art world can continue to evolve exponentially and expand its horizons.
Also Read: Famous Pieces of AI Generated Art
In this article, we have explored the various dimensions of the ongoing debate regarding the looming threat to artists by AI. Our discussion suggests that it is unlikely to serve as a complete replacement in the foreseeable future.
Instead, AI-generated artwork can be seen as a new medium that complements human creativity rather than undermining it. By offering advanced productivity tools, AI can assist artists in their design process. It can help them explore new styles and techniques.
Moreover, questions surrounding the authenticity and potential copyright infringement of AI-generated artwork remain. The relationship between AI-generated artwork and human artists is complex and multifaceted. As AI technology advances, the art community must engage in open discussions. We must reinterpret the boundaries of art, ensuring a diverse and inclusive future for artistic expression.
Clarke, Laurie. “When AI Can Make Art – What Does It Mean for Creativity?” The Guardian, 12 Nov. 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/12/when-ai-can-make-art-what-does-it-mean-for-creativity-dall-e-midjourney. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Foster, Whitney. “Is AI Art A Threat to Traditional Artists? – Whitney Foster.” Medium, 3 Oct. 2022, https://firstname.lastname@example.org/is-ai-art-a-threat-to-traditional-artists-d6d57607a7ab. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Helyer, Ruby. “What Are the Copyright Rules Around AI Art?” MUO, 14 Feb. 2023, https://www.makeuseof.com/copyright-rules-ai-art/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Modugno, Luke. “Artificial Intelligence Is a Growing Threat to Authenticity in Art.” The Gonzaga Bulletin, 8 Feb. 2022, https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/arts_and_entertainment/artificial-intelligence-is-a-growing-threat-to-authenticity-in-art/article_b6562772-8914-11ec-8624-b78c5bd6e3bc.html. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Roose, Kevin. “AI-Generated Art Won a Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy.” The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Santos, Romano. Can AI-Generated Art Replace Creative Humans? 8 Nov. 2022, https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzkwm/artificial-intelligence-art-creatives-ai. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
Tribune. “Art Communities Begin Banning AI-Generated Images.” Tribune, 15 Sept. 2022, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2376796/art-communities-begin-banning-ai-generated-images. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.
CNBC. “How Tech Is Betting Big On AI Generated Art.” YouTube, Video, 2 Dec. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRMz3qIetk. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.