AI Art and its Ramifications in Asian Cultural Contexts
Posted on : August 31, 2023Author : AGA Admin
AI generated art has swept the cultural zeitgeist of the post-COVID world. Everyone has seen it; most seem to be talking about it; and it has become enough of an issue in its relevant societal circles that there are calls for regulations upon its reach and use. This reflection aims to analyze this phenomenon from a critical standpoint, considering the various problems it may create, and how it might change the field of art itself. To introduce this discussion about AI generated art, we shall first establish what constitutes the same, and how it is produced. Subsequently, this reflection shall consider the ontological, ethical, and cultural ramifications of this development.
For the intents of this reflection, the term ‘AI generated art’ shall be used to refer to any piece of creative expression, be it for paintings/drawings, music, etc. that are produced wholly by an artificial intelligence program, with or without a prompt from a human. However, it must be noted that not all forms of creative expression are easy for AI to replicate, especially more physical and tangible avenues that are yet to be translated into the digital realm, such as embroidery, sculpture, etc., even though at the rate research is progressing, it seems to be a matter of when, not if.
Having established this, we move on to the procedure behind the production of such pieces. The algorithms which produce such pieces are machine learning (henceforth ML) algorithms, which ‘learn’ by co-opting data from across the internet. Often, this includes the work of other artists whose works have been displayed on the internet, which, especially in the modern world, is most artists, since the internet is one of the foremost opportunities for exposure. With that said, let us move onto why this system becomes an issue in its current unregulated form.
A question of Ontological Security on a species level
In their paper ‘Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art’, Kobe Millet et al. speak of the human uniqueness narrative, and how it propels people to hold a statistically observable negative bias against art that is labelled as a product of AI. This is attributed to a perception of art as “one of the last frontiers of anthropocentrism that has been untouched by AI until recently”. This bias was observed on both cognitive and emotional levels, by measuring indices representative of the perception of creativity and the experience of awe respectively. Lastly, the paper found this bias to be more pronounced in people who “endorse anthropocentric beliefs more strongly”.
Now, let us look at the concept of ontological security. A term used mainly in the realm of sociology; it was coined by Ronald D Laing in his seminal 1960 book The Divided Self. Originally used to refer to the disconnected feelings of schizophrenic patients, it has since been co-opted to the stratum of nations. Laing defined it for an individual as “a sense of his presence in the world as a real, alive, whole, and, in a temporal sense, a continuous person”. In sociology and geopolitics, this definition has recently been enlarged to fit entire countries, and their need to preserve a sense of identity (their own ontological security), even if it implies a direct threat to their physical security. In our analysis, we attempt to enlarge this definition further, to the level of the entirety of the human species. Linking back to the study mentioned at the start of the section, this view of anthropocentrism becomes increasingly relevant in understanding why AI art is seen as posing a threat to our very perception of ourselves as humans.
The collective human psyche considers creativity to be a monopoly of its own species. Indeed, it has precedent for this belief, considering the fact that it has yet to conclusively encounter any other species with a level of cognitive and/or cogitative skill even near its own. It is habituated to intellectually outdoing the rest of the creatures it encounters, harnessing them as tools that enabled humans to delegate more manual tasks to these species and engage in higher level tasks themselves in order to propel their society forward in terms of complexity and convenience/quality of life.
Originally, it was assumed that this would also be the case with mechanization. Tasks such as the mundane reiterations of assembly lines or crop planting could now be automated, and while this would result in an eradication of blue-collar jobs (which in itself is a source of grave societal anxiety for the sections of society it provides employment to), at least white-collar jobs with more complicated demands could now have more manpower dedicated to them. After all, tasks which require creative problem solving or critical thinking were certainly out of the reach of the AI.
Art has always been perceived as a stronghold of human critical thinking and creativity. After all, visual art is a crucial mode of human communication and documentation since prehistoric times. In the absence of language, humans came up with ways to documents their lives via cave art, hence proving that it is incredibly intuitive (more so than language) for humans to represent what they see on some medium. In fact, some older non-alphabetic languages (most notably Egyptian hieroglyphs) entirely used pictorial representations for their scripts. This intuition for visual replication, enabled by a balance of precise cognition as well as motor skills has not been seen in any other discovered species; at best, they can visually identify similar things. Hence, this has been the benchmark set by humans themselves to verify intelligence (or in this case, humanity).
However, another innately human trait seems to be Promethean ambition, which forces us to venture into hitherto unexplored territories of human potential. Research into recreating human intelligence and perhaps even consciousness has thus progressed further and further, without any limitation with regards to the ontological ramifications of such development. Until now.
Suddenly, mankind seems to be facing a direct challenge to its monopoly over artistry and creativity, from something that was supposed to simplify manual labour. It no longer holds singular control over the intellectual commodity of creation; something else is now able to create, often faster than humans themselves. The security of more complex tasks being left to humans is no longer a thing, and we now find ourselves edging ever closer towards the same status as those who had been laid off in manual sectors by mechanization. Our roles as human contributors to society are now replaced.
Furthermore, the problem becomes two-pronged when brought back to the context of how such software functions. The methods of such software would be relatively fine if there was a system to trace at least the largest sources of influence for the ML algorithm and credit them accordingly. However, such a system does not exist. The ML software compiles and recreates the very styles of several different artists, co-opting them into a novel (but not unique), homogenous style – while still reflecting identifiable traits of specific artists. The art community is understandably enraged by this blatant plagiarism. While some projects aiming to pay homage or simply capture the fame of the person whose art they are co-opting do credit the original artist, but this is mostly not the case, much to the frustration of the victims of such plagiarism.
This issue has currently been the most prominent in the field of visual arts, since literary creativity is something that is limited to the boundaries of the language, while visual arts employ styles limited only by the artists own creativity and level of skill. Notably, this issue has not surfaced to this extent in musical arts yet, but since ML functions the same way across the board, it is not unexpected for these issues to pop up eventually as the technology progresses.
While it can be argued that most humans who practice art also do so after a sizeable amount of inspiration from other sources, often without direct credit, there is a serious ethical quandary at hand when one considers the thin and blurry line between inspiration and plagiarism. This line is regularly misunderstood by humans themselves, and an AI with no understanding of such ethics cannot be expected to make this distinction.
Lastly, it is also a matter of the people in charge of operating these systems. The operators and creators of such algorithms vehemently deny that their software infringes upon artists’ copyrights in any perceivable way. Artists whose names are used as prompts for the AI to generate images, and whose style is visibly co-opted into such pieces, do not agree. Kelly McKernan, an artist whose name was listed as a term to generate “Lord of the Rings style” art on a website called Metaverse Post, discovered that her name had been included in more than twelve thousand times in prompts, and had resulted in the creation of images “distinctly reminiscent” of her own works (Chayka). This prompted her in turn to join a lawsuit against Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DreamUp, three major AI image generators which all use the same nonprofit public database, LAION-5B. She finds herself alongside two other artists, who argue that “what A.I. generators do falls short of transformative use. There is no transcending of the source material, just a mechanized ‘blending together’”.
While there are doubts as to the amount of legal precedent backing up their claims, the artists’ lawsuit paints a grim picture of the current landscape of AI art – especially the more tangible and real issue of its ownership and credit.
Does ownership serve as a signifier of human identity?
In a world characterized by rapid technological advancements, the lines between human and machine continue to blur. As we delve deeper into the digital age, the concept of ownership takes on a new dimension, serving as a signifier of human identity in ways previously unimagined. From tangible assets to intangible skills and as a result, creative outputs, ownership is no longer limited to physical possessions; it extends to encompass the products of human intellect. This evolving notion of ownership not only shapes our perception of the ‘self’, but also prompts us to question the ramifications of AI’s growing capabilities on the very essence of being human. Traditionally, ownership referred to the legal and exclusive rights an individual held over a physical object or piece of land. In today’s interconnected, modernised world, ownership has expanded to include intellectual property, skills, and creative expressions. Beyond owning tangible assets, individuals now claim ownership over their ideas, innovations, and artistic creations in the form of copyright. This transformation underscores the shift towards a knowledge-based economy, where intangible assets hold as much value, if not more, than their physical counterparts.
Not long ago, the progression of artificial intelligence was predominantly seen as a means to optimize and mechanize manual duties across diverse sectors. Whether in manufacturing or customer service, AI was construed as an outsourcing opportunity that could heighten effectiveness and minimize human involvement. Nevertheless, the trajectory of AI’s progression has undergone a significant shift, casting doubt on conventional viewpoints and sparking inquiries into how it influences our positions within diverse realms of human pursuit. The ethical community’s initial view of AI centered on its ability to perform routine, repetitive tasks—tasks that were often considered monotonous and time-consuming for humans. Automated assembly lines and customer service chatbots were emblematic of AI’s capabilities. At that time, AI was seen as a means to free human workers from mundane duties, enabling them to focus on more complex and creative aspects of their work. In the present day, the ‘intelligence’ of AI is progressing at an unparalleled rate. It has transcended the limitations of routine chores and is now on a trajectory to emulate human cognitive processes. Whether it’s discerning illnesses or conceptualizing intricate architectures, AI is acquiring the ability to duplicate and even exceed human capacities, especially producing output in a matter of seconds, which the human brain cannot perfectly do in such a short time span. This prompts inquiries about the sustainability of human roles in an epoch where machines are progressively asserting dominance. This transformation has led to a growing realization that AI is no longer limited to specific niches, but is increasingly poised to replace human roles across diverse domains. Professionals like doctors, engineers, and researchers, once thought to be invulnerable to AI’s reach, now find themselves navigating unfamiliar territory. In the medical field, AI is demonstrating its ability to analyse complex medical data and provide accurate diagnoses. In engineering, AI-driven design systems are churning innovative structures. These aren’t the only two fields which were considered unconquerable by AI, many other ‘white-collar’ fields and professionals are facing the same dilemma. The question thus is, how will humanity redefine its role in an era where AI is not humanity’s servant anymore, but a co-contributor?
In the present day, the intelligence of AI, irrespective of its source, is progressing at an unparalleled rate. It has transcended the limitations of routine chores and is now on a trajectory to emulate human cognitive processes. Whether it’s discerning illnesses or conceptualizing intricate architectures, AI is acquiring the ability to duplicate and even exceed human capacities. This prompts inquiries about the sustainability of human roles in an epoch where machines are progressively asserting dominance. In such a landscape, creators are becoming increasingly concerned about safeguarding their way of life from potential encroachments by these ‘novel intelligences’. The expanding capabilities of AI raise multiple concerns, especially about the impact of such technologies on traditional crafts, artistic pursuits, and other such creative professional domains that have long defined human creativity and expertise. The question of credit and plagiarism also comes into play in this scenario.
AI is capable of creating spitting images of various types of art forms, be it oil paintings or watercolour. Multiple AI sites can now replicate art forms from various eras and diversities, be it Renaissance art, impressionism, modern abstract art, or even medieval pieces. It is capable of recreating even minute brush strokes and textures.
This has led to a disheartening phenomenon where artists’ works and, even more distressingly, even their unique styles are being plagiarized without any consideration for their consent or intellectual property rights. When an artist’s unique style can be replicated by a machine, the foundation of their creative identity is undermined. This raises a critical question: if an artist’s signature style cannot be reliably attributed to them, let alone individual works, what is the artist left with in their field? The dilemma is multifaceted, extending beyond mere financial implications to a profound erosion of creative authenticity and recognition. For artists, their respective styles and techniques are not only aesthetics meant to please the eye, it is an expression of their toils and years of training, emotions and experiences. To see your entire artistic journey be replicated by a machine in a matter of seconds is incredibly disheartening. While AI can mimic, it cannot truly experience, emote, or imbue its creations with the depth of human experience.
In the rapidly evolving realm where art and technology converge, a paradoxical phenomenon is emerging – a resurgence in the allure of physical, unreplicable art. This trend hearkens back to the heart of artistic expression, underscoring the intrinsic value that only a human hand can impart. As AI achieves new heights in mimicking various art forms, there’s a simultaneous shift towards elevating the uniqueness of physical creations. The inherent imperfections, the tactile engagement, and the knowledge that each stroke of the brush or chisel impart to the canvas is an irreplaceable act of creation – these elements imbue physical art with an essence that technology, for now, struggles to capture.
Conversely, as AI takes on an ever-expanding role in generating monetizable commercial art – from designing book covers to crafting movie posters – artists find themselves navigating a transformed landscape. These once-considered lucrative opportunities are now often delegated to AI programs, leaving artists to fend for themselves in the intricate and discerning collectors’ markets. The shift of monetizable commercial art to AI marks a pivotal change in the dynamic between technology and human creativity. While AI’s efficiency in producing standardized commercial artwork is undeniable, it also poses a challenge for artists seeking to distinguish themselves. The traditional gateways to commercial success are being redefined, prompting artists to reconsider their strategies and explore new avenues for recognition and patronage.
While the expertise of art connoisseurs and experts enables them to differentiate between art created by humans and AI, the landscape becomes murkier when it comes to collectors. Research by Gu and Li demonstrates that experts can discern the distinction and even prefer human-made art for its authenticity and emotional resonance. However, the dynamics shift when collectors, who may not possess the same level of discernment, enter the picture. In a world that increasingly embraces digital art and NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), the financial frenzy surrounding these assets often overshadows their artistic value. These collectors are empowered to finance artists through the collectors’ markets, even if their choices are influenced more by trends and investment potential than by artistic merit. The artist’s dilemma lies in this delicate equilibrium between creative expression and financial sustenance. The existing market structure, with its focus on collectors and financial speculation, inherently disadvantages artists seeking a sustainable livelihood. This conundrum underscores the need for a more equitable system that recognizes the value of artistic authenticity beyond monetary trends. In response, artists are challenged to embrace innovation and forge direct connections with audiences who appreciate the depth, narrative, and emotional resonance that only human creativity can provide, which may not always be sustainable, or emotionally fruitful to said artists. So, where DOES the artist go from here?
This paradox of AI ‘art’ and traditional art can be attributed to two countries, China and Japan. Both countries boast rich and diverse artistic cultures that have captivated the world for centuries, be it China’s classical paintings, calligraphy, ceramics, and more, rooted in philosophy and nature, or Japan’s Ikebana (flower arranging), tea Ceremony (Chado), and calligraphy (Shodo), which emphasize on mindfulness, aesthetics, and the appreciation of imperfection. Japan is also known for its multiple manga artists, who also suffer at the hands of AI and technology, as their work becomes more and more digitised. This is also ironic in today’s context, as China and Japan are superpowers in the AI market. The World Intellectual Property Organization’s report highlights that Japanese and American companies possess the most extensive AI patent portfolios, while Chinese research institutions dominate the top 20 academic players in AI patenting and AI-related scientific publications. Japan’s Society 5.0 envisions using strategic innovations and technology to enrich human life and establish a smart society. Favourable policies and investments from both public and private sectors are driving the AI surge in Asian nations like Japan. Notably, China and Japan are major suppliers of industrial robots and are effectively commercializing AI research domains (Meenu). Other countries such as Singapore and India are not far behind either.
Conclusions
In the unfolding age of artificial intelligence, the implications for diverse professional fields are undeniable. The ever-increasing influence of AI poses a potential threat to the very essence of numerous industries, leaving practitioners in a state of uncertainty. Among these domains, the realm of art appears to be undergoing a unique and poignant transformation. While technology brings the promise of innovation, the collision between AI and artistic expression raises concerns about the erosion of human ingenuity and tradition. In nations renowned for their cultural heritage and artistic traditions, the profound impact on the artistic landscape is particularly pronounced, serving as a stark reminder that even within the depths of technological advancement, the preservation of human creativity remains an essential endeavour.
Works Cited
Chayka, Kyle. “Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?” The New Yorker, 10 Feb. 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists. Accessed 24 Aug. 2023.
Friedman, Ori. “Questions and Potential Answers About Ways Ownership and Art Matter for One Another.” Empirical Studies of the Arts, vol. 38, no. 1, 12 Aug. 2019, pp. 119–127, https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237419868943.
Gu, Li, and Yong Li. “Who made the paintings: Artists or artificial intelligence? the effects of identity on liking and purchase intention.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, 5 Aug. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941163.
Laing, R. D. “Ontological Insecurity.” The Divided Self, Pantheon Books, New York, New York, 1960, pp. 39–39.
Meenu, EG. “Asia: Becoming a Powerhouse of Artificial Intelligence.” Analytics Insight, 4 Mar. 2021, www.analyticsinsight.net/asia-becoming-a-powerhouse-of-artificial-intelligence/.
Millet, Kobe, et al. “Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI Art.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 143, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107707.
Roads, C. “Artificial Intelligence and Music.” Computer Music Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, 1980, pp. 13–25, https://doi.org/10.2307/3680079.
Shen, Yan, and Fang Yu. “The influence of artificial intelligence on art design in the Digital age.” Scientific Programming, vol. 2021, 27 Dec. 2021, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4838957.
Nayantara Sengupta
Ayon Basu
Interns, Asia in Global Affairs
The originality of the content and the opinions expressed within the content are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the website.
Leave a Reply