Across social media and the art press, A.I. art is all the rage.

But while some artists are leaning into the creative possibilities of machine learning models like DALL-E, mixing cultural reference points and visual iconography, others are falling back into tired “the robots are coming” tropes. “Artists Aren’t Happy” blared the New York Times in a September 2 headline after an A.I.-generated picture won an art prize, with the subsequent article quoting one creator saying, “This thing wants our jobs,” calling the technology “actively anti-artist.”

Rather than reducing A.I., or any new technology, to a binary debate of good and bad, artists should evolve and incorporate the tool in their work like any paintbrush or canvas. A.I.’s use for rendering images follows a postmodern tradition in art, in which the final product is defined less by skill and more by the theory it posits. While contemporary artists like Damien Hirst are credited as sole geniuses, they employ teams of assistants tasked with executing the technical minutiae of the production process; even historical figures like Michelangelo outsourced labor to create iconic works like the Sistine Chapel. A.I. offers artists a similar ability to focus more on theory, meaning, and abstraction, rather than execution, which in many cases takes years of painstaking labor to realize a single piece. How this democratization of the production process impacts art, and the world at large, will be determined by artists and how they use the technology.

Η συνέχεια εδώ.