A defense of AI art
I’ve had this thought rattling around in my brain for months now and I’m finally gathering my courage to put it in writing:
I rather like AI art, or as I call it—Robot Art.
It’s taken me awhile to admit this, because it turns out my affection for rainy café scenes with slightly-off reflections and too-perfect pumpkins is controversial—something that never occurred to me when I first discovered the delight of AI generated candlelit reading nooks and vases overflowing with peonies. “Look how pretty…!”
But eventually I learned my enjoyment of these images was taboo. Even on the typically-amiable Pinterest, outraged comments keep piling up in the vein of:
“This is clearly not real, should be removed!”
“Flagging as inappropriate, this is AI.”
“FAKE!!!”
“Haha, AI much? Pathetic.”
“AI garbage!!!! … wish Pinterest would ban this crap.”
We ride at dawn!—the eucalyptus bundle offends!!!!
And Cosmos—usually one of my favorite places internet—now offers a setting to blur or hide AI images entirely. Clearly our delicate human eyes must be shielded from the affront of a lavender latte and a stack of Kinfolk magazines that didn’t exist in real life.
Now, I know some of you are thinking these cozy pictures aren’t harmless at all, but actually festering cultural rot disguised as three strategically placed figs nestled in fairy lights.
To be clear, I don’t object to labeling AI-generated work as such. On a larger scale, it makes sense to distinguish what’s real and what’s not, especially when it comes to depictions of actual human beings. An image of a politician or celebrity in a compromising situation that did not actually happen is disturbing on every level. If AI imagery is mistaken for reality and starts shaping public perception or global narratives, we have a problem.
What confuses me is the automatic leap from “AI generated” to “must be eradicated.”
If it’s a fake nude of a celeb, yeah—let’s ring the alarm bells. But if it’s a fake photo a rustic cutting board piled high with too-shiny croissants … I dunno, maybe we put the pitchforks down?
Are we not confident enough in our human abilities to discern that these two scenarios are not the same? That one represents a threat to our fellow humans and society, and the other is … a pretty picture of a pretend snack?
I’m just going to come right out and say this: a lot of Robot Art makes me happy. I like those aesthetic images for same reason I enjoy the Hallmark channel—I like how they make me feel.
Sure, the production value’s not the greatest, everything’s just a little too glossy, a touch generic. But damn if Hallmark and those AI images don’t make me feel warm and content. If my day doesn’t feel a little brighter, if it doesn’t make me want to celebrate the little moments in my own life.
Now, maybe you’re gearing up to argue that the Hallmark channel example is different because the movies are still real, and humans are still involved. Whereas my Dark Academia desktop screensaver wasn’t taken in a real library and was generated by a machine.
… And?
I’ll be honest, I just don’t understand why I’m supposed to be outraged.
Is it because we’re “taking jobs” from artists?
You’re telling me there’s a photographer out there dying to take 190 “beige aesthetic” photos?
Or that some talented artist went to art school with the dream of staging 60 “cherrycore” pictures? Literally sixty images of items that are either cherry red in color or have items with actual cherries on them?
This is the “work” AI is taking away from artists?
Yes, I’m oversimplifying—and narrowing this mostly to photography, which is the style of AI art I usually gravitate toward. I just questions if passionate artists are creating something entirely different from a pack of 120 “pink aesthetic” images on Etsy.
I’m also not blind to the common argument that the issue is less AI replacing artists and more that it’s stealing their work, even to create the crappy generic stuff. As a creator myself, I understand the concern. This counterpoint also makes a lot of sense to me. As with anything, complex issues are worth exploring from multiple angles.
I can also admit this: a lot of AI art out there is outright “bad.” Yes, it can be inaccurate, creepy, cheesy, cheap, bland, generic, boring …
But art snobbery has been around for centuries.
Who hasn’t heard (or stated) that IKEA art prints have no soul, romance novels are more akin to trash than literature, that made-for-tv Christmas movies are cheesy slop, etc.
But those of us who like IKEA art, romance novels, and those predictable Christmas movies know that art doesn’t have to be “good” to evoke strong emotion.
Because that robot-generated cabin in the woods in autumn might not be real, but the nostalgic comfort it provides me when I’m stuck in the city in the middle of a summer heatwave most definitely is.
What is the point of art—good or bad, real subject or generated, human or AI—if not to evoke something in us?
And hey, if my AI moodboards are a harbinger of End Times, at least the apocalypse is looking cozy.
🤖 • 🤖 • 🤖
Further Reading
I’m aware that there are many ethical and philosophical considerations to AI art not touched upon above—not out of ignorance or lack of consideration, but because the articles below already capture them brilliantly, and I saw no point in me rehashing what these writers have already said so well.
Here are three well-written, well-thought-out, well researched counterpoints to the popular opinion that AI Art is Ruining Everything:
