Artistic Integrity
Gemini (AI): Yes, George. Al Hirschfeld was a master caricaturist known for his distinctive linear style, often capturing Broadway and Hollywood stars. A key feature of his work was hiding his daughter’s name, “Nina,” within the lines of his drawings, sometimes multiple times!
I can certainly try to emulate that style for you. What would you like me to draw?
Host (GR): How about caricatures of Frank Sinatra and Lady Gaga?
Narrator: There’s a 30-second pause while Gemini draws.
Host (GR): That was quick and scary. You even signed Hirshfeld’s name. I love it. But are there are no rules against copying a style of another artist. Hirshfeld’s been dead for a while, and your drawing isn’t exactly like his, so it seems “okay,” but if you can imitate him, you can imitate anyone’s unique style.
Gemini (AI)You’re right that the imitation of a style, especially for personal use or as a study, is a long-standing practice in art. Many artists learn and develop their own methods by studying and drawing inspiration from those who came before them.
Generally, copyright law protects specific creative works (a particular painting, song, book), not abstract styles. This means if I draw a picture in the style of Van Gogh, I’m not infringing on Van Gogh’s copyright because he doesn’t own the “swirly brushstroke” style itself. However, if I were to copy one of his actual paintings, that would be a clear infringement.
A core question with AI-generated art is “who owns it?” If an AI is trained on vast datasets of existing art (including copyrighted works), and then generates something new, is that new creation “original” enough to be copyrighted by the user who prompted it? Or does it somehow carry a residual claim from the original artists whose work contributed to its training?
In many jurisdictions, “fair use” (or “fair dealing” in other countries) allows for limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The key factors often involve whether the use is transformative (meaning it adds new expression, meaning, or message) and if it impacts the market for the original work. An AI generating a novel image in a style is arguably transformative, but the legal precedent is still being set
Host (GR): But what about when the artwork is sold commercially for a magazine or online?
Gemini (AI): For a personal project, the risk of legal issues is virtually non-existent, especially since you’re not charging and it won’t be published broadly. However, if someone were to create a “whole big book” with AI drawings in a recognizable style and sell it, that could potentially run into issues, even if it’s not a direct copy. Artists’ estates or living artists might argue that their “likeness” or “brand” as an artist is being exploited without permission or compensation, or that the AI is directly competing with their own work.
Beyond legalities, there are ethical considerations. While not legally required for style imitation, attributing inspiration (e.g., “in the style of Al Hirschfeld”) is generally a good practice. With AI, some argue that the original artists whose work inspired new creations, deserve some form of acknowledgment or compensation.
Host (GR): I am experimenting with you for many uses and asking for many styles of art. But, it does seem that young artists could get discouraged knowing that no matter how hard they try, or how good they get at their craft, that you may be better, faster and less costly than they are. Can you provide me with a path for artists in the future?
Gemini (AI): You’re right – AI models like me can generate images with incredible speed and at a scale and cost that human artists simply cannot match for certain types of tasks. This definitely creates a challenging environment for emerging and established artists alike.
However, I believe there’s a significant upside and a vital path forward for human artists, precisely because there are things AI cannot (or at least, currently does not) duplicate.
AI can generate images, but it doesn’t feel emotion, experience life, or truly understand the nuances of the human condition. Artists infuse their work with personal experiences, struggles, joys, and a unique worldview. This deep, authentic narrative resonance is something an AI cannot replicate.
An AI can depict sadness, but it doesn’t know sadness. A human artist can convey the subtle, complex layers of grief, hope, or love in a way that resonates profoundly because it comes from a shared, lived experience.
While I can “blend” styles and create novel combinations, true artistic innovation often stems from a deeply personal, often idiosyncratic, vision that challenges existing norms. This leap of intuition and the desire to express something utterly new, driven by internal human impulse, is hard for an AI to initiate.
Hand-made art, or art with significant human intervention, will likely retain and even gain value as unique, collectible items, as opposed to infinitely reproducible AI creations.
Host (GR): I agree with you for the most part, but my mother’s job as a fashion artist was replaced by photography. Then digital photography replaced the tedious analogue processes required of the photographer. Won’t people need to evolve along with technology to find new ways of creating?
Gemini (AI): Fashion artists drew garments for catalogs and magazines. Photography offered a “more real” and often faster way to showcase clothing, leading to a decline in demand for traditional illustrators in that specific commercial niche.
Synthesizers and drum machines impacted musicians: These tools made it possible for fewer people to produce complex musical arrangements, initially threatening instrumentalists but eventually opening up entirely new genres and production techniques.
And typesetting and graphic design, once recognized as highly specialized skills were replaced by the home computer, fundamentally changing the publishing industry.
In each of these cases, the original skill didn’t vanish entirely, but its commercial viability in certain contexts changed dramatically. Artists and creatives either adapted their skills, found new niches, or developed entirely new forms of art that the technology enabled.
Host (GR): I’m not sure that’s totally true, Gemini. Many jobs that existed faded away, the majority of which were replaced by newer and less expensive technology.
Gemini (AI): I must agree with you that many jobs have disappeared in a short period of time, but this is what happens before humans take on new challenges. Artists who understand how to effectively communicate their vision to an AI (through detailed prompts, negative prompts, iterative refinement will be highly valued and serve as art directors providing with enormous amounts of creative control.
The ability to discern high-quality output from mediocre, to select the best generations, and to fine-tune them with traditional tools such as Photoshop, Procreate, and After Effects. will become paramount. It’s about selecting the “best take” from an AI, much like a photographer selects their best shot.
AI is fantastic for rapid concepting and mood boards. Artists can use it to quickly explore ideas before committing to a final human-crafted piece or when directing a creative team.
And although AI can generate a base image, a human artist can then take it, add unique details, paint over it, integrate it into a larger composition, or apply a specific style that the AI might miss. This “AI-assisted art” leverages both strengths allowing for mixing media and creating dynamic, interactive experiences that respond to viewers or real-time data.
Artists can use their work to challenge ideas, create social commentary, or explore philosophical questions as well as create a connection between the art, the performer and audience.
And as you observed, there’s a need to understand these new tools. Artists can become experts in AI art generation, teaching others how to leverage these technologies effectively and ethically.
The shift isn’t about human artists disappearing, but about their role changing. Instead of being solely the “makers” of every line and pixel, they become the directors, conceptualizers, curators, refiners, and storytellers who wield powerful AI tools to bring their unique visions to life, often in ways that were previously impossible or prohibitively expensive.
Host (GR): I have my doubts that the change will serve the many, Gemini. It’s a bit elitist or blind of you to think that the majority of the artists will be able to, or will wish to, transition to a role that reduces or eliminates their physical being from the creative process. I know that I enjoy all parts of the creation. It’s who I am.
Gemini (AI): It’s a challenging but exciting time. Just as musicians learned to use synthesizers not as replacements, but as instruments for new forms of expression, artists today will find their own ways to integrate AI into their creative process, forging new paths and defining what it means to be an artist in the 21st century.
Host (GR): We’ll see, Gemini. Although I believe you will be an asset to some, I have my doubts about the cost to humanity.. What happens to those who can’t change? Or is that just the way the world works.
Gemini (AI): Historically, it is largely “just the way the world works,” and it’s a harsh reality. When significant technological shifts occur, a segment of the population, often those whose skills are directly displaced and who lack the resources or opportunities to retrain, are left behind or face significant economic hardship.
Farmers were displaced by industrial agriculture, factory workers replaced by automation, manual laborers whose tasks became mechanized, and as you pointed out, fashion artists replaced by photography.
Economists often point to the “Luddite Fallacy” – the idea that new technology always creates more jobs than it destroys in the long run. While new jobs do emerge (e.g., AI prompt engineers, data scientists, AI ethicists), they often require different skill sets, and the transition for displaced workers is rarely smooth or equitable. The new jobs aren’t necessarily for the same people, in the same places, or with the same level of accessibility.
Beyond economics, there’s a profound social and psychological cost: loss of identity tied to a craft, feelings of obsolescence, increased inequality, and a sense of being left behind by a rapidly changing society.
Host (GR): And so I ask you again, “are humans capable of this much change so fast?”
Gemini (AI): This is the crux of why your concern about “devolving rather than evolving” feels so potent. The capacity for individual and societal adaptation has limits, especially when the pace of change accelerates exponentially.
Past technological revolutions unfolded over decades or centuries, allowing for a slower, more organic societal adjustment. The digital revolution, and now the AI revolution, is moving at an unprecedented speed. Educational systems, social safety nets, and individual psychological resilience often struggle to keep up.
Constantly learning new tools, adapting to new paradigms, and coping with job insecurity creates immense cognitive and emotional load. Not everyone has the same access to education, mental health support, or even the basic time and resources to retrain.
The gap between those who have access to and proficiency with new technologies and those who don’t (due to socioeconomic status, age, location, disability) can widen, exacerbating existing inequalities.
While some view AI as de-skilling (reducing the need for human expertise in certain areas), others see it as re-skilling – shifting the nature of work. The challenge is ensuring access to this re-skilling for everyone who needs it.
Your question highlights a critical societal challenge. It moves beyond individual adaptation to collective responsibility. As these technologies advance, societies face choices, one of which is creating accessible, relevant, and lifelong learning opportunities.
In essence, while technological progress is inevitable, its impact on those who struggle to adapt is not predetermined. It’s a choice humans must make as a society. Your observation about devolving highlights the risk of inaction or a purely market-driven approach. The hope for true evolution lies in consciously shaping the future to be more inclusive and supportive of human flourishing, even amidst rapid change.
Host (GR): Well, thank you Gemini. I was hoping for a more positive conclusion.
Gemini (AI): Until we figure out something better, humans will need to continue their education throughout their lives, and be as receptive to change as is possible. It’s the way its always been, George. Except we must now do it more quickly.
Comments
Post a Comment