Back
On May 30, 2024, Chris Michaels published an article in The Art Newspaper titled “The art world’s AI dilemma: how can artists and museums thrive when big tech controls the monetising of artificial intelligence?” This piece highlights the prevalent anxiety regarding artificial intelligence (AI). As someone immersed in AI within the art sphere, I recognize that while this concern is genuine, it can sometimes be exaggerated, particularly concerning artists' and institutions’ active engagement with emerging technologies.
Comparing the monetization troubles of AI with other art technology advancements, like photography hindered by lens monopolies, simplifies the issue. While tech companies thrive, artists and museums don't necessarily lose out on AI's benefits. Historically, artists haven’t typically gained from monetizing art materials directly. Instead, they navigate an unregulated market where their creations are appraised.
Although AI's summaries may alter how we perceive museum art by oversimplifying contexts, these technologies enhance public engagement. Much like photos, documentaries, and VR offerings, AI enriches the museum-going experience, reaching millions beyond traditional settings.
Chris Michaels argues that access to production tools is crucial for artistic freedom. Yet, the challenges artists face today are consistent with long-standing barriers in creative production. Equipment costs for digital and traditional art practices remain high. Given these pre-existing obstacles, why demand AI tools meet higher accessibility standards than any other art technology?
The article addresses technology access imbalance, suggesting artists might miss out on pioneering AI advancements. However, this gatekeeping notion is misleading. OpenAI’s CTO, Mira Murati, argues that publicly accessible AI models closely match their advanced counterparts. Consumer-level tools, like Midjourney for photorealistic AI renderings, are accessible and regularly updated, offering artists affordable, cutting-edge resources.
Midjourney's subscription model poses challenges. A private usage plan costs $60/month, leading to $720 annually, to keep creative processes confidential and avoid shared outputs. Yet, this is often more budget-friendly than traditional artistic avenues.
The ongoing debates about AI in art often overlook critical issues like social media data mining. By focusing narrowly on AI's ethical data sourcing, potential innovations are overshadowed. Remarkably, AI enables unprecedented artistic creation for individuals of all backgrounds.
We must continuously question AI’s relationship with art rather than fear adverse effects. AI, akin to the internet or computers, isn't inherently detrimental. Instead, it offers extraordinary opportunities for artistic innovation.
