A.I. MANIPULATION STUDY
Exercise I
What does it mean to take someone else's work... whether business idea, artwork, athletic move, or book concept...and adapt it?
Is it plagiarism or theft? Is is paying homage or learning from the best? Is it Imitation or forgery? Or is it adopting and furthering its powerful symbolism. There is a reason they are called classics, because they epitomize the tried and true and demonstrate success. Cliche's and myths have roots in true success, and deviation is a form of natural evolution in the world thoughts, ideas and symbols.
Artist's Annunciation, 2023. A.I. manipulated scan of print media.
Can A.I. art be used as a means of referencing previous art... paying homage to traditional symbols, styles or imagery? If the work is manipulated enough or creates a commentary on the previous version, then the new version becomes an original. What is so different when we use A.I. to create new versions... as opposed to cutting and collaging or repainting the original?
All A.I. art, for now, requires some kind of human input. The data is pulled from previous photos and works or requires direction. Unique A.I. art requires tuning, carefully written prompts and editing to get somewhere of value. The question of how much manipulation is needed to make a copy an original has lasted centuries of debate in the art world. When does fair use become copyright violation, and how does A.I. art spin this on it's head so much?
Does the work deliver a new message?
Does it reference the original not copy it?
Does it involve intentional manipulation?
It seems that if all three of these apply to "A.I. Assisted Art" then it can be claimed by the human artist. But many see the violation of copyright intrinsic in the A.I.'s use of other people's works as data reference. Also, according to U.S. law, copyright is only covered by human-made intellectual property.1 A.I. may remain in that grey space because it is a machine running on algorithms, and without copyright... but could the programmers writing the A.I. claim that copyright?
Photoshop's Generative Fill really opens up the certainty that the human manipulator is the copyright's owner, because all the variables involved in using it undoubtedly puts the creative direction in the artist's hands. Custom A.I. generation on images spares a lifetimes of work in photomanipulation. The power it brings in inevitable.
ARTIST MANIPULATION
In this work I demonstrate the ease in changing symbols in an early Renaissance painting of the Annunciation. By altering the symbolism through introducing an artist canvas as the focus, the purpose of the painting becomes altered. The ray of holy light leads to the artist's studio, where the scene is painted on the canvas in an infinite repetition within the smaller painted canvas. Other religious iconography can be easily manipulated to the point where the meaning of the original is now changed into a new homage of it with renewed symbolism.
If enough of the canvas has been reimagined, with thoughtful changes in composition or subject matter, is it not a new artistic rendition?
This work speaks to the 21st century people who have faith in something, whether it be creativity or inspiration, regardless of the technological changes in the reality around us. As science takes hold of our beliefs over religious dogma, the satellite rises above the stars of the heavens.
Original: Annunciation, Carlo Crivelli, c1486.
1. Brodkin, Jon. “US Judge: Art Created Solely by Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be Copyrighted.” Ars Technica, August 21, 2023. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/us-judge-art-created-solely-by-artificial-intelligence-cannot-be-copyrighted/#:~:text=%22United%20States%20copyright%20law%20protects,paper%2C%22%20the%20ruling%20said.
Comments