Pushing Boundaries, Not Buttons: Unpacking the AI Debate in Art

By Mishkin Berteig with contributions from ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion XL.

Original: Dec. 28, 2023 to Mar. 16, 2024

Updated: Sep. 13, 2024

The Meme That Started It All

When I saw this meme on Facebook, I was inspired to get into a “discussion” with the person who posted it, and from that discussion, and my subsequent research, I learned a lot about AI and art. This essay uses the meme as a catalyst to explore the use of AI, particularly new generative AI, in art. Here is the meme:

<meme>The allure of Al entices those people who fetishize ideas but dismiss the work. They're the people who tell writers, "I'll give you the idea, then you write it, and we'll split the profits." For them, the vision is everything, and the work is just an annoying obstacle. But the WORK is everything. The work is how a thing happens, where it's made, where skill is put to work. Al in creativity is for the people who have no skill, no work, no effort, no ethic. They just want to push a button.</meme>

This provocative meme, while it attempts to emphasize the importance of personal effort and skill in the creative process, falls short by disregarding the nuances and diversity of creative endeavours. In this essay, I will explore the role of AI in creativity. I will start with an analysis of the textual/logical problems with the meme, and explore how the meme's core message is undermined by historical examples like Robert Rauschenberg's "White Paintings", On Kawara's "I Am Still Alive" telegrams, John Cage’s “4'33"” composition and Alfred Stieglitz’ “The Steerage” photo. I will explore some of the real risks of generative AI tools and some of the possible benefits. I will conclude with the idea that generative AI tools are legitimate means for the democratization of art.

Acknowledging the Context

Generative AI tools which create novel images, sounds and text covering a vast array of artistic disciplines, have had and are having some very real, very painful impacts on real human artists. People, and artists in particular, have legitimate fear that AI will displace vast swaths of working artists with instant, inexpensive idea-driven replacements. There are additional concerns in the background of any discussion about AI and art such as the role of copyright law and the ethics of how generative AI systems are trained and used. I will return briefly to these concerns later in this essay.

This painful background is almost certainly the inspiration for this meme, and discussions of the meme have mostly focused on this perceived threat to artists who do “the work”. In fact, the core message of the meme, stripped of inflammatory language, is as follows:

"The creative process should involve personal effort and skill, and relying solely on automation or AI without contributing one's own creativity is a concern."

The meme aims to emphasize the importance of active participation and personal contribution in creative endeavours, highlighting that merely using automation or AI to generate creative output without putting in creative effort may raise ethical and artistic questions. Stated like this, the core message and the meme itself both appear reasonable. Let’s destroy that appearance.

Textual/Logical Analysis of the Meme

Deconstructing the meme is our first level of attack. It is necessary to do this analysis to be perfectly clear about the meme’s message and, if true, what that message would be saying about artists using generative AI tools.

The phrase “The allure of AI entices people who fetishize ideas but dismiss the work” uses words (“allure”, “entice”, “fetishize”, “dismiss”) that have typically negative connotations. Very few people will embrace having a (sexual?) fetish. Very few people will want to be seen as (imperiously) dismissive. These connotations at the start of the meme imply that those who view AI in a positive light are somehow deviant and have questionable sexual preferences.

True, not all audiences will see these words in the same light or with the same negativity. But the choice of four words that have sexual connotations is certainly deliberate.

The phrase "But the WORK is everything," is deliberately stated as a universal truth. By making such an absolute assertion, the meme not only oversimplifies the complex nature of creativity but also dismisses any alternative viewpoints or approaches to creative work. While it attempts to champion the value of personal effort and skill, it does so in a way that excludes any consideration of diverse creative processes and perspectives.

Take, for example, the simple reality of a busy homeowner hiring a landscaping company to execute on their idea for their front yard’s garden; is the idea truly of no value and the work “everything”?

“AI in creativity is for the people who... just want to push a button." This assertion oversimplifies the role of AI as a tool in the creative process. It paints a broad brushstroke over the diverse ways in which amateurs and professionals use AI to enhance their creative endeavours. In doing so, the meme overlooks the complexities and nuances involved in incorporating AI into the creative workflow and perhaps shows some (deliberate?) ignorance as to how these generative AI tools actually work.

Additionally, this phrase dismisses the potential benefits of AI as a tool for artists and creators. AI can assist in generating ideas, providing inspiration, automating repetitive tasks, and even aiding in the exploration of new creative frontiers. To categorize all AI users as those who "just want to push a button" disregards the legitimate applications of AI in creativity and undermines the potential for a dynamic, self-reflective loop between human creativity and machine capabilities.

Finally, let’s look at the micro-story contained in the meme:

They're the people who tell writers, "I'll give you the idea, then you write it, and we'll split the profits." For them, the vision is everything, and the work is just an annoying obstacle.

The micro-story within the meme is a brief narrative that attempts to exemplify the meme's core message by presenting a scenario involving writers and the creative process. However, upon closer examination, this micro-story reinforces the problematic nature of the meme.

The micro-story introduces a relationship between writers and idea generators, where the writers are tasked with bringing the ideas to life in written form, and the profits are shared. It characterizes these individuals with the ideas as those who with greed prioritize "the vision" while dismissing "the work" as nothing more than an irritating obstacle. Notably, the implication is that the people who generate ideas will use AI to replace the writers and eliminate the bother of “the work”.

At first glance, this micro-story appears to align with the meme's assertion that the creative process should involve personal effort and skill, and relying solely on automation or AI without contributing one's own creativity is a concern. It suggests that those who offer only the idea and expect others to do the creative work (or AI) might be seen as taking shortcuts in the creative process.

The micro-story's portrayal of those who provide ideas as individuals who view "the work" as an annoying obstacle is judgmental and divisive. It implies that those who focus on generating ideas are somehow inferior or misguided in their approach to creativity. Such a characterization neglects the value of observing, thinking, brainstorming, ideation, analysis, critique and conceptualization in the creative process.

The text is clearly problematic with its unqualified universal assertions and deceptive story-telling. However, it’s easy for people who are not deeply educated on art history to still have the feeling that somehow the essential message is correct. Let’s now move on to some incredible examples of amazing, creative art that destroy even the core message.

Counter Examples

Robert Rauschenberg

The example of Robert Rauschenberg illustrates the point that creativity does not always require an individual to handle both the conception of ideas and the execution of the work. Robert Rauschenberg, a renowned American artist, is known for his works, including the "White Paintings," which are often cited as an example of minimalism and conceptual art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg ).

The "White Paintings" consist of plain white canvases with no visible imagery or intricate execution. From a traditional perspective, these paintings may appear to lack the labor-intensive execution typically associated with art and required by the meme. However, they were significant in the context of the art world because they challenged conventional notions of art and creativity. It is worth noting that people’s personal experience of the “White Paintings” can vary broadly: the author of this essay was filled with joy upon seeing them in-person, but many people are also left puzzled or even dismissive thinking, “I could have done that.” But this diverse individual experience is true of most art. This same author was singularly unimpressed by the “Mona Lisa”, without doubt the most famous painting of all time.

This example demonstrates that not all forms of creativity fit neatly within the framework of requiring extensive personal effort and skill in execution. In this case, Rauschenberg's ideas and the concept behind the "White Paintings" were the primary focus, and the execution was intentionally minimalistic.

Creativity can involve different roles and contributions, and not all artists or creative individuals must follow the traditional model of actively executing every aspect of their work. It challenges the notion presented in the meme's core message that personal effort and skill must be present in all creative work; or, put another way, the author of the meme clearly would have no respect for the “White Paintings” despite their artistic and historical significance since there is no “WORK”.

This example of conceptual art is the most direct refutation of the claim in the meme that ideas don't matter, that the "WORK is everything". Since AI-generated content is primarily determined by the ideas of the users of generative AI tools, it is important to seriously consider the merit of those ideas. Generative AI tools don't (yet) have ideas of their own.

On Kawara

Moving to our next example, On Kawara, specifically his "I Am Still Alive" telegrams, further challenges the meme's core message that emphasizes the importance of personal effort and skill in the creative process. On Kawara was a Japanese conceptual artist known for his series of telegrams that simply stated "I Am Still Alive" and were sent to friends and colleagues as a form of artistic expression (https://www.guggenheim.org/teaching-materials/on-kawara-silence/telegrams-i-am-still-alive ).

These telegrams, like the example of Robert Rauschenberg's "White Paintings," are often cited as a manifestation of conceptual art. They involve minimal visual execution and rely heavily on the idea or concept behind the work. On Kawara's work illustrates that creativity can take forms that do not conform to traditional notions of personal effort and skill in execution.

In the case of On Kawara, the focus is on the idea itself—the notion of conveying one's existence through a daily telegram. The actual execution is minimal (although, interestingly, it was an effort that extended over decades), but the concept and the message are what give the work its artistic significance.

This example reinforces the idea that creativity can encompass a wide spectrum of approaches, and not all creative works require extensive personal labor or craftsmanship. It challenges the meme's core message that places a strong emphasis on the necessity of personal effort and skill in all creative endeavours.

These telegrams, while minimal in execution, convey a profound concept—a daily affirmation of existence. The meme's judgmental tone would categorize such work as lacking in skill and effort. However, On Kawara's telegrams highlight that art can transcend traditional artistic labor and focus on the power of ideas and concepts.

Interestingly, in the “I Am Still Alive” work, the actual physical results were not in On Kawara’s control. Much like someone using a generative AI tool to generate images from a prompt, On Kawara simply provided the words of a telegram and the delivery information while all the execution was left to a nearly-automated system of “generation” and delivery.

John Cage

Our next example is in music. The example of John Cage's “4'33"” provides a third compelling counterpoint to the meme's emphasis on reactionary notions of effort and skill in the creative process. John Cage, an American composer and music theorist, is renowned for his avant-garde and experimental approach to music. His piece “4'33"”, first performed in 1952, is one of the most striking illustrations of his innovative thinking. From wikipedia:

The premiere of the three-movement 4′33″ was given by David Tudor on August 29, 1952, in Maverick Concert Hall, Woodstock, New York, as part of a recital of contemporary piano music. The audience saw him sit at the piano and, to mark the beginning of the piece, close the keyboard lid. Some time later he opened it briefly, to mark the end of the first movement. This process was repeated for the second and third movements. (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″ )

Therefore, “4'33"” consists of a musician (or musicians) sitting in front of their instrument(s) DELIBERATELY NOT PLAYING for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. The absence of deliberate sound-making shifts the focus from the performer to the ambient sounds in the environment, thereby challenging the conventional understanding of music. The piece turns the lack of traditional musical activity into a performance, emphasizing the sounds of the environment that are usually unnoticed during a musical presentation.

Cage's “4'33"” stands in stark contrast to the meme's assertion that creativity is predominantly about labor and skill in execution. The piece required minimal physical effort from the performer and did not follow the conventional path of composition involving melody, harmony, or rhythm. Instead, it was the idea, the concept of embracing silence and ambient (random) sound, that became the focal point of creativity. This composition redefines both the composer’s and musician's roles not as a creator of sound, but as a facilitator of listening, turning the audience's attention to the sounds that occur naturally and spontaneously.

“4'33"” had a significant impact on the art world, sparking debates and discussions about the nature of art and creativity. It demonstrated that the creative process could transcend the physical act of making and extend into the realm of conceptualization and challenging preconceived notions to embrace the random environment around the people doing the work of the piece and the audience of the piece. Again, the connection to generative AI is profound since these tools incorporate randomness as a fundamental “seed” to govern the results actually produced.

John Cage's “4'33"” serves as a powerful example that disrupts the meme's simplistic view of creativity as purely a function of an artist's effort and skill. It showcases how creativity can also be about conceptualizing new ways of perceiving and experiencing the world. Cage's work illustrates that sometimes the most profound artistic statements are made not through action and labor, but through the courage to present an idea in its raw, unadorned form, challenging the audience to engage with art on a conceptual level.

Alfred Stieglitz

Transitioning from the conceptual artworks of Rauschenberg, Kawara and Cage, we now delve into the more tangible realm of photography through the lens of Alfred Stieglitz (https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/stgp/hd_stgp.htm ). At the turn of the 20th century, Stieglitz became a crucial figure in a heated debate that questioned the legitimacy of photography as a form of art. This debate centred around the comparison of photography to traditional art forms like painting and sculpture. Critics argued that the mechanical nature of photography precluded it from the creative and expressive depths characteristic of traditional art. Stieglitz, among others, challenged this notion by emphasizing the photographer’s artistic vision and the compositional choices involved in capturing a photograph, thereby arguing for photography’s place alongside established art forms.

Among Stieglitz's seminal contributions, "The Steerage" stands out as a well-known piece that redefined photography's artistic potential. Captured in 1907, this photograph transcends mere documentation, offering a composition rich in geometry and human narrative, thereby helping people experience photography not just as a mechanical process, but as an art form.

In drawing parallels with the meme's criticism of AI-generated art as simply "pushing a button," Stieglitz's work serves as a testament to the artistic depth achievable through photography, a medium naively reduced to the act of button-pushing. Stieglitz demonstrated that the creative vision and thoughtful composition behind a photograph are what imbue it with artistic merit, not merely the mechanical act of capturing an image. His approach resonates with current debates on AI art, underscoring that the essence of art lies in the artist's intent and vision, whether it's in the click of a camera or the click of a computer button.

As an important aside, the fact that now billions of people have access to high-quality digital cameras in their mobile phones does not mean that suddenly everyone is a capable, creative, artistic photographer. Likewise, one can expect that mass access to generative AI will not mean that suddenly everyone is a capable, creative, artistic writer/digital artist.

The examples of Robert Rauschenberg's "White Paintings," On Kawara's "I Am Still Alive" telegrams, John Cage's “4'33"” and Alfred Stieglitz’ “The Steerage” collectively present a compelling contradiction to the meme's core message about the use of AI in the creative process. These examples demonstrate that creativity is not solely, nor even primarily, the product of visible, labor-intensive effort or skill in execution, but also profoundly resides in the conceptualization and ideas that drive the work. These artistic works all challenge the traditional boundaries of artistic expression, opening our minds to the importance of the idea over the physical act of creation.

Similarly, the use of AI in creativity cannot be easily dismissed.

The Real Risks of Generative AI

While the integration of generative AI in artistic endeavours opens new frontiers for creativity, it also brings with it certain risks that cannot be overlooked. These risks, if not addressed, could significantly impact the nature and perception of art in the digital age. The meme hints at some of these risks but is actively harmful to addressing them and is fundamentally reactionary. Nevertheless, we should consider these risks.

Firstly, the economic implications of AI in art cannot be ignored. As AI tools become more capable of producing art quickly and inexpensively, traditional artists, especially in commercial fields, may find it challenging to compete. This could lead to economic pressures where the demand shifts towards AI-generated art due to its lower cost and faster production time, impacting the livelihoods of commercial artists. There is extensive evidence this is already happening in many business environments where reducing costs and time are often necessary for bare competitive survival.

The use of generative AI also raises ethical concerns, particularly in the realms of ownership and representation.

AI tools require the “observation” of great quantities of digitized artworks to “learn” how to produce new works (the quotes here are meant to signal that these words are distant metaphors for what is actually happening with the underlying technology, namely, a huge amount of mathematical calculations). Aside from the outcome of a legal analysis, there are important ethical considerations for society to grapple with which we will not get to here, but which it is nevertheless important to acknowledge. (See the excellent brief article on the topic by Dr. Mira Sundara Rajan https:// copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/29/is-generative-ai-fair-use-of-copyright-works-nyt-v-openai/ .)

Also in the ethical space, AI-generated deepfakes or other manipulated images and videos can be used to create misleading or harmful content. (Although, to be fair, one must acknowledge the role of subversive and rebellious forms of art that may be perceived as misleading or harmful by some audiences.) This misuse not only raises moral questions but also has the potential to distort public perception and contribute to the spread of misinformation. In the art world, this could undermine the trust and integrity that are fundamental to artistic expression and reception.

One interesting concern with the proliferation of AI in art is the potential dilution of artistic merit. AI's ability to generate content rapidly and in large volumes can lead to a flood of creative works. This saturation of AI-generated art, which may be lacking in true innovation, risks crowding out works that require more traditional, labor-intensive methods, potentially devaluing the effort and creativity that go into human-made art. The ease of AI-assisted creation could lead to an environment where quantity is prized over deep innovation, diluting the overall standard of artistic expression in artistic fields where digital art is considered acceptable to replace physical art (ie. writing, music, and some visual art).

For emerging artists, the allure of AI tools might lead to an over-reliance that could impede their artistic development. While AI can assist in certain aspects of the creative process, and dramatically reduce the effort involved, an over-dependence on these tools can prevent artists from mastering the skills and techniques necessary to produce GOOD art. This reliance might also limit their ability to push creative boundaries and develop a unique artistic voice, as they might lean more towards AI-assisted shortcuts rather than engaging deeply with the creative process. Generative AI tools are so new it is difficult to tell the full impact of this risk as it projects into the future development of artists which is usually measured in decades.

Reflecting on the risks associated with generative AI in art, it becomes clear that the meme's core message fails to capture the complexity and potential of this technological evolution in the creative field. The meme, with its simplistic and dismissive tone, overlooks the historical context in which technological advancements have consistently reshaped and enriched artistic expression at the same time as those same advances disrupt people’s livelihoods and change our understanding of ethics.

Democratization of Creativity and Art

Historically, the democratization of the tools of creation has often led to significant strides in art and culture, despite initial resistance and challenges.

Consider the transition from manuscript illustrators and copyists to the printing press. The printing press posed a threat to traditional scribes and illustrators, as it significantly reduced the demand for their labor-intensive, handcrafted works. However, it also democratized writing as a creative endeavour! Poetry, fiction, plays, essays, philosophy and knowledge: the printing press enabled authors to see the widespread dissemination of their ideas and literature, which ultimately led to greater cultural and intellectual advancement.

Likewise, the more recent dissemination of video recording and editing technology, starting over a century ago, but particularly in the last thirty years, have led to an incredible (and oft-ridiculous) expansion of performance arts from a geographically isolated audience to global audiences, and from a narrow cultural context to incredibly diverse cultural forms of expression.

And perhaps nearly concurrently with AI tools in artistic endeavours, the expiration of patents related to 3D printing technology, has opened up new realms of possibility in terms of design and creativity, allowing for more innovation and accessibility. Certainly, future technologies will continue to take generative AI tools from the digital to the physical world: robotic brush painting powered by AI already exists.

These historical and contemporary parallels suggest that while generative AI may pose risks to certain aspects of the traditional art world, it also holds the potential for democratizing creativity and opening new avenues for artistic expression. In the realm of art, tools have historically served to expand our understanding of the world, create more beauty, and satisfy our material needs more efficiently. Generative AI is no different in this respect. It can be a powerful tool for artists to explore new horizons, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in creative expression.

The meme's assertion that "AI in creativity is for the people who have no skill, no work, no effort, no ethic" is shortsighted. It echoes the fear and resistance that accompanied past technological innovations like the printing press, cameras and many other tools, which, despite initial skepticism, eventually led to significant cultural and artistic advancements. Just as these technologies democratized access to literature and imagery, generative AI has the potential to democratize the creative process, making art more accessible and enabling existing and new artists to explore new forms of expression.