A few days ago, in Colorado (USA), a person would have won an art competition by participating with an image generated by – needless to say – an “artificial intelligence”. It is certainly not the first case of “works of art” created without human intervention – just think of the Next Rembrandt – and the many examples of text-to-image used to demonstrate the efficiency of algorithms and platforms. Again, the comments were inspired by the Frankenstein syndrome, the terror of the “creature” turning against its “master”. In other words, there is fear of the “death of creativity” and, more prosaically, of the loss of jobs in the graphics, photography and art sectors.
The concern is undoubtedly well founded, but the nightmare it portends is not the fault of artificial intelligence.
Already software and plugins for digital painting and platforms that offer stock photography and illustrations at low prices – or even free, as Unsplash does – had given the industry a big hit. Pictorial or quasi-pictorial images, stylized graphics or hyper-realistic photographs are already a consolidated presence in the (more or less) artistic image market.
And then, why pay for the photo taken by a professional to illustrate a news, when you can take the horrible vertical images taken with mobile phones that, Abstain from insulting words, “Rival the reflex”, spread on some social profile? What good is an “author” if you are not willing to pay the fruit of a person’s commitment and sensitivity because the “creations” have become a commodity, and what matters is to accompany (or rather, mismatch) a text and an image?
Text-to-image applications fit perfectly into this context where no technical skills or artistic culture are required to create the finished product. Just have a fervent imagination or describe paradoxical scenarios, wait for the software to do the muscular work and then expose the work while waiting for someone to find it “beautiful” or for some journalist to write yet another piece on how good – or dangerous – it is. artificial intelligence.
But, as should be clear by now, it’s not text-to-image applications that pose a danger to creativity. What puts it at risk, on the other hand, is the transformation of the creative act into a shelf product and the transformation of the artist into a producer. We need objects that are readily available, with a high rate of obsolescence and to be consumed quickly, in order to replace them with the next on the list, without getting too many problems or asking who knows what questions.
Anticipating the conclusion of this article, in reality the industrialization of content is not a problem as such. If – as well as some critical currents theorize – the work of art objectifies itself with respect to its creator, what matters is only and exclusively the direct relationship between the creation and the viewer. Quoting Nino Frassica, it is not beautiful what is beautiful, but what is beautiful that is beautiful that is beautiful … So it is completely irrelevant the “how” a work was created because the only thing that matters is whether those who enjoy the painting, the music, the text like it.
This approach, not without foundation, is the presupposition of the prevalence of copyright over copyright, that is, of the economic exploitation of an object over the reasons that prompted the artist to create it. Once the work has been detached from the reasons that motivated its creation, everything can go, even the images produced in a completely automated way.
Net of the intellectualistic and radical-cafon-chic exaggerations that lead to giving (economic) value to simple “crusts”, a work of art makes sense because it is the fruit of the artist’s inner labor. These works will never be replaced by an automated procedure and will always have their own autonomous dignity with respect to mechanical and mechanized exercises. However, there is nothing wrong with recognizing aesthetic value in conceptualizations or in attributing meaning to an image that, intrinsically, does not have any.
If, in fact, what matters is not the work itself but the individual criteria on the basis of which it is considered “art”, it is clear that, like “beauty”, the problem of text-to-image lies in the eye – or rather, in culture – of the beholder.