The controversy over the exhibition poster continues Udine Comics and Games 2024, complicit in incorrect communication with the public in terms of “realization” of the same. In reality it had been circulating on the web since the beginning of January, but the fuse was triggered less than 24 hours ago, revealing the name behind the creation of the background CGI image. Our intention is not to create a new “monster” to hunt, so we will not report it, but it is useful to reflect at this point on how, this latest episode of AI use, is creating discomfort and discontent in the artistic environment, and not just graphic. For simplicity we will use the term “artist” to indicate the commissioning source, “fair” for the commissioning party.
The fair
As a commercial entity, the fair has delegated the creation of part of the poster to an artist. We don’t know what she asked for, but we can imagine that if she published it she wasn’t particularly interested in a precise and rigorous style. Whether it was a hand-colored drawing, a CGI produced by a human or AI, if the graphic format was approved it means that it was in line with the requests. Of course, it would be curious to know if there was the illusion that there was a human intervention because, nothing to say, the final product is beautiful, but on social media there was no about-face, therefore we can take it for granted that, either they were aware of it, or that on balance they were interested in having a poster and the “technical frills” were secondary. It remains a purely ethical and social factor, but underlining again that it is a commercial entity, it is not directly mandatory to comply with this detail. We can safely say that, in a vast artistic panorama like ours, a “human” commission would have been very honorable, possibly without even using famous names. Perhaps the gist of it all, with respect to those who manage the PR aspect of Udine Comics and Games, is summed up in the lack of possibility of acquiring “prestige” from the artistic community, the fulcrum of the paid banquets in the self-area. It seems very clear that there is not the slightest desire to promote the emerging ones, it is enough to raise cash and sell stalls.
Romics has directly cut the bullet, announcing that there will no longer be a self-area, removing this ethical doubt from the outset.
L’Artista
The one who comes out badly from all this is the artist, so much so that he deleted posts, blocked comments and partially blocked social profiles after the (unpredictable?) swarm of heated controversies that resulted from his simple, perhaps naive, statement: I HAVE DRAWN DOWN. But let’s not rush to conclusions, there would still be a lifeline in all this, and it comes from his past works. And this is where, comically the donkey falls, the artist knows how to draw. And it looks good too. Yet nothing of his progress has any bearing on what was generated for the fair. I would have been the first to applaud at an AI creation of him made with a LORE of drawings of him. He wouldn’t have used Stable Diffusion or Midjourney with data from other artists, he would have created the “best version of his illustrations” using a him package and custom prompts. So the paradox is that we cannot use the verb “designed” or “made”. At most it was possible to write something like “result of the prompt designed for the occasion”.
And all this clashes even more with the opportunity at a fair, and for a publisher, to have a stand where 100 autographed copies in a limited edition can be sold. Compared to designers who work hard for some commission at the fair, this “you like to win easy” style advantage almost seems like a slap in the face. These posters will probably sell out more for the flames fetish than for the artist’s merits. But you know, for better or for worse, the important thing is that we talk about it! Then it will be up to each of you to decide whether or not it is worth buying one, given the conditions.
Syntography
Nowadays it is difficult not to know, but understanding whether an image was generated by AI is trivial. As an algorithm builds it through processes, it easily de-processes it with a certain ease. And someone has beautifully demonstrated it to us using a banal online tool. Not that it is necessarily useful, because its limits are known. One for all the correct rendering of the hands, of some hairlines, or of the limbs.
So the question is, why no one simply wrote that it was one syntography, technical and correct name, instead of going around a thousand incorrect terms? The “Ferragni” case has shown us that communication errors are now paid for. Sure, this is a super small-scale problem, but it’s yet more proof that social media is unforgiving. Above all on the credibility and artistic competition of a commission which, although only a fair cover, has its beautiful implications of self-esteem and visibility.
And the proof is the pride with which the artist herself promoted the creation of the syntography and the sale of the related printed and autographed copies. It is clear that this opportunity is tempting, but it is equally clear that if the work you have created has specific characteristics (by choice or commission), you do not declare others to increase likes or appear to be the new promise of the Italian panorama.
As anticipated, we don’t want to blame anyone, also because even though the mistake was made, we don’t know how intentional and how careless it was. We would spend hours speculating whether it was fraud, naivety or ignorance of technical terms. In my opinion, it is indeed important to begin to focus on the evolution of AI in media progress, without demonizing it or abusing it but above all with maximum transparency.
It should also be clarified whether it is appropriate to accept artists who use pure AI to sell prints in the self-area, without there being the slightest artistic interaction. It is possible to train the AI with your own drawings, and this is what I would expect to see from a self-area artist intrigued by technological innovation. Some photographers already do this with their models, why not experiment with your own designs instead of spending money on subscriptions or buying other people’s LORE? Besides being preparatory, wouldn’t it also be cheaper?
Three artists to discover
I use AI for work, not graphically or photographically, and I find it very interesting (often necessary), but on the artistic side for me nothing is like a nice illustration to hang. Often even in black and white. In this partnership between Mondo Japan and Lewis Carroll Society d’Italia we were able to get to know several of them, and in line with the above we are honored to highlight three of them. The first artist, Snow Cape , struck us with an absolutely exceptional Alice in Wonderland style poster. One of his promotional posters from Manga School who kindly gave us donato for the association, but which demonstrates that technology is a fabulous aid to those with golden hands. The second is Lorenzo Baloccoto whom we commissioned his Sortisia in “Alicioso Dark” style. Far from any technology, we asked for an out of the ordinary sketch, and received back a masterpiece complete with Dodo. In the end, Silvia Buganza, despite being at the stand between notebook and graphics tablet, his portfolio was simple, clean, linear. But each illustration had a conceptual depth that an artist could never turn into an AI prompt. We entrusted our first 2024 project to her, far from her AI she had unconsciously hit the target of our needs with her dual interpretation of “crossing the looking glass”.
So why sell out to AIs stealthily when you have the skills to get ahead? Was it really that important to use AI to grab an impersonal cover? And now, what value could this artist’s work have?
We obviously hope that everything will be resolved for the best, that this slide will pass like a storm, but it would be truly correct and ethical to become aware of the problem and act appropriately in the artistic and commercial fields. Above all, it would be really correct to give artists a real opportunity for growth, even if only one, but not to sell out to the “AI cool” image just because it is the trend of the moment.