Artificial Intelligence in Art School - Elaina Daum

    This blog examines the integration of artificial intelligence programs, especially image generators, into visual arts institutions and the implications therein. I first engaged with an article from Hyperallergic: “School Is Back in Session, and So Are AI Art Classes”. Isa Farfan discusses how several universities have integrated generative programs into their curriculum with the idea that AI is a helpful resource to be utilized in making art. The article also includes a counterpoint that suggests it’s a waste of students’ money (Farfan 2024).  Interestingly, Indiana University professors created a studio class based around the use of AI. The article mentions students’ experiences tangling with glitches and struggling to achieve desired generated results, and even using mistakes in a satirical manner, though none of the images provided showcase these instances (Farfan 2024). Instead, the snippet of works from the integrated class feel intentional and thoughtfully crafted…mostly.

“Indiana University student Abbey Niswander’s final project using Midjourney (image courtesy David Ondrik)” (Farfan 2024).

    This piece appears to combine a printed, AI-generated image with physical painting on fine paper.

The background and central subject have an uncanniness to them that is found in most AI-created

imagery. From the strange obtrusion coming out of the head, to the lumpy areas on the lower torso, to the

disproportionate hand, it would be hard to believe that a human made those decisions, even for stylistic

reasons. It is known that the program Midjourney was used, and although it is not specified where, I

think the average viewer could notice these inconsistencies. 

I challenge whether works like this one are successful because they use AI. Where it shines through,

I find the piece to be technically and aesthetically weaker. Human error comes from a hand that has

reason behind it, and that therefore makes our work real. AI’s mistakes come from a lack of the ability

to reason; the programs regurgitate existing images blended together in an obscure algorithm that

doesn’t understand why its results are what they are. What does a student learn from a computer’s

mistakes, but that they can do better themselves?

The second article, from Artnews, investigates a few other universities applying AI in the classroom. There is an overall emphasis on

using it “earlier in the process” of creating art versus replacing final products (Ho 2024). Also mentioned is the use of large-language models like ChatGPT in students’ writing. The article

includes anecdotes about how AI technology is alike inventions such as photographic cameras in its

controversies—at first, not trusted by most—and that it isn’t exactly brand new. The quoted professors

throughout generally seem to respect the ups and downs of AI as a tool for artists. They recognize the

legal issues involved, informing students about their rights or lack thereof with AI-generated content

(Ho 2024).Overall, the universities want students to be informed and prepared for what’s to come by engaging with

AI.

I do believe that ignoring these programs entirely is not the best approach. There are positive aspects

to AI technology, but the ethical issues overwhelm their utility for me. AI image-generating programs are

systematically immoral because they infringe upon human artists’ rights to their own work. Nearly all of

them shamelessly source their data without due diligence to acquire permission. Companies like Meta are

“safe” because they claim to inform users about their willing participation in data scraping by using their

apps. And what about programs like Midjourney, which may not use shady policies to leech from

unsuspecting internet users—how are they compiling the images in their system? The legal implications

have been heating things up already, but change towards fair sourcing isn’t promised anytime soon.

When art institutions harness these programs, even for well-intended purposes, they are supporting

predatory practices that target artists. That’s not an education I’d be willing to shell out thousands in debt

for.

Works Cited

Farfan, Isa. 2024. “School Is Back in Session, and so Are AI Art Classes.” Hyperallergic. August 21, 2024. https://hyperallergic.com/944834/school-is-back-in-session-and-so-are-ai-art-classes/.

Ho, Karen K. 2024. “More Art School Classes Are Teaching AI This Fall Despite Ethical Concerns and Ongoing Lawsuits” ARTnews.com, August 30, 2024. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/issue/art-schools-artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-risd-ringling-college-carnegie-mellon-1234715670/.