Print: A Plan For All Time / AI and art

RTomens, 2023

Wotcher. Some more folk art for you. It's a pirntowt. The suching waytion being that I have to make piktures. Call it a compulsion. No AI involved, other than my own.

So talking of AI (well, aint it a hot topic?), I got to finking about it the other day and posted them thoughts on Facebook, the place where, as on other social platforms, much artificial intelligence is displayed in the form of knowledge via Google used to give the impression of intelligence from certain human beans  - we all do it, but some of us to check fact we thought we knew but weren't sure rather than to lend a false air if intelligence, right? 

Unremembering comes to us all once we've walked the planet for a few decades. I could have said 'forgetfulness', but being human, I chose a wrong word, a made up one. To be human is to...er...

A few folks I know have been posting AI 'art'. It's all been unimpressive, reminding me of nothing more than 'digital art' (remember that?). You know the stuff, perfectly rendered tigers, perhaps, or even worse, imaginary scenarios of the 'Gothic' kind featuring demons, princesses and monsters. Now this AI 'art' always seems to portray imaginary futuristic situations or familiar faces in 'surreal' situations, such as Beyonce riding a shark. Or did I imagine that one?

Some suggest that's it no more than Ludditism to reject AI art. In some case, from those dedicated to the paint brush, it may be. But as one who has been using the computer as an art tool for years, that cannot be levelled at me. I've even made purely computer-generated pieces, but prefer not to these days. not so much, anyway. 

Apart from the more serious concerns over AI, such as a call from someone who sounds exactly like a friend or relative begging you for money and China's total domination of the world through the use of AI, it's art I'm talking about. The simple fact is that the art-ificial will never conquer human creation yet the talk is of it doing so. I even doubt that it will take over in the field of design but it's likely that some ruthless companies will employ one AI expert and sack other employees to save money. 

Technology can assimilate and reproduce anything we can do, of course. But even if you couldn't tell the difference, which would you rather support? Man/woman or machine? Which would make you feel better, the 'intelligent' copy or something handmade? The answer probably depends on two things; whether you're an artist or not and how much you worship technology. Oh and a third, how much you value 'skill'. The inverted commas are there because skill is in the eye of the beholder. It's takes great skill to create something that looks 'crude' or basic, by which I mean ability, knowledge, experience and attitude, as opposed to the technical variety. Oh, here's a can of worms...I won't open it, except to say that, yes, for some art is all about technical skill. Pity them, reader, for they know not wot they do in worshipping at that altar.

Some folk like their collage, for instance, displaying absolutely no joins...perfectly matched images. Photoshopped, in other words. OK, good luck to them but it's not what I favour. Whilst knowing full well that a human made it clicking a mouse, I do prefer the touches that reveal the hand in direct contact with the paper, scissors and glue. 

So AI takes over the art world. So what? You know there will still be an army of us doing it another way. My technological tools consist of a typewriter and a printer. Well yes, the latter is relatively  advanced, as was the typewriter in it's time. But the former, as anyone who uses one knows, can be cantankerous and imprecise, as well as requiring constant physical contact. Meanwhile, the print process I use still involves a degree of chance. I like chance in art, in the John Cage sense or simply taking chances and hoping for a result. When the element of chance and risk is eliminated, art is no more than a purely technical process and as such, belongs in the realm of the boffin. 

Even early computer art looks crude by today's standards, but isn't it more interesting? Will today's AI art look as interesting to viewers in 50 years time? How can it since it's virtually perfected now? 

Here's to human imperfection now and in the future.