Presentation slides can be viewed here.
Background
There is hardly any question about the fact that humans are the only species that create art. Some might bring up examples to refute this; the painting elephants of Thailand, the male bowerbirds that build a collage-display with sticks and glasses to impress the females, bees that build structurally perfect honeycombs, and so on. Yes, they are clearly showing kinds of artistry; and yet, I cannot put them on the same level as artists. They have techniques but not the thoughts—the essential core that makes art, art. What did these animal artists mean by their artworks? Marcel Duchamp displayed a toilet to question the traditional values of craftsmanship; Damien Hirst put a tiger shark in a vitrine filled with formaldehyde to visualize the physical impossibility of death. Many modern artists, including these two, present pieces that seemingly lack artistic techniques in a traditional sense, but their philosophy underneath makes their work “artwork.”
In this sense, it is no wonder that the emergence of AI in the field of art has triggered such a myriad of controversies. Some people even envisioned the dystopian future of the art world in which most of the human artists are replaced with AI artists. This apprehension climaxed when an AI-generated portrait “Edmond de Bellamy” was sold for $432,500 in a Christie’s auction last year. A year later, however, the hype seems to have faded. In November 15th, the Obvious Art—the creator of “Edmond de Bellamy”—put another AI-generated painting for a Sotheby’s auction; the result turned out disappointing for them. Their new Ukiyo-e artwork was sold for $13,000, barely above the presale high estimate. This price crash is indicative of how skeptical the art world is of electronically created artworks. The staggering price of “Edmond de Bellamy” was, in my opinion, mainly because it was the first AI-generated artwork that came under the auctioneer’s hammer. Their second Ukiyo-e was not that special anymore and it was exactly reflected in its price. The artworks of the Obvious art team, strictly speaking, are not “created” by artificial intelligence. It was human who fed the algorithm lots of data. I would not say the AI is an artist here. Humans who collected the data and wrote the code are rather closer to the definition of an artist; AI was just a tool. No one will say the brush in a painter’s hand is an artist, even though it is what actually draws a painting.
Motivation
I intend to focus on the effectiveness of AI as an art tool, especially in terms of creating a piece of fine arts. Using traditional art mediums such as paint and ink is not only time-consuming but mostly irreversible. We cannot simply press CTRL+Z in a canvas. When I create an artwork, the biggest obstacle has always been the lack of my techniques; my enthusiasm cooled off when I could not visualize my thoughts, ideas, and impressions in a way I had envisioned.
The AI tools I have learned during the class, in this sense, can fill in the technical gap of my art experiments. For my final project, I will use AI to color and morph my rough sketches and print out the generated outcomes. Juxtaposing my original sketches and AI-modified versions of them, I want to show the process of how AI spices up my raw ideas.
Reference
Among the models we have covered in the class, I will mostly use the Deep Dream to explore the possibilities of AI as an art tool, and Style Transfer as an inspiration. To break down the whole process, the first step is to draw a sketch and take a photo of it; next, I will briefly color the drawing with Photoshop so the background will not remain totally blank (if there is nothing on the background, AI might just fill it up with dull, repetitive patterns); Last, I will feed algorithms my drawings and repeat the retouching processes. I found that Deep Style tool of this website is particularly powerful.
Below are the articles that gave me some insights: