Is AI art?

We've had a blow-up elsewhere on this subject.  It got me thinking, what do I know about AI?  I recall the furore a few  years back.  The makers of AI platforms pillaged the internet for art, music and literature to 'train' their platforms.  They ignored the copyright of artists dead and living, giving no attribution or remuneration for blatantly using their work.  Lawsuits followed...they go on...and on...and on.  I doubt I'll live to see the outcome.  All they've decided for now it that art works generated by AI platforms will have NO copyright. What's involved in making AI 'art'?  I've looked it up.  Inside the platform you type a subject.  Let's say...'A girl dressed in retro-style sci-fi costume sitting on an alien planet.  In the style of Alphonse Mucha.'  (Mucha was an artist painting in Art Nouveau Style in the early 1900s, he's much admired and relevant today).  You press 'create' in the app. It produces half-a-dozen images.  You type ' add an alien in the style of Picasso.'  It produces examples of the image.  You type 'add some more planets in the background'  You type 'make it look like an oil painting.'  It does it.  You're happy.  You've made your 'art'...and print it. Does it make you an artist?  No.  It makes you a typist.  Is the image 'art'.  No.  It's a robotic regurgitation of other people's creativity. That's my opinion.  Admirers of 'ai art' will think differently.  We all get an opinion.  I think the term 'ai art' is an oxymoron. Is it easy to spot ai generated art?  Mostly, but not always.  I decided to test it with one of my own paintings, using an AI image detector app.  I used three different free apps, and got interesting results..... This is the painting I tested... I painted it with watercolour, watercolour pencils, ordinary coloured pencils, touches of gouache and acrylic, and pens.  I used a free-use reference photo for Alice, but changed the expression.  The rest is from imagination. The first AI Image detector result was...AI usage likelihood 7%...confidence is HIGH that this is REAL. The second AI Image detector result was... AI usage 69%...Human 31%.  (So I'm only 31% human). The third AI Image detector result was...AI usage probability NIL.  This detector also gave a breakdown of how it arrived at this decision.  I thought it interesting, it mentions irregularities suggesting human activity etc.  I've pasted it below...skip it if you want to.    Artistic Style and Texture The image showcases a detailed, hand-painted artistic style with watercolor or marker-like textures. The brush strokes and color blending throughout the characters and background suggest a traditional medium rather than digital rendering. The textures on clothing, such as the fabric folds and accessories like the pocket watch, display irregularities and subtle imperfections consistent with human painting techniques. ️ Character Design and Detailing Each character, including Alice, the Mad Hatter, and the White Rabbit, is rendered with intricate, unique details that reflect artistic choices rather than algorithmic generation. Facial features, hair strands, and costume patterns show nuanced variations and minor asymmetries that typically come from hand-drawn art. The background elements, like the smiling Cheshire Cat, have a dynamic, fluid appearance that suggests manual brushwork.  Color Palette and Shading The colors are vivid but balanced, with shading that enhances depth and form naturally. The watercolor-style washes and gradient transitions in the sky and on the clothing have a softness indicative of manual technique. Highlights and shadows are carefully placed but maintain a slight organic irregularity, contrary to the often overly uniform lighting found in AI-generated images.  Composition and Thematic Elements The composition is carefully structured, integrating various known characters from Alice in Wonderland in a whimsical scene. The visual storytelling and imaginative details reflect creative interpretation, which aligns with human artistry. The hand-drawn teapot with card symbols and the expressive postures further emphasize manual design. Overall, the image is a vibrant, skillfully painted piece with traditional artistic features, rich detail, and organic nuances, strongly indicative of human creation. I don't like AI art, it's robotic.  It's a machine (not) producing art. Some people love AI stuff.  It's here, it's not going away.  I think POL need to say where they stand on it.  Not easy for them I admit, my three detector tests show it's not straightforward to check.  With one detector stating that my entirely hand-painted picture was 61% likely to be AI.    That's all for now.

Yes Jenny.  I’m always interested in artists working methods.  Recently, on YouTube, I saw an artist who has embraced ai as an ideas tool.  She typed in a few sentences as I described above (that’s where I got it from), and got ideas from the result.  She then went on to paint in conventional mixed media taken from several of the ai results.  The final painting looked different from the ai examples produced.  She said it provided a spur to get her going when she was struggling for ideas.  In this case the end result was a bona fide hand painted piece of art by a skilled artist. I can see that’s a legitimate use of ai, but not something I’d choose to do.

I agree with you Magdalena.  I merely mentioned the artist on YouTube because she was using ai.  In fairness to her, she didn’t copy the ai image, it was a starting point. I’m no advocate for ai.  Just trying to find out a little more about it.  For the most part I prefer to work from imagination, so ai plays no part in anything I do.