' +
'
Will generative artificial intelligence strip the creative act of its meaning, as it becomes accessible to everyone? This question is currently causing a stir in the art world. Fears are being expressed, from the theft of artists' copyright—whose works can be "captured" from the internet to train AI models that can then generate new creations—to the danger that "prompt art" would represent for the authenticity of artistic creation, which relies above all on the artist's desire, inspiration, and intention—qualities that AIs naturally lack.
Is it possible to contribute to these heated debates, which also animate sculpture, writing, cinema, and music, with moderation and reason? I believe so, as an art lover, but also as the co-creator of a startup that strives to marry art and AI. AI can usher art into a new era, as it opens wide the doors of global creation to the greatest number of people. Thanks to new tools, museum and gallery collections will not only be even more accessible, but the works will also be able to be explained and placed in context. It will also be possible to engage in dialogue with artists, thanks to virtual reality and generative AI.
Art, whether heritage or contemporary, will no longer be a universe reserved solely for professionals or enlightened amateurs, but for all those who are interested in it, providing them with an irreplaceable perspective on the world. Democratizing art means inspiring a cultural renewal that stimulates the imagination and brings a positive boost to our lives. And AI can be an effective tool to help young creators exhibit and explain their work, alongside traditional channels such as galleries.
Can AI kill the creative act by making it almost automatic? Certainly not if it involves asking an AI to "produce" a new Van Gogh or a new Pollock from the writing of a prompt. On the other hand, it can help an artist in their creative work, and some contemporary artists already use it, like those comic book authors who feed AIs with their own works to speed up repetitive tasks. Of course, the machine will never replace the emotional and practical intelligence of the artist, but AI can help the latter in their creative process, like an outside perspective that they would call upon at will. Capable of a highly precise vision of works, AI draws parallels and forges links between the artist's world and the history of art, nature, and the universe. She will not create in place of the artist, but will play the role of a caring partner, by expanding and organizing the artist's “Ideas Workshop” (iconography, references, embryonic projects, etc.), so that he can devote himself fully to creation.
Furthermore, we shouldn't throw "prompt art" out the window. It can be used to generate sketches or drafts, subject to the artist's interpretation to breathe new life into their work. It can also develop into the production of creative and original works, even if they exploit other images and other creations. This naturally raises the question of copyright: the European AI Act stipulates that large generative AI models must respect it and publish sources and summaries of content. But this is a young text, barely in force, and it will be necessary to ensure that artists' rights are indeed protected. Technical solutions also exist that make it possible to make image banks unreadable to AI.
So let's avoid burdening artificial intelligence with dangers it hasn't yet created. Instead, let's evaluate the opportunities it opens up to make our world more open to art and art more accessible to all.
Stéphane Lévy (Bk)
