What is Wrong with AI Art?

Today I will probably upset all my artist friends, but I am not sure what is wrong with AI art!

What is art? I might as well ask, what is life? In other words, it is a question with infinite answers. I believe creativity comes from the imagination or maybe a simpler idea would be thought. There is no imagination without thinking and from there extrapolation of that thought.

How do we express art. I watch children draw pictures and as soon as they are able, they draw or paint objects that they see i.e. people, objects, fruits and vegetables. Then they draw what they believe is funny such as a doll riding on a cat. That is the beginning of creativity.

As I understand it AI art is created in various steps. Here is one formula:

An artist enters a prompt into an AI art generator. The generator analyzes data to find patterns and examples of what the prompt describes. The generator uses the data to create an image or video. The artist can refine the image with additional prompts.

When Christies, this month, had the “first-ever auction dedicated to artificial intelligence generated art” 5,600 artists signed an open letter asking them to cancel the sale. They wrote:

"Many of the artworks you plan to auction were created using AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license ... "These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them. Your support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies' mass theft of human artists' work."

What I don’t understand is that as long as they are not making exact reproductions why this is any different than one artist learning from another. Even a copy of a known artist’s work by their student can have value. It is not unusual to find several versions of the same painting from earlier centuries. The owner of these works, often museums, fight, metaphorically speaking, over who has the original.

It seems to me that using information about works of art to create something different is still the creative process. It all reminds me of the objections to photography. Photography, in the 19th and into the 20th century was thought of as just a mechanical process that lacked the intuitive mind of a true artist. Further there was concern that when color photography was perfected it would take the place of painting.

Neither ever happened because it is what we call the “eye” of the photographer and the painter and the way they see the world that is the creative process.

In summation, to me AI is just another tool of the trade.