Tonight on Twitter, self-proclaimed artist Blair Dalton received some controversial messages calling her art 'Stolen' and claiming she had been canceled. The original accuser, Eddie Concord, first blasted the accusation out to general populace before directing their comments to Blair specifically in heated tweets. The subject of controversy? A painting of a woman in a white swimsuit based on a photograph taken by Rob Domjen and Clint Robert for video advertising said swimsuits back in 2019. The model in question being Isabelle Mathers, portrayed in the original photograph.
This argument regarding art theft went back and forth, with Eddie proclaiming he 'Wouldn't expect a canceled thief to do research' on the origin of the photo. Blair went on to post other examples of her artwork, and offers of commissions. Eddie responded with a quip about stealing other photos, to which Blair made it clear that she found the photograph from a video, but her only crime was not being able to locate the names of the original purveyors of said photograph. She also made it well known that her clients are aware the art is not hand-drawn, but is AI-Assisted.
So there begs the question: At what point is art created digitally no longer original art? A multitude of artists in the past have used photographs as references, and photomanipulation itself is an art-form. There are also dozens of AI-based algorithms that create new portraits and images which people also have classified as art. So what was Blair's real crime here? Was it simply that she forgot to credit the original photo's creators, or, are the AI-Art programs we've come to rely on for creative purposes hurting rather than helping artists? Let's dive deeper-- In one such recent case, an artist requested their own art and style be removed from a local algorithm, and the respondent programmer stated (about their program) that 'Sure, artists may lose their jobs from this, but the outrage is temporary' and they believe the AI program/algorithm will 'help artists more, in the long run.' Such programs, or at least one in mention above (Stable Diffusion), has recently removed all living artists from their database because, and here's the kicker, "These artists did not consent for their art to be used for advertising." Read that again: The artists did not consent. The programmer, of course, treats this as a favor and mentions that "No real harm was done." In which the artist retorts: “Being able to use a machine to create art influenced by an artist without their consent is a form of theft." The programmer responds with "Oh, so you're a moralist. I can't say I didn't try." So- Is Blair Dalton at fault here... or are the programmers who created these programs the ones truly at fault, for not consenting with the original artists? We'll let you decide.
Comments