ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ART & DESIGN
I posted AI art on a Phantom of the Opera fan site. Then this happened…
Hundreds of people liked my AI Art. Then along came Karen
At the weekend, I worked on an AI image of the Phantom of the Opera. It took over four hours and was a labor of love and technological passion 🌷
In the image, both the hidden portrait of the Phantom (as played by Lon Chaney in the 1925 silent movie), and his surroundings, a Parisian opera house (complete with singer on stage), can be seen at the same time:
My dual image was inspired by surreal optical illusion art, such as the portrait of Mae West by Salvador Dali (whom I’ve always admired).
Dali’s eye-bending artworks reveal a delirious double-bind, a contest for dominance of one interpretation over another (where the “answer”—if art has answers—is to accept both contrary views together without struggling).
Dual images can seem to oscillate between two different yet simultaneous perspectives depending on your stance. We’ll return to this idea later as we wade into the AI/NO AI ART debate: is it possible to both dis/agree with AI?
The public reception to my AI art
Most people loved it. I even converted a few to the idea that, yes, there is something positive to be gleaned from AI art. It changed a few hearts and minds. I had theatre companies ask me if they could use the image in their promotional posters/playbills (Maybe if you’re an amateur theatre; reach out first, credit me on the image, and ship me a poster to frame on my wall! Pro/semi-pro theatre companies; let’s talk. I’m open to licensing the image).
One woman cheekily asked if she could sell copies (No thanks! It’s already an NFT, and thanks to being in New Zealand, I can copyright my AI creations. I have enforced several DMCAs in the past successfully).
More Than Meets the Eye
What made all the difference was the evident time and artistic process that went into making the work. By using a 4-step process that interrupted and changed the generation of the image (you can check out the method below), I had more control and artistic input, if you will. I liken it to assemblage art.
Many people seemed to recognise this, even if they didn’t know my process:
All in all, it was a positive experience. Until Karen just had to chime in.
The Phantom Karen Menace
I like to ironically call this Karen my Number 1 Fan because she stalked me down in several places I’d shared the image, to Make Sure She Had Her Say.
I was called “disgraceful” and “disgusting”.
“I tried to answer her complaints with grace 👸 and, er, gust? 💨 😂
One of her biggest beefs was that old chestnut: AI is a thief in the night:
“It steals the already pre-existing art of an innumerable number of real-life artists, recombining it to make “your” single piece. It’s a collage without the crediting or even recognizing the actual real creators. It’s hardly yours.”
That’s a fair, if misguided, point. Because AI doesn’t “steal”. That’s a very common misnomer. No copy is made or stored, and the amount of info from any one image is roughly 1 byte. An entire artists’ portfolio would account for fewer bytes than one or two Tweets. Wikipedia stores more.
AI art isn’t a collage or a composite; it’s an entirely new synthetic image:
“How can AI art mimic a human artists’ style so precisely?”
That’s due to interpolating massive numbers of data points. The sad fact is, humans are very predictable. If an AI image looks exactly like an artist’s style, that’s just proof—perhaps sadly—that they can be summarized as a constellation of tags. It’s because the training data has such breadth across visual media, not depth into any one person. Imagine viewing all art: you’d be able to summarize a distinctive style through connections between art, without directly copying anyone. You’d learn it; which is what AI is doing.
But here’s the clincher: Phantom Fan Karen was adamant that no-one who “recombines without crediting” is an artist or creator. She cries phoney. Apparently she could never enjoy the work of an artist who did that…
Lady, let me introduce you to Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber.
ALW: The Maestro of ‘Uncredited Recombination’!
Now, don’t get me wrong, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a musical genius. But sometimes, even the greats take a page (or a few notes) from the classics.
I’m going to let the music tell the story for itself. Take it from here! 🎼
From Debussy to Broadway
Ah, those haunting chromatic chords that give you chills at the beginning of Phantom and open the the show. Guess what? Debussy’s “Prelude to the Afternoon of a Fawn” wants its introduction back. Have a listen below:
The Angel of Borrowed Music?
“I am your Angel of Music” is almost a carbon copy of Prokofiev’s “Battle on the Ice.” I kid you not! Hit play on the link below and hear it for yourself:
Puccini’s Phantom
When ALW was writing his hauntingly beautiful line, “Silently the senses, abandon their defences,” Puccini’s ghost was somewhere shouting, “Hey, that’s from La Fanciulla del West!” Puccini’s estate did notice and, let’s just say, Andrew Lloyd Webber had to settle the (musical) score with them. 😉
Phantom Karen’s gripe about AI stealing seems hypocritical in this light. Dutch composer Louis Andriessen stated that ALW: “has yet to think up a single note… by himself”. This isn’t news; ALW’s cheeky borrowings are well-documented. But here’s the kicker: If Webber’s recombinations can earn standing ovations, why is AI’s method dismissed as mere ‘thievery’ instead?
Time to Face the Music
Now, none of ALW’s recombinations diminish my enjoyment of Phantom; I adore that he uses a rich history of music at his fingertips. But I wonder if—or how—Phantom Karen is able to reconcile her avowed hatred of any artist who reutilizes material with her love of Phantom. Will she implode? Turn into a ball of light and ascend to a higher level of existence? Sadly, I don’t think hypocrites change their hearts, or are bound by any internal logic.
In Defense of Synthesized Artistry
Here’s the deal: Art, in all its forms, is always about remixing, reshaping, and rediscovering. Be it music, performance or art, there’s a lineage and legacy that’s passed down, reshaped, and celebrated. Recombination isn’t the antithesis of originality. Originality is never about crafting from a void.
Whether you’re a celebrated composer or a neural network, the essence of creativity is the same: it’s about reshaping the known into something that’s unprecedented. I hadn’t seen anything like my Phantom image before; it doesn’t copy anything. The fact that other AI artists have tried to emulate that image without success demonstrates there is individual skill involved.
Let’s remember, Salvador Dalí (with Phillipe Halsman) swiped the Mona Lisa and called it a self-portrait after slapping his iconic mustache on it:
Why not view AI art as both copying and transformative?
Can you simultaneously cherish and critique? We appreciate Andrew Lloyd Webber and Salvador Dalí, while still admitting there are layers of originals underneath their originality. We recognize the palimpsest nature of their works, the original it overwrites. Defacing is sometimes also recreation.
It’s about perspective. Some see a thieving AI; others see an entirely new medium of creativity. Is it a marvel, a menace, or both? The answer isn’t straightforward. Art never is. But if you want to rage against it, you don’t understand that art has never existed in an airtight vacuum. Art has always been handed down, taken, remixed. Perhaps Phantom Karen and other naysayers can take a breather and bask in the beauty of reinterpretation.
Art doesn’t sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. It’s stolen fire.
Can we view AI art through a dual lens?
I’ll be the first to admit: not all AI images are artistic, and not all are equal. A pigeon can tap a key and get a pretty good image out of AI. But there are artists—many of us—who use AI in transformative and Promethean ways.
Art exists on a spectrum. Whether it’s graffiti, stencilling, photography, or any media: there are degrees of artistry and intent that elevate the ordinary into something remarkable. There’s an object artist, Walead Beshty, who ships unprotected glass tanks through FedEx and exhibits the cracked, imperfect remains when they arrive at their destination as artwork; it’s simultaneously one of the most and least artistic things I’ve ever heard!
Finishing the Hat
We live in a world that often demands a binary perspective: either/or, black/white, yes/no. But art, in all its splendor, teaches us that such boundaries are fluid. Just as dual images challenge us to entertain simultaneous opposing views, the discourse on AI requires the same depth of consideration. Like viewing an optical illusion, perspectives on AI might oscillate between reverence and revulsion, depending on where you stand.
Enjoyed this article? Show some love by clapping! Pro tip: hold down the clap button and spare your fingers the repeated clicking. Thank you for clapping!
Who is Jim the AI Whisperer?
Jim the AI Whisperer offers private coaching on how to write original and compelling content, as well as how to use AI generators to create stunning visuals. If you’re interested in discovering more, feel free to contact me.
I’m also available for podcasts, interviews, fine-tuning AI prompts, and creating prompt libraries and professional AI images for companies.
