AI jockey
The J in DJ stands for jockey. That’s the guy who, with external help (of a horse) races to his/their goal. I’m not sure how the winning horse understands he’s a winner. He’ll get his sugar anyway, I don’t think a horse jockey would physically punish a loosing horse.
The DJ uses records of music made by others and machines who produce sounds. Mixing those sources with his inspiration gets his results. The world dances to that music.
The VJ is mixing clips from movies made by others or only uses machines to produce live graphics for a party or installation they present.
Warhol used images made by others, silkscreen devices and the muscle of the people who worked for him. And the world (well, a lot of people) loved that and still talk about his work. Before him there were others, starting with Douchamp, that used objects made by others.
I mentioned “made by others” because some living artists or art critics whine AI is learning from other people’s work. I wonder if the living artists, when/if they went to an art school, did not learn from others before them. Or simply never seen a painting before they first picked up a brush.
Using AI as a jockey is not going to bring the arts to an end. Arthur Danto already claims that we are past the end of Art. He’s got a point in his book.
AI is like a child that doesn’t know much about life; you need to prompt it (the term used to “speak” and ask AI for something) like you would explain life to a child. Even so, AI is not capable to understand metaphors or double entendre. But better than a child, AI is capable to instantly go out in the vast cyber world and look for and answer to your prompt. It finds Warhol’s body of work and try to adapt that style to what you asked it to represent.
The artist is in much control about which image AI is using, how he prompts the AI, how he asks for variations. The AIjockey uses AI capacity as an extension to his/her person.
Of course new Warhols are going to sell those results, if they haven’t done it yet, and sign the work with their names, not including the AI. It’s up to a certain public to enjoy it or even buy it, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
As for “AI taking over art” and putting artists out of jobs, we heard this when the photo camera was invented, then when Photoshop was invented. It hasn’t happened.
I use AI during my work breaks, just to have fun seeing results that don’t exist. I mix in my weird ideas, combine painting styles (I even asked AI to draw something based on my works). How else would I see a Michelangelo painting of 2 men kissing, while lying in the garden of Eden. Maybe he did paint that, as he was gay but because the times were different and he was super closeted, he certainly destroyed the painting.