Copperscene

For the third episode in this series of thoughts and processes with the design of my new oracle deck I’m going to address an elephant in the room.

The elephant is generative art, or more commonly referred to as AI art. There’s a lot of stigma around this topic, lots of valid concerns and lots of misinformation. Enough that I might come across as a bit defensive here, a stance I wouldn’t need to adopt if people weren’t so aggressively toxic about the matter.

I’m not trying to get the last word in this debate, or even my definitive perspective on it. No doubt you’ve got your own ideas and they’re so likely to originate from emotional places that I wouldn’t even consider trying to move you from your position. Rather, I’m just going to explain why I’ve chosen to use it for this deck.

First, some personal history: I’m not an artist, or don’t claim to be one anyway. At times in my life I’ve painted, silk-screened, inked and created all kinds of visual art. Some of it was pretty good, but none of it’s stylistically what I want for any tarot or oracle deck I envision.

I’ve since moved to digital art. Even when I did big canvases in my teens my focus was still mixed media and collage. I’m very influenced by the Abstract Expressionists; De Kooning and Rothko are two of my favourite artists. So when I discovered how far you can take mixed media collage with digital tools, I learned Photoshop and never looked back.

That was three decades ago. I’m old enough to have heard all the arguments about how digital art isn’t really art and is actually killing art. Just like people before me heard arguments about how photography isn’t art and is actually killing art. And how people before them heard arguments about how found art isn’t really art and is killing art.

All these mediums are totally considered art these days. There’s no controversy. So when I hear the current claims that generative art isn’t really art and is killing art, I raise a skeptical eyebrow and know it’s going to be a few decades before it gets accepted and the discourse is directed at whatever new development challenges the art scene and makes painters feel redundant.

It’s almost as if the adventurous forward-thinking progressive members of the art community didn’t believe in evolution.

Humour aside, I am fully aware that the “it’s not real art” allegation isn’t the main one used by artists themselves. Their issues are a bit different.

Nope, the “it’s not art” allegation mostly comes from people who aren’t artists and don’t actually seem to know enough about art to participate in arguments about what it is. They prove this by following up the claim with their definition of art; which might be what they reckon art should be, but definitely not any kind of actual definition of art.

Anyone – artist, scholar or otherwise – with awareness of the current art scene won’t be saying that a human creating their visuals with text in a scene isn’t real art. Not when some of the respected artists on the planet can display their unmade bed, or make millions from coloured dots (stolen ones, at that!),or just lets paint spill from a suspended bucket.After all nobody doubts that the guys who just wrote a name on a urinal or duct-taped a banana on a wall are real artists.

So why is someone expressing their vision with digital tools getting so much hate? Because it’s “lazy”? I have heard that one before, but surely it’s not lazier than taping a banana to a wall?

Because they’re not really doing it? You’re just telling the computer to do it, so it’s not really your work or your vision? I’ve heard that one too. Presumably the people spouting that one aren’t aware that it’s standard industry practice for artists to farm their work out, just telling their interns to make it. Rodin did it in 1882. Damien Hirst still does, with one of his peers reporting that “[Hirst] has lots of people working on his spin paintings.”

I’ll quickly address another point while we’re here 🙂
Anyone who thinks working with generative art is just telling the computer to do it for them doesn’t much understand the process.

Yes, it is possible to tell the program “draw me a gorilla” and they’ll get back something far more impressive than they worked for. But that doesn’t mean you can easily depict what’s in your head, the imagery you want, by just telling a computer to do it. If that were true you wouldn’t see so many people begging for instruction and tips, taking courses in how to use the programs, etc.

It’s just not that simple. Some skill goes into using these tools effectively, something I’ve invested considerably into learning and training for nearly two years now. It takes skill and an artistic vision. There’s a big difference between a newbie and someone who’s been working with the tools and refining their skills. If you can’t see that, maybe you’re not qualified to comment.

How much skill and work does it take? Well… less than for painting the Sistine Chapel, but more than you need to tape a banana to a wall.

The grievances from artists themselves began with “it’s taking our jobs,” which is a real and legitimate concern but probably not a valid criticism, and has now evolved to “it’s theft because it’s trained on real artists,” for which the legitimacy comes down to what that training means and what kind of claim it is.

Like I said, I’m not going into the effect that AI has on anyone’s livelihood. In some ways it’s the only issue I’m truly worried about, but it’s also a completely separate discussion from arguments about whether the product of the process is valid.

I’ve been an artist in one respect or another (writer, musician, artist, comedian, visual artist, designer, etc) my whole life and I care about the welfare of artists. I acknowledge that technology threatens our ability to earn a livelihood in this field, just as technology has made many other jobs extinct.

Artists weren’t rioting about technology when the people who used to fill the petrol tank in your car, the bank tellers who’d take your deposit, the farmer who’d manually sow crops, or the bellboy who’d push the elevator buttons for you had their careers replaced by technology.

Also, nobody in 2024 wants to go back to paying other people to push elevator buttons for them. Unfortunately we exist in a time and place (“thrown,” as Heidegger would say) and have to deal with the conditions – especially the technology and economy- that we have.

It sucks for artists, but it’s great for consumers. At no other time in history have we been able to enjoy affordable printing, widespread distribution, abundant art.

It seems impossible to imagine now, but less than centuries ago if you had a favourite piece of music you might only have heard it twice in your lifetime. If you were lucky enough to be in the audience when that orchestra performed it. If you had books, you were probably rich.

And sure, you might have been able to make a living as an artist. Or not. Just ask Vincent van Gogh, who never made a penny from art during his lifetime. And he was one of the first generation of western artists who was able to sell their art directly instead of hoping to be one of the fortunate few who got sponsored by a Royal Family or Church (and could only paint royal families and religious scenes).

As for the allegation that it’s theft because it’s trained with existing art, there’s a couple of responses to that.

Firstly, I know lots of artists and I can’t name one who’s paying royalties to the artists, living or dead, who’s work they trained from.Nobody is calling for University art programs to pay commissions to Michelangelo or Van Eyck for teaching and training students with their works.

Secondly, there’s the charge of theft, with the implication that something’s been stolen. This is an emotive phrase that gets dragged out for every instance where technology lowers barriers to entry.

Was anything really stolen? Well, first there’s the sense where people suspect that AI created art has bits of someone else’s painting in it. That’s a false charge. It doesn’t happen. That’s not how it works. If that’s your argument you need to learn more about what generative art is before you can weigh in.

Secondly, there’s the idea that the technology shouldn’t learn from existing art without the creator’s permission. Also an argument that’s neither logical nor legally sound. First, as I mentioned, all artists train on existing art without the permission of the creator, and the algorithm doesn’t have any legal obligations that you don’t when you learn to draw from comic books, etc.

Secondly, the permission issue is incorrect. Anything that’s available, sold, hanging in public, uploaded to the internet, published, on display anywhere, is actually in the public domain and specific permission isn’t required by courts in any country. Not for you or for AI.

Thirdly, there’s the Fair Use Act which might be the only legal doctrine that can be invoked for these discussions. Sadly, it doesn’t rule in favour of the haters. It rules that anyone can be influenced by, train from, and even use existing work if it’s in the interests of creating something new and not impersonating the original for profit.

Fourth, and everyone involved in an art discussion needs to know this point before they speak on the matter: You can’t copyright a style.

This is a big one. I’ve seen heaps of artists fighting among themselves on Instagram about this one with many of them making legal and other threats for taking stylistic inspiration from each other. It’s not something you can enforce.

You might be able to copyright the content but you can’t legally protect a style. For instance, I’m a comedian. You can’t (legally) steal my jokes, but you sure can steal my style. You can say it like me, even mimic my voice. It might be annoying, but it’s also true and there’s no way around it.

And here we come to my role with the deck. I’m not a royal family member or corporation. I’m don’t have the capacity to be a fucking patron of the arts. I don’t deserve hate for that because you don’t either.

For my part, I’ve tried to work with artists on project like this one. I’ve tried hiring artists from Fiverr, which ends up with paying them a but less than they deserve and a lot more than I can afford. Also, that sort of process works a lot better for small projects, because it can take years for a single artist to provide 78 images to spec.

I’ve tried to work collaboratively with artists but I can’t make them interested. And nobody has any interest in profit-sharing on a project where there’s no expected profit.

So yeah, we live in amazing times for getting stuff done, with print on demand technology, cheap publishing, etc. But we’re all still struggling in a cost of living crisis. We don’t all suddenly have the ability to employ people, especially not for passion project that probably won’t make any money.

Thank goodness for generative art, because it means that independent passion projects like this can get made without needing to source venture capital or win the lottery. It doesn’t have to prove mass-market appeal to get made. And I no longer have to be a wealthy patron of the arts to make it happen.

On the topic of just outsourcing your art, this is an oracle deck. It’s not for sale to the art world for hanging in galleries or being critiqued by art gurus. Aleister Crowley didn’t paint his Thoth deck. He got Lady Freida Harris to execute the imagery. A.E Waite didn’t illustrate the RWS deck. He got Pamela Coleman Smith to contribute that aspect of it. Nobody doubts the legitimacy of these decks or discredits the vision of their originators because they outsourced the imagery.

That’s because the image is only one component of a deck. Sure, it’s a pretty significant one. When we review an oracle deck we’re looking at the physical properties (cardstock, box, presentation, print quality, etc), the art (mostly the style, whether it speaks to us and we can align with it for readings), the subject matter (whether the actual ideas behind the oracle are good, whether it’s workable in practice, and also whether it adequately reflects diversity, etc) as well as whether the book is any good.

Some of these factors I’m very confident with. Others, not so much.

As I’ve said, I don’t want to provide it all in a big luxe box. That’ll double or triple the cost of it all, for something that only matters for first impressions and often gets discarded. Luxe packaging, as I observed when I worked in the music industry, is a gambit used by big publishers to shut down independent creators.

The small band releasing their own CD can’t possibly make packaging to compete with the triple-gatefold holographic box that the megacorp can. The indie comic company can’t match the embossed foil covers that the big publishers put on the market.

It’s even the same when major movie studios spend hundreds of millions making blockbusters that indie film makers can never replicate. It might be artistic flair. It might be a loving gift to the fans. But I assure you that the main driver is asserting market dominance and squeezing out the little guy.

Mass Market decks commonly come with giant sturdy boxes, expensive inserts, stuff like that. I want to make this deck as good as possible but the sturdy box is mostly a tool for retailing from stores, so I won’t be doing that. And while I love the idea of gilding – the black and holographic edges are really appealing to me – I won’t be opting for it because most reputable printers won’t do it. They say that there’s a high risk of all the cards being stuck together and ruined. So, nope for the gilding.

Something that troubles me is with the art itself. I’ve gone with a surrealist style, and it’s integral to the structure and philosophy of the deck. I’m trying to integrate the vibes of Kay Sage and Leonora Carrington, Magritte and Ernst. There’s a lot more to Surrealism than Dali’s melting clocks.

I love Surrealism. It’s ideas are as salient and relevant as ever. But does it depict diversity? Not so much. I know that people want to see adequate representation of different cultures, ethnicity, sexual and gender identity.

I’m 100% for that, but it’s sadly not a significant factor of the artistic genre and my attempts to insert it only look contrived and inauthentic. I don’t think I’m going to be able to satisfy that need as much as some might want me to, and that’s a regret.

Hopefully neither I nor my oracle will be judged too harshly for this. If anyone has any ideas about solving this problem, I’d love to hear from them. Until next time…