• | 4:00 pm

This AI can produce stunning images with just a few words of description, but is it art?

What does it mean to make art when an algorithm automates so much of the creative process itself?

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but thanks to an artificial intelligence program calledĀ DALL-E 2, you can have a professional-looking image with far fewer.

DALL-E 2 is aĀ new neural networkĀ algorithm that creates a picture from a short phrase or sentence that you provide.Ā The program, which was announced by the artificial intelligence research laboratory OpenAI in April 2022, hasnā€™t been released to the public. But a small and growing number of peopleā€“myself includedā€“have been given access to experiment with it.

As a researcherĀ studying the nexus of technology and art, I was keen to see how well the program worked. After hours of experimentation, itā€™s clear that DALL-Eā€“while not without shortcomingsā€“is leaps and bounds ahead of existing image generation technology. It raises immediate questions about how these technologies will change how art is made and consumed. It also raises questions about what it means to be creative when DALL-E 2 seems to automate so much of the creative process itself.

A STAGGERING RANGE OF STYLE AND SUBJECTS

OpenAI researchers built DALL-E 2Ā from an enormous collection of images with captions. They gathered some of the images online and licensed others.

Using DALL-E 2 looks a lot like searching for an image on the web: you type in a short phrase into a text box, and it gives back six images.

But instead of being culled from the web, the program creates six brand-new images, each of which reflect some version of the entered phrase. (Until recently, the program produced 10 images per prompt.) For example, when some friends and I gave DALL-E 2 the text prompt ā€œcats in devo hats,ā€Ā it produced 10 imagesĀ that came in different styles.

Nearly all of them could plausibly pass for professional photographs or drawings. While the algorithm did not quite grasp ā€œDevo hatā€ā€“the strange helmets worn by the New Wave band Devoā€“the headgear in the images it produced came close.

Over the past few years, a small community of artists have been using neural network algorithms to produce art. Many of these artworks have distinctive qualities that almost look like real images,Ā but with odd distortions of spaceĀ ā€“ a sort of cyberpunk Cubism. The most recent text-to-image systemsĀ often produce dreamy, fantastical imageryĀ that can be delightful but rarely looks real.

DALL-E 2 offers a significant leap in the quality and realism of the images. It can also mimic specific styles with remarkable accuracy. If you want images that look like actual photographs, itā€™ll produce six life-like images. If you want prehistoric cave paintings of Shrek, itā€™ll generate six pictures of Shrek as if theyā€™d been drawn by a prehistoric artist.

Itā€™s staggering that an algorithm can do this. Each set of images takes less than a minute to generate. Not all of the images will look pleasing to the eye, nor do they necessarily reflect what you had in mind. But, even with the need to sift through many outputs or try different text prompts, thereā€™s no other existing way to pump out so many great results so quicklyā€“not even by hiring an artist. And, sometimes, the unexpected results are the best.

In principle,Ā anyone with enough resources and expertise can make a system like this. Google ResearchĀ recently announced an impressive, similar text-to-image system, and one independent developer is publicly developing their own version thatĀ anyone can try right now on the web, although itā€™s not yet as good as DALL-E or Googleā€™s system.

Itā€™s easy to imagine these tools transforming the way people make images and communicate, whether via memes, greeting cards, advertisingā€“and, yes, art.

WHEREā€™S THE ART IN THAT?

I had a moment early on while using DALL-E 2 to generate different kinds of paintings, in all different stylesā€“like ā€œOdilon Redon painting of Seattleā€ā€“when it hit me that this was better than any painting algorithm Iā€™ve ever developed. Then I realized that it is, in a way, a better painter than I am.

In fact, no human can do what DALL-E 2 does: create such a high-quality, varied range of images in mere seconds. If someone told you that a person made all these images, of course youā€™d say they were creative.

ButĀ this does not make DALL-E 2 an artist. Even though it sometimes feels like magic, under the hood it is still a computer algorithm, rigidly following instructions from the algorithmā€™s authors at OpenAI.

If these images succeed as art, they are products of how the algorithm was designed, the images it was trained on, andā€“most importantlyā€“how artists use it.

You might be inclined to say thereā€™s little artistic merit in an image produced by a few keystrokes. But in my view, this line of thinking echoesĀ the classic takeĀ that photography cannot be art because a machine did all the work. Today the human authorship and craft involved in artistic photography are recognized, and critics understand that the best photography involves much more than just pushing a button.

Even so, we often discuss works of art as if they directly came from the artistā€™s intent. The artist intended to show a thing, or express an emotion, and so they made this image. DALL-E 2 does seem to shortcut this process entirely: you have an idea and type it in, and youā€™re done.

But when I paint the old-fashioned way, Iā€™ve found that my paintings come from the exploratory process, not just from executing my initial goals. And this is true for many artists.

Take Paul McCartney, who came up with the track ā€œGet Backā€ during a jam session. He didnā€™t start with a plan for the song; he just started fiddling and experimentingĀ and the band developed it from there.

PicassoĀ described his process similarly: ā€œI donā€™t know in advance what I am going to put on canvas any more than I decide beforehand what colors I am going to use . . . Each time I undertake to paint a picture I have a sensation of leaping into space.ā€

InĀ my own explorations with DALL-E 2, one idea would lead to another which led to another, and eventually Iā€™d find myself in a completely unexpected, magical new terrain, very far from where Iā€™d started.

PROMPTING AS ART

I would argue that the art, in using a system like DALL-E 2, comes not just from the final text prompt, but in the entire creative process that led to that prompt. Different artists will follow different processes and end up with different results that reflect their own approaches, skills and obsessions.

I began to see my experiments as a set of series, each a consistent dive into a single theme, rather than a set of independent wacky images.

Ideas for these images and series came from all around, often linked by a set ofĀ stepping stones. At one point, while making images based on contemporary artistsā€™ work, I wanted to generate an image of site-specific installation art in the style of the contemporary Japanese artistĀ Yayoi Kusama. After trying a few unsatisfactory locations, I hit on the idea of placing it inĀ La Mezquita, a former mosque and church in CĆ³rdoba, Spain. I sentĀ the picture to an architect colleague, Manuel Ladron de Guevara, who is from CĆ³rdoba, and we began riffing on other architectural ideas together.

This became a series on imaginary new buildings in different architectsā€™ styles.

So Iā€™ve started to consider what I do with DALL-E 2 to be both a form of exploration as well as a form of art, even if itā€™s often amateur art like the drawings I make on my iPad.

Indeed some artists, likeĀ Ryan Murdoch, have advocated for prompt-based image-making to be recognized as art. He points to theĀ experienced AI artist Helena Sarin as an example.

ā€œWhen I look at most stuff fromĀ Midjourneyā€œā€“another popular text-to-image systemā€“ā€a lot of it will be interesting or fun,ā€ Murdoch told me in an interview. ā€œBut with [Sarinā€™s] work, thereā€™s a through line. Itā€™s easy to see that she has put a lot of thought into it, and has worked at the craft, because the output is more visually appealing and interesting, and follows her style in a continuous way.ā€

Working with DALL-E 2, or any of the new text-to-image systems, means learning its quirks and developing strategies for avoiding common pitfalls. Itā€™s also important to know aboutĀ its potential harms, such as its reliance on stereotypes, and potential uses for disinformation. Using DALL-E 2, youā€™ll also discover surprising correlations, like the way everything becomes old-timey when you use an old painter, filmmaker or photographerā€™s style.

When I have something very specific I want to make, DALL-E 2 often canā€™t do it. The results would require a lot of difficult manual editing afterward. Itā€™s when my goals are vague that the process is most delightful, offering up surprises that lead to new ideas that themselves lead to more ideas and so on.

CRAFTING NEW REALITIES

These text-to-image systems can help users imagine new possibilities as well.

Artist-activist Danielle BaskinĀ told me that she always works ā€œto show alternative realities by ā€˜realā€™ example: either by setting scenarios up in the physical world or doing meticulous work in Photoshop.ā€ DALL-E 2, however, ā€œis an amazing shortcut because itā€™s so good at realism. And thatā€™s key to helping others bring possible futures to life ā€“ whether its satire, dreams or beauty.ā€

She has used it to imagineĀ an alternative transportation systemĀ andĀ plumbing that transports noodles instead of water, both of which reflectĀ her artist-provocateur sensibility.

Similarly, artist Mario Klingemannā€™sĀ architectural renderings with the tents of homeless peopleĀ could be taken as a rejoinder toĀ my architectural renderings of fancy dream homes.

Itā€™s too early to judge the significance of this art form. I keep thinking of a phrase from the excellent book ā€œArt in the After-Cultureā€œā€“ā€The dominant AI aesthetic is novelty.ā€

Surely this would be true, to some extent, for any new technology used for art. The first films by theĀ LumiĆØre brothersĀ in 1890s were novelties, not cinematic masterpieces; it amazed people to see images moving at all.

AI art software develops so quickly that thereā€™s continual technical and artistic novelty. It seems as if, each year, thereā€™s an opportunity to explore an exciting new technologyā€“each more powerful than the last, and each seemingly poised to transform art and society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Aaron Hertzmann is an affiliate faculty of computer science at the University of Washington. More

More Top Stories:

FROM OUR PARTNERS