There's some fabricated outrage going on about an exhibit at the SFO airport that was created by AI and how this supposed "AI slop" exhibit is suddenly deeply offensive to people of colour and a slap in the face to all artists.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...tist-responds/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/com...at_sfo_museum/
https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibition...n-afrofuturism
My take on why I call it fabricated outrage versus merited?
This exhibit first opened in mid May. Clearly it wasn't of concern previously. I think the reason there was no outcry, is because most people genuinely cannot differentiate AI from art, real life or photos and with it blending in the atmosphere of an airport, it fits in as an art exhibit and was a genuinely well thought out and positive exhibit. It also very transparent, with "Generative AI" clearly disclosed. The natural reaction to seeing the word AI is not necessarily one of disgust for everyone.
The reality is the exhibit stood unnoticed for over half a year with extremely positive feedback, and if not for the word Generative AI (that a popular Youtuber noticed months later and declares it is racially offensive), it could have easily passed as any real creative work from any artist. A video on social media calls out the supposed absurdity this week and only now is there outrage? The post went viral for all the wrong reasons.
How about the artists, who the Youtuber claims to be 'not real artists'? Focusing on one the main artists is Nettrice Gaskins. She is a respected African-American artist with a PhD using technology and math as an art form and expression for decades and well before generative AI was a public phenomenon doing similar exhibits in the past. She was commissioned for the exhibit. The art pieces being generated with AI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettrice_Gaskins
https://www.nettricegaskins.com/parametric-ai-art
How is she not an artist? Because of the tool used? The video poster calling it "not real artist, and not real women of colour?" Since when are paintings "real" women to begin with?
How is this deeply offensive, considering it's her creation and her expression? Just because she used generative AI as her tool for these pieces to express herself? To me, if it is transformative, it is art and a creation.
I personally think the gallery is very tasteful and the fake outrage outrageous and absurd in itself. It being AI doesn't make it not art or expressive, or an insult to artists. Feel free to discuss it's a pretty controversial topic but this is a prime example where the pitchforks are unfounded and becoming a witchhunt. Anyways, my controversial take of the day and thought it's an interesting scenario.