Let it Bee? We need to protect the role of human creativity – not gradually surrender it

Last Friday saw the launch of ‘Bee Lane’ in Roscommon town, the latest in a series of public art installations being commissioned as part of Roscommon County Council’s ongoing ‘Living Laneways’ project.

For those who haven’t yet seen it, the installation comprises a number of large-scale prints along Allée de Chartrettes, the laneway which connects The Square to the car park off Church Street. The prints depict a series of neon-coloured images of bees and flowers; the luminous palette chosen a nod to the ultraviolet-inclusive vision with which bees see the world.

The artist behind ‘Bee Lane’ – Sligo-based Graham Reid – describes the installation as a “brief journey into the magical, unseen world” of bees: “the work celebrates the essential role of pollinators in Ireland’s ecosystem while encouraging a moment of wonder and reflection in an everyday urban setting.”

Indeed, it would be difficult to not take a moment when walking down ‘Bee Lane’ for the first time, though not only due to the vibrantly-coloured scenes on display; because what is also evident upon a first glance, is that all of the images have been AI-generated.

 

AI ‘art’?

 

Given the increasing prominence and accessibility of AI in recent years, a lot of conversations have opened up regarding where it should, and shouldn’t, be implemented. One major such conversation has surrounded the issue of AI ‘art’ – and I use quotation marks here deliberatively, because central to this conversation is the debate over whether AI-generated images can ever be considered ‘real art’.

Evidently, in Graham Reid’s opinion it does, with the ‘Bee Lane’ creator defending his use of AI as a natural extension of traditional artistic tools: “If you have an intention and the results match that intention, then it’s the right tool… it’s about coaxing a tool to produce your intention.”

However, though some would no doubt agree with Reid, this does not appear to be the prevailing opinion among most artists. In addition to concerns over valuing the artistic process, many are worried about AI taking up artists’ opportunities – not to mention ongoing controversies about AI models being trained on artists’ copywritten works without their permission; effectively suggesting that when AI ‘creates art’ in place of artists, it steals from those same artists to do so.

For those unsure about how image generation works, it amounts to typing a short prompt into an AI model. Within seconds, maybe minutes, the image is produced. A user may re-enter a more specific version of a prompt to ‘coax’ the AI into creating something closer to their intention, and like any image, it can be digitally edited afterwards, but in general, that is what the process amounts to.

As such, intention (i.e. the prompt inputted) is the sole human component that can be argued to be present in AI ‘art’ – the subsequent interpretation and expression of that original idea is all AI. By nature, AI cuts the artistic process off at the inspiration point, assembling a synthetic collage from fragments of existing human art and photography, as opposed to engaging in the full, iterative journey of creation that involves decision-making, emotional investment, and the physical and cognitive labour of bringing an idea to life.

For some, the intention, the prompt, is sufficient human involvement to consider the resulting AI-generated image the ‘art’ of the user who requested it. But for others – myself included – it simply isn’t.

 

Innovative intentions

 

I understand that in the wake of artificial intelligence’s exponential prominence in our lives, many artists will begin to want to find ways to work with AI lest they be left behind by it.

After all, opportunities for artists are already so few and far between. That is why it is always so wonderful to see bodies like Roscommon County Council not only invest in various forms of art throughout the local area, but also to conceive of innovative projects like ‘Living Laneways’ – which not only aim to provide opportunities for artists, but add to the community as a whole.

What’s more, the scale of the opportunities offered by ‘Living Laneways’ is hugely significant: proposals for the installation at Allée de Chartrettes were invited for €25,000. It goes without saying this sum would be a transformative amount of money for nearly any artist – for anyone at all, for that matter. It suggest a real commitment to and valuing of art that I can only commend the council for; just as I can only commend Graham Reid’s comments about wanting to create an installation that both highlights an important environmental issue and helps the community connect.

Similarly to my opinions on AI ‘art’, I simply feel that while I back the intention, the execution is where I begin to have doubts.

I am all for the idea of €25,000 going towards projects like these, but I am unfortunately also sceptical about how effectively that money was spent regarding ‘Bee Lane’, considering AI images can be generated for free, and effectively instantly. Of course, I am not privy to what the exact process behind the installation was; for example, if significant time or resources were extended to digitally edit the images after they were generated – though even still, I am hesitant about how much leeway to give when the final product still bears the hallmark AI ‘art’ flaws I would’ve expected such an editing process to correct (generated images often feature minor ‘glitches’ in areas; look closely at some of the artwork in the ‘Bee Lane’ installation for instance, and you will spot bees with missing legs or wings, or parts of scenery that are clipped in unnatural places).

I am all for the idea of installing artwork that reminds us of the importance of pollinators, but the messaging feels muddy when said ‘art’ is AI-generated, considering the enormous amount of energy and water that is consumed to do so.

I understand the pressure an artist might feel to embrace AI in their work, and the pressure a council might feel to ensure the expensive art initiatives they back feel innovative – I just think we should face into such pressure more emboldened to protect the role of human creativity more than ever, not gradually surrender to it.