I, Robot – open edition digital print inspired by Isaac Asimov

I Robot

Science Fiction themes are common in my work. This isn’t surprising since I’ve been reading it for over 60 years! This print takes inspiration from the Robot stories of Isaac Asimov. In it, a metallic looking figure stands in a very human pose, although in Asimov’s original stories the robots could pass for human.

The idea of an artificial being is an old literary theme, going back well before Frankenstein. It certainly goes back the story of Pygmalion. The word robot however only dates to 1921. It was first used in a science fiction play called R.U.R, by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum’s Universal Robots.) It premiered on 25 January 1921 and introduced the word “robot” to the English language and to science fiction as a whole. In many ways the theme of the play is similar to the modern TV series Humans.

It is available as an open edition in two sizes:

* about 11” x 8” – unmounted or mounted. The mount will fit a standard 16″ x12″ frame (approx 40 cm x 30 cm)

* about 16” x 10” – unmounted

I will sign the print on the image and on the reverse.

It is produced on a matt finish art paper about 300gsm. The quoted dimensions are approximate and refer to the size of the image not the paper sheet on which it is printed. All prints have a minimum border of 0.5 inches to allow for framing.

If you would like your mount in another size please contact me for price and delivery time, before ordering.

You are buying the physical print only. I retain all other rights of reproduction. In particular, I reserve the right to use the image in other forms such as note cards and apparel. Any frame shown is for illustrative purposes only and is not included in the price.

It will be shipped flat in reinforced packaging.

To order I Robot as a notecard please see the separate listing or get in touch if you cannot find it.

About Digital Prints

I use the term Digital Print to mean an image made in the computer but always intended to be printed. I do not sell reproductions of work originally made in another medium. The digital prints I sell range from photographs with some degree of digital manipulation to images created entirely from scratch using tools like graphics tablets and a wide range of software.

In general, I only sell Open Editions. A few prints are offered here as Limited Editions, but that is because I have sold them in the past that way, and it would not be ethical to change their status. Open Edition means there is no limit on the number or size of copies sold. Prices are slightly lower to reflect the difference.

I made the change because there is no practical art related reason to limit the edition. Drypoint plates will wear out, collagraph plates will break up or distort, but every print from a computer file is always exactly the same (setting aside variations caused by changing the printer used.)

I print everything to order, using a Canon Pro9500 Mark II printer and genuine Canon pigment inks. I use a limited selection of papers generally from Fotospeed or Olmec. Using the same printer, ink and paper combination ensures consistent quality.

Tango No 3 – open edition digital print of tango dancers

Argentine tango

Tango No 3 is a digital print.  With its partner image Tango #1 it is one of my favourites. A few years ago I made a series of digital prints, all on dance themes. Several specifically showed the Argentine Tango. Out of print for quite a while, I am now reviving them.

It is available as an open edition in two sizes:

* about 11” x 8” – unmounted or mounted. The mount will fit a standard 16″ x12″ frame (approx 40 cm x 30 cm)

* about 16” x 10” – unmounted

Each print is signed on the image and on the reverse.

The print will be made on a matt finish art paper about 300gsm. The quoted dimensions are approximate and refer to the size of the image not the paper sheet on which it is printed. All prints have a minimum border of 0.5 inches to allow for framing.

If you would like your mount in another size please contact me for price and delivery time, before ordering.

You are buying the physical print only. I retain all other rights of reproduction. In particular, I reserve the right to use the image in other forms such as note cards and apparel. Any frame shown is for illustrative purposes only and is not included in the price.

It will be shipped flat in reinforced packaging.

To order Tango No 3 as a notecard please see the separate listing or get in touch if you cannot find it.

Follow this link to see my other Argentine Tango prints.

About Digital Prints

When I use the term Digital Print I mean an image made in the computer but always intended to be printed. I do not mean, and do not sell, reproductions of work originally made in another medium. The digital prints I sell range from photographs with some degree of digital manipulation to images created entirely from scratch using tools like graphics tablets and a wide range of software.

In general, I sell Open Editions. A few prints are offered here as Limited Editions, but that is because I have sold them in the past that way, and it would not be ethical to change their status. Open Edition means there is no limit on the number or size of copies sold. Prices are slightly lower to reflect the difference.

I made the change because there is no practical art related reason to limit the edition. Drypoint plates will wear out, collagraph plates will break up or distort, but every print from a computer file is always exactly the same (setting aside variations caused by changing the printer used.)

I make all my digital prints to order, doing the printing myself, using a Canon Pro9500 Mark II printer, with genuine Canon pigment inks. I use a limited selection of papers generally from Fotospeed or Olmec. Using the same printer, ink and paper combination means I can guarantee consistent quality.

Tango No 1 – open edition digital print of Tango dancers

tango dancers in blue

Tango No 1 is a digital print, showing two tango dancers in a characteristic tango pose. It has been made by combining photographs of the dancers into a single image then modifying the file using a variety of software tools and a graphics tablet.

It is available as an open edition in two sizes:

* about 11” x 8” – unmounted or mounted. The mount will fit a standard 16″ x12″ frame (approx 40 cm x 30 cm)

* about 16” x 10” – unmounted

Each print is signed on the image and on the reverse.

The print will be made on a matt finish art paper about 300gsm. The quoted dimensions are approximate and refer to the size of the image not the paper sheet on which it is printed. All prints have a minimum border of 0.5 inches to allow for framing.

If you would like your mount in another size please contact me for price and delivery time, before ordering.

You are buying the physical print only. I retain all other rights of reproduction. In particular, I reserve the right to use the image in other forms such as note cards and apparel. Any frame shown is for illustrative purposes only and is not included in the price.

It will be shipped flat in reinforced packaging.

To order Tango No 1 as a notecard please see the separate listing or get in touch if you cannot find it. I also have several other prints of Tango Dancers, so check the shop and perhaps order a pair!

About Digital Prints

I use the term Digital Print to mean an image made in the computer but always intended to be printed. I do not sell reproductions of work originally made in another medium. The digital prints I sell range from photographs with some degree of digital manipulation to images created entirely from scratch using tools like graphics tablets and a wide range of software.

In general, they are sold as Open Editions. A few prints are offered here as Limited Editions, but that is because I have sold them in the past that way, and it would not be ethical to change their status. Open Edition means there is no limit on the number or size of copies sold. Prices are slightly lower to reflect the difference.

I made the change because there is no practical art related reason to limit the edition. Drypoint plates will wear out, collagraph plates will break up or distort, but every print from a computer file is always exactly the same (setting aside variations caused by changing the printer used.)

All the prints you can buy here are printed to order by me using a Canon Pro9500 Mark II printer. I only use Canon pigment inks. I use a limited selection of papers generally from Fotospeed or Olmec. Using the same printer, ink and paper combination ensures consistent quality.

Firebird – Dramatic limited edition dance print

dramatic dance print in bold graphic colours

A dramatic digital print capturing the vitality of Stravinsky’s Firebird ballet, with bold, graphic colours and energetic lines.

Firebird is not a reproduction. It was conceived from the outset in digital format with the aim of creating a print on paper. It has no existence in any other form.

Offered in a limited edition of 50 prints, each 11″ x 8″, made on a smooth finish art paper about 300gsm and mounted to fit a standard 16″ by 12″ frame.

You are buying the physical print only. I retain all other rights of reproduction.

Sunset at Sea – open edition digital print

Sunset at sea

Sunset at sea  is a digital print. It began life as a photograph of a sailing ship, but has been digitally overpainted and other changes made using a variety of software tools.

It is available as an open edition in two sizes:

* about 11” x 8” – unmounted or mounted. The mount will fit a standard 16″ x12″ frame (approx 40 cm x 30 cm)

* about 16” x 10” – unmounted

Each print is signed on the image and on the reverse.

The print will be made on a matt finish art paper about 300gsm. The quoted dimensions are approximate and refer to the size of the image not the paper sheet on which it is printed. All prints have a minimum border of 0.5 inches to allow for framing.

If you would like your mount in another size please contact me for price and delivery time, before ordering.

You are buying the physical print only. I retain all other rights of reproduction. In particular, I reserve the right to use the image in other forms such as note cards and apparel. Any frame shown is for illustrative purposes only and is not included in the price.

It will be shipped flat in reinforced packaging.

To order Sunset at Sea as a notecard please see the separate listing or get in touch if you cannot find it.

About Digital Prints

I use the term Digital Print to mean an image made in the computer but always intended to be printed. I do not sell reproductions of work originally made in another medium. The digital prints I sell range from photographs with some degree of digital manipulation to images created entirely from scratch using tools like graphics tablets and a wide range of software.

In general, they are sold as Open Editions. A few prints are offered here as Limited Editions, but that is because I have sold them in the past that way, and it would not be ethical to change their status. Open Edition means there is no limit on the number or size of copies sold. Prices are slightly lower to reflect the difference.

I made the change because there is no practical art related reason to limit the edition. Drypoint plates will wear out, collagraph plates will break up or distort, but every print from a computer file is always exactly the same (setting aside variations caused by changing the printer used.)

All the prints you can buy here are printed to order by me using a Canon Pro9500 Mark II printer. I only use Canon pigment inks. I use a limited selection of papers generally from Fotospeed or Olmec. Using the same printer, ink and paper combination ensures consistent quality.

Stripes 2

Stripes 2 - digital print from Stripes series

Stripes 2 is one of a set of digital prints, all available in limited editions of 70. They were derived from scans of some of my analogue collage works (also available from the shop.)

They have a complicated pedigree. The shapes and colours come from the collage pieces. The papers I used to make those collage, were themselves made by gel printing.

I made these ‘Stripe’ images using only the native tools available in Paint Shop Pro. I used stripes for the same reason I first picked on the cross, and recently the fuji-like peak silhouette. They were a recognisable starting point. I think at the back of my mind, I probably also had the artist Sean Scully in mind.

There are of course many other artists who use the stripe in their work. See here, from the Tate, for example, or here, from a US site. In the end, the images which emerged seem much closer to the work of Johnnie Cooper, in particular the work in ‘Fractured Light: Johnnie Cooper, Collages 1992–1997‘.

My aim with the ‘Stripe’ series, and other digital images I will be adding soon, is to provide original art at a genuinely affordable price. The process that I use, takes data from existing images, but the final product is entirely new. These are genuine originals, not reproductions. There is no pre-existing image in another medium. This blog post explains more.

Each print is 27 cm x 27 cm (about 10.5″) on 30 cm x 30 cm sheets. I print to order using light fast pigment inks on 285 gsm archival quality matt paper, then sign and number each one. The edition size is 70.

Frames or mats shown in the listing are for illustration only. You have several options when buying.

  • Unframed and unmounted, shipped flat in sturdy protective packaging.
  • Unframed, but in a mat. Matted prints come packed with a backing board ready to drop into a standard size, 50 cm x 50 cm frame, or for you to take to your local framer. The mat colour is antique white. (Base price + £10)
  • Framed and in a mat. This has a simple black moulding with acrylic glazing to reduce weight and for safety in shipping. To keep to an affordable price, the frame will be commercially produced, not hand made. This option also incurs higher shipping costs.(Base price + £35)

Follow this link for a range of other affordably priced items, all under £50.

 

Stripes 1

stripes 1 a digital print

Stripes 1 is an original digital print, one of a set based on stripes. They are all available in limited editions of 70. I made it using, as a data source, scans of some of my analogue collage works (also available from the shop.)

They have a complicated pedigree. The shapes and colours come from the collage pieces. The papers I used to make those collage, were themselves made by gel printing.

I made these ‘Stripe’ images using only the native tools available in Paint Shop Pro. I used stripes for the same reason I first picked on the cross, and recently the fuji-like peak silhouette. They were a recognisable starting point. I think at the back of my mind, I probably also had the artist Sean Scully in mind.

There are of course many other artists who use the stripe in their work. See here, from the Tate, for example, or here, from a US site. In the end, the images which emerged seem much closer to the work of Johnnie Cooper, in particular the work in ‘Fractured Light: Johnnie Cooper, Collages 1992–1997‘.

My aim with the ‘Stripe’ series, and other digital images I will be adding soon, is to provide original art at a genuinely affordable price. The process that I use, takes data from existing images, but the final product is entirely new. These are genuine originals, not reproductions. There is no pre-existing image in another medium. This blog post explains more.

Each print is 27 cm x 27 cm (about 10.5″) on 30 cm x 30 cm sheets. I print to order using light fast pigment inks on 285 gsm archival quality matt paper, then sign and number each one. The edition size is 70.

Frames or mats shown in the listing are for illustration only. You have several options when buying.

  • Unframed and unmounted, shipped flat in sturdy protective packaging.
  • Unframed, but in a mat. Matted prints come packed with a backing board ready to drop into a standard size, 50 cm x 50 cm frame, or for you to take to your local framer. The mat colour is antique white. (Base price + £10)
  • Framed and in a mat. This has a simple black moulding with acrylic glazing to reduce weight and for safety in shipping. To keep to an affordable price, the frame will be commercially produced, not hand made. This option also incurs higher shipping costs.(Base price + £35)

Follow this link for a range of other affordably priced items, all under £50.

 

Posted on 5 Comments

Art, AI and AI art – Part 2

An AI image of Aphrodite rising from the waves, after the original by Botticelli

Introduction to Part 2

This post began as a limited review of what has become known as AI Art. In order to do that, I had to delve deeper into AI in general. Consequently, the post has grown significantly and is now in three parts. Part 1 looked at AI in general. This post, Part 2 will look at more specific issues raised by AI art. Part 3 will look at the topic from the perspective of an artist. Finally, Part 4 will be a gallery of AI-generated images.

This isn’t a consumer review of the various AI art packages available. There are too many, and my budget doesn’t run to subscriptions to enough of them to make such a review meaningful. My main focus is on commonly raised issues such as copyright, or the supposed lack of creativity. I have drawn only on one AI app. Imagine AI, for which I took out a subscription. I tried a few others, using the free versions, but these are usually almost shackled by ads or with only a limited set of capabilities.

Links to each post will be here, once the series is complete.

How do AI art generators work?

What they do, is take a string of text, and from that, generate pictures in various styles. How do they achieve that? The short answer is that I have no idea. So, I asked ChatGPT again! (Actually I asked several times, in different ways) I’ve edited the responses, so the text below is my own words, using ChatGPT as a researcher.

In essence there are several steps, each capable of inserting bias into the output.

Data Collection and Preprocessing

The AI art generator is trained on a large dataset of existing images. This can include paintings, drawings, photographs, and more. Generally, each image is paired with a text that in some way describes what the image is about. The data can be noisy and contain inconsistencies, so a certain amount of preprocessing is required. The content of the dataset is critical to the images that can be produced. If it only has people in it, the model won’t be able to generate images of cats or buildings. If the distribution of ethnicities is skewed, so will be the eventual output.

Selection of Model Architecture

The ‘model’ is essentially the software that interprets the data and generates the images. There are numerous models in use. The choice of model is critical, it determines the kind of images the AI art generator can produce. In practice, the model may have several components. A base model might be trained on a large database of images, while a fine-tuning model is used to direct the base model output towards a particular aesthetic.

Training

During training, the AI model learns to capture the underlying patterns and features of the images in the dataset of artworks. How this is done depends on the model in use. It seems, however, that they all depend on a process of comparing randomly generated images with the dataset and refining the generated image to bring it as close as possible to the original

Generating Art

After training, the AI can be used to generate new art. This is a significant task in its own right. The app’s AI model needs to understand the semantics of the text and extract relevant information about the visual elements mentioned. It then combines the information extracted from the text prompt with its own learned knowledge of various visual features, such as objects, colours, textures, and more. This fusion of textual and visual features guides the model in generating an image that corresponds to the given prompt.

Fine-Tuning and Iteration

There is a skill in writing the text prompts. The writer needs to understand how the text to image element of the app works in practice. In use, therefore, there is often a need for fine-tuning. Artists may adjust the prompt or other parameters to achieve the results they have in mind. Feedback from this process may also help in development and refinement of the model.

Style Transfer and Mixing

Some AI art generators allow for style transfer or mixing. The AI will generate a new image based on the content of a specific piece, but in the style of another.

Post-Processing

The generated image may then be subject to further post-processing to achieve specific effects or to edit out artefacts such as extra fingers.

Is it really intelligent?

Many of these apps describe themselves as AI ‘Art’ generators. That is, I think, a gross exaggeration of their capabilities. There is little ‘intelligence’ involved. The system does not know that a given picture shows a dog. It knows that a given image from the training data is associated with a word or phrase, say dog. It doesn’t know that dogs have four legs. Likewise, it doesn’t know anatomy at all. It probably knows perhaps that dog images tend to have the shapes we identify as legs, broadly speaking one at each corner, but doesn’t know why, or how they work, or even which way they should face, except as a pattern.

Importance of training data

Indeed, in the unlikely event of a corruption in the training data, such as identifying every image of a dog as a sheep, and vice versa, the AI would still function perfectly, but the sheep would be herding the dogs. If the dataset did not include any pictures of dogs, it could not generate a picture of a dog.

On top of that, if there is any scope for confusion in the text prompts, these programs will find it. To be fair, humans are not very good at understanding texts either, as five minutes on Twitter will demonstrate. Even so, I’m sure that art AI will get better, technically at least. It will even learn to count limbs and mouths.

Whatever we call it, we know real challenges are coming. Convincing ‘deep fake’ videos are already possible. I’m guessing that making them, involves some human intervention at the end to smooth out the anomalies. That will change, at which point the film studios will start to invest.

We are still a long way from General AI though. An art AI can’t yet be redeployed on medical research, even if some of the pattern matching components are similar.

Is AI art, theft?

These apps do not generate anything. They depend upon images created by third parties, which have been scraped from the web, with associated text. It is often claimed that this dependency is plagiarism or breach of copyright. There are several class-action lawsuits pending in the US, arguing just that.

Lawsuits

These claims include:

  • Violation of sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) covering stripping images of copyright-related information
  • Direct copyright infringement by training the AI on the scraped images, and reproducing and distributing derivative works of those images
  • Vicarious copyright infringement for allowing users to create and sell fake works of well-known artists (essentially impersonating the artists)
  • Violation of the statutory and common law rights of publicity related to the ability to request art in the style of a specific artist

Misconceived claims

It is difficult to see how they can succeed, but once cases get to court, aberrant decisions are not exactly rare. For what it’s worth, though, my comments below. (IANAL)

  • The argument about stripping images of copyright information seems to be based on an assumption the images are retained. If no version of an image exists without the copyright data, how is it stripped?
  • The link between the original data and the images created using the AI seems extremely tenuous and ignores the role of the text prompts, which are in themselves original and subject to copyright protection.
  • A style can not be copyrighted. The law does not protect an idea, only the expression of an idea. In prosaic terms, the idea of a vacuum cleaner cannot be copyrighted, but the design of a given machine can be. If a given user creates images in the style of a known artist, that is not, of itself, a breach of copyright. If they attempt to pass off that image as the work of that artist, it is dishonesty on the part of the user, not the AI company. This is no different to any other case of forgery. Suing the AI company is like suing the manufacturer of inks used by a forger.
  • If style cannot be protected, how can it be a breach to ask for something in that style?

Misconceived claims

Essentially, the claims seem to be based on the premise that the output is just a mash-up of the training data. They argue that the AI is basically just a giant archive of compressed images from which, when given a text prompt, it “interpolates” or combines the images in its archives to provide its output. The complaint actually uses the term “collage tool” throughout, This sort of claim is, of course, widely expressed on the internet. It rests though, in my view, on a flawed understanding of how these programs really work. For that reason, the claim that the outputs are in direct correlation with the inputs doesn’t stand. For example, see this comparison of the outputs from two different AI using the same input data.

As the IP lawyer linked above suggests:

…it may well be argued that the “use” of any one image from the training data is de minimis and/or not substantial enough to call the output a derivative work of any one image. Of course, none of this even begins to touch on the user’s contribution to the output via the specificity of the text prompt. There is some sense in which it’s true that there is no Stable Diffusion without the training data, but there is equally some sense in which there is no Stable Diffusion without users pouring their own creative energy into its prompts.

In passing, I have never found a match for any image I have generated using these apps on Google eye or Tineye. I haven’t checked every one, only a sample, but enough to suggest the ‘use’ of the original data is, indeed, de minimis, since it can’t actually be identified. Usually I would see lots of other AI generated images. I suspect this says more about originality than any claims to the copying of styles.

I suppose, if an artist consistently uses a specific motif, such as Terence Cuneo’s mouse, it could be argued there was a copyright issue, but even then I can’t see such an argument getting very far. If someone included a mouse in a painting with the specific intent of passing it off as by Cuneo, that is forgery, not breach of copyright.

Pre-AI examples

This situation isn’t unique. Long before AI was anything but science fiction, I saw an image posted on Flickr of a covered bridge somewhere in New England. The artist concerned had taken hundreds, perhaps thousands of photos of the same bridge, a well known landmark, all posted on Flickr, and digitally layered them together. He had not sought prior approval. The final image was a soft, misty concoction only just recognisable as a structure, let alone a bridge. The discussion was fierce, with multiple accusations of theft, threats of legal action etc.

In practice, though, what was the breach? No one could positively identify their original work. Even if an individual image was removed, it seems highly unlikely that there would be any discernible impact on the image. I would argue that the use of images from the internet to ‘train’ the AI is analogous to the artist’s use of the original photos of that bridge. In the absence of any identifiable and proven use of an image, there is no actionable breach.

Who has the rights to the image?

An additional complication, in the UK at least, stems from the fact that unlike many countries, the law makes express provision for copyright protection of computer-generated works. Where a work is “generated by computer in circumstances where there is no human author, the author of such a work is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. Protection lasts for 50 years from the date the work is made.

It could be argued that in the case of AI art packages, the person making the necessary arrangements is the person writing the text prompt. As yet, that hasn’t been tested in a UK court.

See Also

A paper produced by the Tate Legal and Copyright Department. I can give no assurance it is still current.

https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/08/digitisation-and-conservation-overview-of-copyright-and-moral-rights-in-uk-law

Is AI use of training data, moral?

Broader issues of morality are also often raised. There are two aspects to this.

There are moral rights within copyright legislation. Article 6bis of the Berne Convention says:

Independent of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.

If the use of a specific work in an AI generated image cannot be identified or even proven to be there in the first place, it is difficult to believe that its use in that way is ‘prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.

Broader morality

There is also a broader moral issue. Is it ethical to use someone else’s work, unacknowledged and without remuneration, to create something else. As with all moral argument, that is without a definitive answer. This Instagram account is interesting in that respect.

There is a fine line between taking inspiration and copying. That line is not changed by the existence of AI. Copying of artistic works has a long tradition. As Andrew Marr says in this Observer article, “the history of painting is also the history of copying, both literally and by quotation, of appropriation, of modifying, working jointly and in teams, reworking and borrowing.”

The iconic portrait of Henry VIII is actually a copy. The original, by Hans Holbein, was destroyed by fire in 1698, but is still well known because of the many copies. It is probably one of the most famous portraits of any English or British monarch. Copying of other works has also been a long-standing method of teaching.

Is it acceptable to sell copies of other peoples work?

That of course begs the question of whether AI art is a copy. Setting that aside, it also takes us back to the issue of forgery, or the intent of the copyist. For many years, the Chinese village of Dafen is supposed to have been the source of 60% of all art sold worldwide. Now the artists working there are turning to making original work for the Chinese market. Their huge sales of copies over the decades, suggests that buyers have no objection to buying copies. None of those sales pretended to be anything but.

Giclée a scam?

Many artists sell copies of their own work, via so-called ‘giclée’ (i.e. inkjet) reproductions. The marketing of these reproductions often seems to stray close to the line, with widespread use of empty phrases, even if impressively arty sounding – ‘limited edition fine art print’ and similar. I’ve even seen a reputable gallery offering a monoprint in an edition of 50. There was no explanation, in the description, of how this miraculous work of art was made. It was of course an inkjet reproduction. To be accurate, there was an explanation, but it was on a separate page. There was no link from the sale page.

Ignoring the fact that these are not prints as an artist-printmaker would expect to see them, the language and marketing methods used, are designed to obscure the fact that these are not, of themselves, works of art, but copies of works of art.

In that context, I believe an anonymous painted copy of a Van Gogh to be more honest about what it is, than an inkjet reproduction of an oil painting, by a modern minor artist. It at least has some creative input directly into it, whereas the reproduction is pretty much a mechanical copy. I’ll return to this in Part 3.

Bias in AI art

The possibility of bias in AI in general is a real cause for concern. In the specific case of AI art, the problem may be less immediately obvious, but as AI art is used more widely, the representations it generates will become problematic if they are biased towards particular groups or cultures. One remedy would be to increase transparency about data sources. If the datasets used to train AI models are not representative or diverse enough, the AI output is likely to be biased or even unfair in the representations created.

Issues likely to affect the dataset include:

  • A lack of balance in the representation of gender, age, ethnicity and culture
  • A lack of awareness of historical bias, which can then become replicated in the AI
  • If labels attached to images during preprocessing or dataset creation inaccurately describe the content of images or are influenced by subjective judgments, these biases may be perpetuated in the model.
  • Changes to the AI model after deployment may introduce bias if not properly managed and documented.

Lack of transparency may lead to other problems:

  • AI systems, often work as “black boxes,” They provide results without explaining how those results were obtained.
  • Difficulty in meeting regulatory requirements such as on data sources
  • Poor documentation of the data sources and data handling procedures, preprocessing steps, and algorithms used in the AI.
  • Inability to demonstrate the existence of clear user consent mechanisms, and adherence to data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR)

These can all lead to poor accountability and lack of trust.

How does this relate to AI?

AI, as it currently stands, does not copy existing works. Nor does it collage together parts of multiple works. Somehow, and I do not pretend to understand the technical process, it manages to generate new images. They may become repetitive. They may, especially the pseudo-photographs, reveal their AI origin, but despite all that they somehow produce work which is not a direct copy – i.e. original.

For the future, much depends on the direction of development. Will these apps move towards autonomy, capable of autonomous generation of images on the basis of a written brief from a client? Or will they move towards becoming a tool for use by artists and designers, supporting and extending work in ‘traditional’ media? They are not mutually exclusive, so in the end the response from the market will be decisive.

Posted on Leave a comment

More play…

My last post talked about creative play as an essential part of the artistic process. I don’t have much to add to that, other than to post some examples of outcomes. These are the vertical panoramas I referred to in that post. Several are in the shop already, but the full set so far are posted below. I’m sure there will be more while I have problems working in my studio.

I find also that playing digitally is a source of inspiration for the inky fingers type of printmaking. I can try out broad compositions very quickly and ‘back out’ of them equally quickly if they don’t work. Digital files also provide useful sources for stencils. I cut these from Mylar with a digital cutter. The model I use is a Cricut Maker, but there are several other brands

I took the decision to issue these as limited editions. This is something I still don’t feel entirely happy with, especially given the nature of digital images, but it seems to be expected by buyers. I do however print all my own work. No one else is involved. Please let me know what you think about the issue in the comments.

Posted on 6 Comments

Original and Reproduction

This long post examines the difference between an original and a reproduction, in the context of Printmaking. It is based on material first published in about 2012, revised and updated for this post in 2019. It has been extensively revised again 31/12/2022

What is the difference?

Many years ago, I had an Irish friend who would in conversation regularly use “yer man”. Unfortunately, “yer man” might end up being applied to several different people, so it became very difficult to follow what he was saying. I sometimes feel the same frustration when talking about printmaking. Words like ‘print’ are used liberally and inconsistently.

My last post, about the Wiltshire Print Creatives website, mentioned the goal of promoting the art of the print. Why is this necessary? Because a mixture of sloppy language and marketing hype has corrupted the meaning of the term ‘print’ almost beyond recovery.

Avoid sloppy language

By sloppy language, I don’t mean slang. I mean using words without thinking of whether it is the right one for the context. I know I’m picky about this, but the marketing men exploit such sloppiness. That reflects badly on the rest of us. Terms like ‘Art Print’ are meaningless, unless put into context. This has got me into trouble from time to time, in various online fora. I always challenged the use of the word ‘print’ to mean ‘reproduction’, and people don’t like being challenged.

Why does it matter?

For my own part, I have always tried to practice what I preach. I used to have an online shop where I sold reproductions of out of copyright vintage graphics. Every listing made it clear that the item for sale was a copy, a reproduction. Not everyone read it, but the information was there.

  1. I have no objection to other people producing reproductions of their own work. I don’t wish to do so myself.
  2. A reproduction of a painting is not, OF ITSELF, a work of art. It is a copy of a work of art.
  3. A reproduction of a painting may be called a print, yes, but it is a reproduction print. Accurate description is a legal requirement in UK consumer law and omitting key information may land you in difficulty.
  4. Reproductions sold as limited edition ink-jet or giclée prints are sold this way for marketing purposes. It has nothing to do with art and everything to do with creating artificial value.
  5. Creating a limited edition reproduction print does not create genuine value. The true value of such a print depends only on its price in the secondary market. For 99% of such prints, that market does not exist.
  6. With a genuine original print, the original artwork IS THE PRINT ITSELF. The image may have been created in a variety of ways, but the work does not exist in any other form.
  7. An original print should also be distinguished from a restrike. Restrikes are produced using the original matrix, but as part of a later, unconnected publishing venture.

Giclée or Inkjet?

The widespread availability of ‘giclée’ prints probably won’t have escaped your attention. The term is not one I would normally use. Like the word print itself, it has become so vague in its use as to be almost meaningless.

In 1989 while searching for fine art output for his scanned images, Graham Nash came across the Fujix printer being used by John Bilotta at Jetgraphix, UCLA. Graham was further introduced to digital print technology when viewing a demonstration of the IRIS 3047 graphics printer used in the commercial printing industry. The IRIS was designed to interface with digital prepress systems and used thin proofing papers that were mounted on the printing drum. With the help of Dave Coons, Steve Boutler, Jack Duganne, Mac Holbert and Charles Wehrenberg the concept of the first fine art digital printmaking studio was created. On July 1, 1991, Nash Editions opened its doors in Manhattan Beach, CA. For over twenty years Nash Editions has been offering digital print making services to photographers and artists all over the world. By 2003 Epson wide-format printers replaced the IRIS 3047 graphics printers. The original IRIS 3047 graphics printer purchased by Graham Nash now resides in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. 

https://www.nasheditions.com/about-us.html

My understanding is that the term was invented by Jack Duganne. Then, under commercial pressure, it came to mean and inkjet print made with archival inks. It then shifted again, at least in the US, to simply mean a reproduction. My impression, gained from following the online debate, is that the first shift happened under pressure from artists trying to defend their position against cheap colour photocopies, while the second shift came out of opposition from traditionalists to the whole idea of digital art. The outcome though is that the term ‘giclée’ has lost any meaning or utility.

Reproductions

Setting that aside for the moment, the widespread availability of these printers has lead to a massive growth in reproductions of paintings and other artworks. Although a giclée print is much more expensive than the offset it has replaced, the ability to produce only one at a time places the opportunity to make and sell reproductions into the hands of even minor artists. (And because this also proves a sensitive topic every time I raise it on art forums, by minor, I simply mean unknown or less well known artists, often outside the gallery system, and I am not implying any judgement on their work. For the record, that term includes me.)

…there are now many tens of thousands of individual photographers and artists, from amateurs to pros, who are able to print high-quality images in their own studios, homes, and offices. No longer constrained by the high costs of traditional printing methods, the production of “artistic” prints has been put in the hands of the greatest number of people–the artists and the image makers themselves.

[originally a quote from a website covering these issues, www.dpandi.com which is now defunct]

This easy availability, this democratisation of the process of making reproductions is an example of the ‘accelerated intensity’ of the means of reproduction referred to by Walter Benjamin in his early paper, “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new. Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity. The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity. All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced. With the woodcut graphic art became mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script became reproducible by print. The enormous changes which printing, the mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a special, though particularly important, case. During the Middle Ages engraving and etching were added to the woodcut; at the beginning of the nineteenth century lithography made its appearance. With lithography the technique of reproduction reached an essentially new stage. This much more direct process was distinguished by the tracing of the design on a stone rather than its incision on a block of wood or its etching on a copperplate and permitted graphic art for the first time to put its products on the market, not only in large numbers as hitherto, but also in daily changing forms. Lithography enabled graphic art to illustrate everyday life, and it began to keep pace with printing. But only a few decades after its invention, lithography was surpassed by photography. For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens.

A logical analysis of terms

The rest of this post is an attempt to unscramble things by using neutral language as an exercise in logic, not art. It is an edited version of something that began as a post in an Etsy forum about 6 or 7 years ago, then became a blog post on my now lost Arts Blog and now reposted with further editing here.

So – to begin:

It is generally accepted by most people that there is a class or category of objects called prints. Because there are various types of prints, let us call this overall category Prints(cat).

It is argued by a very large group of people that terms like silkscreen print, woodblock print etc represent a class of objects also called prints, sometimes qualified as ‘hand-pulled’ prints. So, if we have a single category Prints(cat), that would logically include ‘hand-pulled’ prints. For clarity let’s call this sub-class, Prints(h).

It is argued by a significant number of people that what I think of as a reproduction is validly called a print. So, Prints(cat) would logically contain what I call reproductions. Let’s call this sub-class Prints(r).

Finally, it is also argued by perhaps a smaller but still significant number that the output from photomanipulations made using packages like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or originated using packages like Corel Painter, Bryce etc – are also validly called prints, perhaps qualified in this case as ‘digital prints’. So again, Prints(cat) would logically include ‘digital’ prints. Let’s call these Prints(d).

Print categories

So – we have a generic class of objects called Prints(cat).

We also have various sub-classes described in various ways but generally as ‘x’ prints or in the form I have adopted here Prints(x).

If we keep these logical labels it is clear what is going on. In other words:

Prints(cat) contains Prints(r), Prints(h) and Prints(d).                    {1}

When we remove the suffixes and state this proposition in plain English we get:

Prints as a category contains Reproduction Prints, Handpulled Prints and Digital Prints.          {2}

However, REMOVE the qualifier and what happens?

Prints contains Prints, Prints and Prints                           {3}

Not very helpful. That confusion could be removed easily if we used the terminology in the plain English statement at {2} above.

Digital Prints are not reproductions

It is further complicated, though, in that the terms Reproduction Print and Digital Print are unacceptable to some people, although those who object to the first may not object to the second – and vice versa. Others argue that they are in fact the same thing and should not be differentiated.

There are indeed of course similarities between the two subclasses, but those similarities relate to the form of the output, usually but not exclusively ink jet/giclée printing. The similarities do not extend to the question of artistic input.

In the case of Prints(r) the artistic endeavour has gone into the creation of the source image. Some judgements have to be made in creating the print file in terms of issues like fidelity of colours to the source image etc, but in comparison to the artistic input to the source image proper that is minimal and the work to achieve it often delegated to print technicians or others, as evidence by the huge number of Print on Demand services available.

In the case of Prints(d), the artistic endeavour has gone directly into the creation of the digital file. Other issues like colour fidelity are of course relevant, but are incorporated in the process of making the image on-screen.

A specious argument

The argument that Prints(d) are equivalent to Prints(r) is specious. It depends on a definition of the computer file as the original. This is false for two reasons.

  1. We are talking about a visual medium and the computer file is not a visual artefact.
  2. The argument conflates two uses of digital technology – as tool in the creation of the physical print and as medium in the creation of artwork like net installations, animation, virtual reality etc.

It would be possible, I suppose, to argue that the original of a digital work is the version seen on screen, and that physical prints are reproductions of that screen display. That ignores the intention of the artist, however. If I make a digital print with the intention from the outset of producing physical objects – i.e. the print, then I could argue (and to a degree I do so argue) that the screen image is analogous to the matrix of hand-pulled prints.C

Where next?

So where does that leave us? I’ve argued above for a particular use of words. I obviously believe that to be the best use. Even so, provided that any terms are used consistently, that they are adequately defined or clear from the context and are not used to confuse or obfuscate there isn’t an issue. The problems so far as it exists is back to the two problems I raised at the beginning – sloppy language and marketing hype. I don’t think either of them are going away any time soon, so printmakers will have to take the initiative and defend their corner.

EDIT: Since writing this, we’ve seen the rise of AI art. For a set of posts looking at AI and AI art, click here for Part 1. Subsequent posts are linked from there.