The controversial transformation of an important work of art by generative AI has significantly weakened its message and raised ethical questions regarding artists’ rights.
ADVERTISEMENTA social media user used artificial intelligence to “finish” Keith Haring’s “Unfinished Painting,” sparking outrage online.
It all started when artist Brooke Peachley shared a post of Haring’s painting of see.”
Enter Donnel, the X user, who took it upon himself to give the board the AI treatment.
“The story behind this painting is so sad! (crying emoji),” Donnel wrote. “Now, thanks to AI, we can finish what he couldn’t finish!” (heart emoji).
Attached to his commentary was a modified version of the painting, which filled the white space of the original work with more of Haring’s characteristic figures.
The “sad story” refers to the fact that Haring died from AIDS-related complications in 1990 at the age of 31, apparently leaving the work unfinished.
However, what Donnel failed to realize was that the controversial transformation significantly undermined the message of the artwork.
“Unfinished Painting” is a powerful social commentary on the AIDS crisis, and its “incomplete” nature is intentionally due to the fact that it reflects the shortened lives of many people suffering from the disease. Therefore, a tone-deaf and some might say ignorant edit that completes the picture ignores the context of the piece, ignores its intent, and destroys its meaning.
One user on Another commented that the edit was “a desecration of his art and I hope your heinous act does not go unpunished.”
Several people on ‘increase traffic and attention.
“This might be the best bait article I’ve ever seen,” one user wrote. “This hits *so* many angles I can’t even begin. And for some groups, this is going to be real blasphemy, the kind of blasphemy that religious people feel when a divine icon is desecrated. Amazing.”
Social media algorithms reward “rage baiters,” leading many people to post content with the sole purpose of inciting anger.
Beyond these depressing social media practices, the controversial overhaul of Haring’s work has also raised ethical issuesand many have commented that using AI to complete the work of a deceased artist is unethical and, in this case, disrespects people who have AIDS or who have lost loved ones to it acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
While AI modification may not be illegal, it once again highlights how generative AI can violate artists’ rights.
Creators around the world have expressed exhaustion throughout 2023 regarding OpenAI. From designers and illustrators take legal action to recover copyright and consent by filing class actions; the controversy over AI-generated photos At Sony World Photography Awards; musicians express themselves against ChatGPT and affirming that AI “will be the greatest adversary of artists of the future”; and celebrities continue OpenAI Regarding copyright infringement, there is an urgent need for additional regulatory frameworks regarding the ethical use of AI. And in 2024, these voices will only get louder.
