Hi Fellow Death Dancers!
We are one day closer to death—let’s dance!
The more poems and essays I write, the more I notice that many of the same themes keep pushing themselves into my work.
I write a lot about the ocean, and I write a lot about death.
The way we deal with death in the United States fascinates me. Mostly, we ignore it. However, an incredible, beautiful essay written by
and published this week in her newsletter reminded me how central death is to life—the shadow of death is right there at our birth.To be human is to die.
And my inexorable death is my secret weapon against artificial intelligence ruining my career as a writer and illustrator.
AI art and AI writing tools are getting a lot of headlines. These inventions are here to stay. Just like the movie studios couldn't stop the VCR, nothing will stop AI art and writing tools from disrupting the industries I work in. I do have qualms about the unfair way some tools have been trained on the work of artists without their permission and without any remuneration—but that’s another essay.
AI art and AI writing, as disruptive as they will eventually be, are only tools—tools that need humans. We already use so many AI tools as part of our daily lives.
we are all cyborgs
our memories replaced by
mobile devices
The secret to great writing or great illustration is not in the technical skills of the artist. AI is getting better at all kinds of technical skills, and many beloved artists are not the most skilled technicians.
What makes a piece of art great is the bit of human soul that goes into its creation. Meg’s essay is a tour de force of writing technique. Her control of the narrative and use of powerful archetypal imagery is some of the best you will find in any piece of writing. But the reason her essay hits so hard is that it is so human. You can feel her in between each line.
Meg not only reminds me of what a great personal essay can do, but she also reminds me that she and I are humans that will die.
The way to beat the machines is to out-human them. You are not reading this newsletter because my illustrations are technically perfect or because my poems are Pulitzer-worthy or because my micro-essays are part of a body of work that will win a Nobel Prize in Literature.
You are here because something in my work speaks to you—because you recognize a bit of my humanity.
In the future, no matter how good AI gets, people will always choose to consume art that makes them feel human. If you can share enough of yourself, you will find an audience for your work.
Be the weird you want to see in the world!
Cheers,
Jason
P.S. You really should go and read Meg Conley’s essay:
My thoughts about AI are similar to yours. AI tools can help small business owners who have tight (startup) budgets create what they need at the beginning. I believe they’ll hire humans, eventually, as funds allow.
Thanks for introducing readers to Meg. 😊
As a Creative, my biggest grudge against AI is that yet again a technology is being used to push out actually creative thought and insight in order to satisfy a quick or cheap solution.
In the four decades that I've been a graphic designer and Illustrator, I seen how creative professionals have been decimated. First by the rise of desktop computers and apps made by companies like Adobe. Which at first were and are great tools that made creating easier, but alternatively they also allowed a crowd of people to pose as creatives without actually having once ounce of skill. Furthermore with this flood of talentless talent came the decrease in earning potential thanks to businesses and employment agencies taking advantage of these desperate masses forcing them into and ever downward spiral of worth.
This destruction was compounded by the internet which opened up local design client to being able to choose from a world wide field of competiting creatives. Websites like Fivver and others allow a client to hire a "designer" to work for the equivalent cost of a Happy Meal.
Of course all along there were designers who said "You get what you pay for" and "a quality client will seek a quality designer/artist." But this hubristic over-confidence is completely avoiding the reality of economics and the impact of ubiquitous, easily affordable solutions.
If a client who sells sunflower seeds and needs an image of a sunflower for an ad, views a gallery of well painted sunflowers all with similar quality, will they buy the one that is on sale for $10 or the one that is $100000?
Which brings us now to the question of AI imagery and writing. While there will be those who still want to see the human hand of the artist behind the work, the masses will be subjected to and conditioned to accept the flood of AI work that artists and their clients will be drowned in.
Once again, if the Sunflower Seed client needs an image of a sunflower painting, and they are given the choice between a painting that is $10 and a hundred AI generated NFT variations that can be had for 10 cents each, which will they choose?
It presents a real paradox between the valuation of the human hand vs. the AI creation, which in my depressing humble opinion will economically further this downward spiral for honest human creativity.
But with that in mind, in the very near future there's going to be huge copyright lawsuits over the way AI creations pillage the work made by humans. Probably the best thing any artist can do right now is make sure they have strong copyrights on all their work.