As a visual artist, the recent advancements in AI and ML (machine learning), along with the apparent threats they pose to the livelihoods of those who work in the art industry, has been at the forefront of conversations in my online social circles. I've tried to keep myself informed by reading and listening to different opinions on the subject. The one point I would emphasize to other artists in these ongoing dialogues is that semantics matter, and by calling this technology AI generated "art," you are doing yourself a disservice.

The creation of art is an activity unique to living creatures. It involves creating something tangible that has been informed by your skills, experience and perspective on life. It requires that the author have feelings and consciousness. In other words, only humans can create what we know and appreciate as art. What machines have been trained to create are images.

It's semantics, but it is an important distinction. What things are called, the names we give them, they matter. Because I've made this distinction for myself, I do not consider this technology a threat. Since the kind of art I endeavor to keep making (and that I hope you are here for), are my paintings which are imbued with my lived experiences and emotions. Furthermore, my artistic style is ever evolving and changing in a way that AI simply cannot replicate. What I mean by this is that AI can only work off of what has been done before. Therefore it cannot create a new style, only regurgitate what already exists.

This brings me to the one point I would like to emphasize to anyone reading who does not work as a visual artist: support human creators by patronizing the art they make. Without your financial backing, artists cannot exist, and the evolution of art and the potential for new visual styles will perish with them.

"Ella," digital self-portrait, 2003.