Elliot Miller, my paternal figure, fell victim to deception. He relinquished ownership of a painting titled “Father’s Love” to an entity, forfeiting all associated rights, in a desperate attempt to provide for his family as an impoverished artist. This decision led to the organization profiting immensely from reproductions, plunging him into prolonged financial and emotional turmoil.
This narrative transpired before the widespread integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the art industry. The advent of AI has since normalized this practice, disregarding artists’ intellectual property rights and displacing them from a sea of creations devoid of individual attribution.
Presently, my father grapples with dementia, rendering him incapable of creating art. The adversaries he faces now are not just individuals but also the advancements in technology that have perpetuated the exploitation he endured.
Over the years, dealers and retailers have illicitly profited millions by appropriating Dad’s artwork, with one distributor alone amassing over $10 million from sales. Even a Black artist I encountered kickstarted his career by collaborating with the distributor who disseminated copies of Dad’s iconic piece, “Father’s Love,” globally. A young and naive father, striving to provide for his family, unwittingly sold the complete rights to this painting. The profound emotion infused into his artwork renders both the painting and my father’s legacy deeply significant to me.
“Father’s Like” by Elliot Miller
Alex Miller’s acknowledgments
“Father’s Love” portrays a Black man cradling his child against a backdrop as dark as midnight, with his head bowed and feet drawn close. The child gazes into his guardian’s eyes, seemingly recognizing his unwavering devotion. The father, willing to sacrifice everything for his offspring, meets the child’s gaze. The child’s skin exhibits a rich, weathered, and slightly bruised hue—a complex, textured blend of brown. In contrast, the infant, untouched by life’s trials, emanates a radiant ebony glow.
The emergence of Black Art in the early to mid-1990s sparked widespread acclaim and desire. Notable figures in the industry during my formative years included artists like Charles Bibbs, Wak, and Larry Poncho Brown.
Regrettably, my father’s inability to paint or exhibit his creations was a loss felt by many. He juggled multiple jobs before pursuing acting opportunities, occasionally selling paintings he had labored over for days or weeks just to make ends meet.
“Father’s Like” stood as the pinnacle of Dad’s career, a testament to his unwavering dedication in an industry that often failed to reciprocate his passion. The painting encapsulated the love he yearned for from his own parents. As a child, that artwork held immense significance for me, particularly in a region like Jim Crow-era Missouri, where artistic pursuits for a person of color were deemed inconceivable.
Hence, my discontent with so-called Artificial Art.
In a recent tweet, a friend showcased a DALL-E-generated artwork, boasting a breathtaking landscape complete with towering peaks, meandering rivers, lush trees, and fantastical creatures. While AI effortlessly churns out “art,” my father grapples with his fading artistic abilities due to dementia. His unfinished paintings pile up as international courts deliberate on the authenticity of artworks created without human intervention.
The once-revered notions of skill and mastery in art are diminishing as technology simplifies the creative process, enabling almost anyone to produce Artificial Art with minimal effort. While Big Tech profits from these advancements, contemporary artists bear the brunt of this transition.
The unauthorized utilization of nearly 200,000 authors’ works to train AI models has sparked outrage within creative communities, leading to confrontations with industry guilds like the Screen Actors Guild and the Writers’ Guild of America. Concerns regarding biases and distortions resulting from AI training on artificial data further exacerbate the challenges faced by artists.
As AI continues to appropriate artists’ works without consent, individuals like my father, who strived for recognition throughout their lives, are left disenfranchised. Lifelong pursuits in the creative realm are now fodder for tools like DALL-E or Lensa. Efforts are underway to develop software capable of distinguishing between human and AI-generated art, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Elliot Miller and his sibling, Alex Miller (from left to right).
Alex Miller’s acknowledgments
While current AI-generated art remains distinguishable, the prospect of indistinguishable creations looms large. The potential inability to discern between human and machine-generated art poses a grave concern for the preservation of authentic narratives.
I fear a future where human stories are overshadowed by AI, jeopardizing the sanctity of artistic expression and journalistic integrity. However, AI has the capacity to enrich societal interactions through creative endeavors.
As a seasoned writer, I have witnessed the profound impact of storytelling on individuals. My parents, too, wielded such influence through their artistry, evoking raw emotions from esteemed patrons. Yet, amidst the technological upheaval, these narratives seem increasingly imperiled.
The thought of being displaced by AI in my later years, unable to afford mental health care or suitable accommodation, weighs heavily on my mind. The relentless march of technology, intended to enhance our lives, threatens to engulf creatives in obscurity.
Moreover, I empathize deeply with artists like my parents, who never received the recognition accorded to AI today. The legacy they left behind, overshadowed by technological advancements, serves as a poignant reminder of the injustices they endured. The bond forged with my father over shared artistic pursuits is now clouded by the encroaching presence of AI, replicating creations with ruthless efficiency, potentially heralding the demise of authentic artistry—a concern that haunts me.
