Perhaps it might behove us to consider AI art through the lense (no pun intended) of the last piece of technology to revolutionise art production: the camera.

The development of the camera meant that suddenly it was possible for anyone to create images that were far above the standard that the layman could previously achieve. But it was also a tool that required its own artistry and skill to produce actually beautiful results. As the technology got better, the skill required to achieve beauty lessened but mastery of the form became more complex.

Meanwhile artists continued to do the work of making art, while the work of doing simple visual reproduction of a scene was automated. The focus of the visual artist's labour became less menial and more about inspiration and skill, though those whose livelihoods depended on work on those more menial tasks lost out. Many artists took the new tool and used it as part of their process, remixing and manipulating the camera's output into something that was wholly new.

It also made it incredibly easy to make cheap copies of artist's work, making it harder to tell if something was a fake. We collectively agreed that these reproductions were less valuable than original work and placed more value on proving the authenticity of works. Many artists also used this to reduce menial labour, selling photographic prints of their work for much cheaper than the original, but allowing their work to provide products to different market segments. Copying an artist's work in this way without their consent was established to be illegal.

As the technology of AI generated art progresses I don't doubt we'll see the same patterns emerge (no pun intended) in the discourse and changing shape of art practice and industry, but hopefully with a little hindsight we can be less alarmed about it.