When a selkie The fashion brand that became a hot topic on Instagram and TikTok for its bubbly, extravagant dresses has released a new collection that has been well-received by the public. Known for its size inclusivity (ranging in sizes from XXS to 6X) and for being owned and founded by independent artists who are outspoken about fair wages and sustainability in fashion, Selkie is a morally It tends to be highly regarded as one of the “good” brands. .
brand Valentine’s Day drop coming soon Inspired by vintage greeting cards, it features a sweet image of a puppy surrounded by roses and a comical fluffy kitten on a pastel background. Printed on sweaters and dresses embellished with ribbons, the collection was meant to be a nostalgic and cheeky nod to romance.Also designed using an AI image generator The middle of a journey.
“I have a huge library of really old art from the 1800s, 1900s, etc., and it’s a great tool for making art look better,” Selkie founder Kimberley Gordon told TechCrunch. “You can use it to paint on top of the generated art. I think the art is interesting and cheeky, and I think there are little details like adding toes. From now on 5 Years from now, this sweater will symbolize the beginning of a whole new world. The extra toe is like a representation of where we are starting.”
But when the brand announced that the collection was designed using generative AI, there was an immediate backlash. Selkie touched on the use of AI in art in an Instagram comment following the cancellation announcement, and Gordon said, “Learning about this new medium and how it will or won’t work for Selkie as a brand.” is important,” he said.
The brand’s Instagram comments were flooded with criticism. One person described the choice to use AI as a “slap in the face” to artists, saying that the brand was unable to offer products at such high price points (from $249 for a viral polyester puff mini dress to $249 for a made-to-measure silk bridal dress). expressed disappointment that he was selling for $1,500. ) does more than just commission human artists to design the graphics for the collection. Another user simply commented, “The claim ‘I’m an artist and I love AI!’ is meaningless.” It’s very disgusting. ” One user wondered why brands would choose to use generated AI when the “style is identical” given the “overwhelming number” of stock images and vintage artwork that is not protected by copyright. I questioned whether he had done so.
“Why make the overwhelmingly controversial and ethically questionable choice when equally cost-effective and more ethical options are widely available?” the user continued. “If you claim to have done research on AI, you also understand that it is a technology that requires theft and exploitation of workers for it to work.”
Gordon said she spends about a week designing the collection, but it takes months to a year of development and production before it’s actually sold online. In the year since she completed the design for this drop, public opinion towards AI art has changed significantly.
As generative AI tools become more sophisticated, the use of AI in art is also becoming increasingly polarized. Some artists, like Gordon, who designs his own selkie patterns using a combination of royalty-free clip art, public domain paintings, digital illustrations, and Photoshop collages, see AI image generators as tools. Gordon compares it to photography. Although it is new now, future generations may accept it as another art medium. However, many artists loudly oppose On the use of generative AI in the arts.
Their concerns are twofold. One is that the artist loses the opportunity to take advantage of his cheap and fast AI image generator, and the other is that many generators use copyrighted images collected from the internet without the artist’s consent. This means that they have been trained to do so.Backlash against generative AI Across all creative industriesIt’s not just visual art.Musicians are speaking out against its use. deep fake coveractors are wondering what’s next. New SAG-AFTRA contract Appropriately regulating AI in entertainment, and fan fiction writer takes steps to ensure that their work is not used to train AI models.
Of course, not all generative AI is exploitative. As a VFX toolFrom creating more realistic flames in Pixar’s “Elementals” to visualizing complex scenes in HBO’s “The Last of Us,” it can be invaluable in enhancing your animations. There are many applications of morally bankrupt generative AI.create deepfake revenge pornFor example, or Generating “diverse models” instead of hiring actual people of color Objectively, it’s terrifying. However, most discussions of generative AI fall into a moral gray area, with the parameters of exploitation poorly defined.
For Selkie, Gordon independently designs all of the graphics used on Selkie clothing. If someone else designed it, she makes it clear that it is a collaboration with another artist. Her designs typically include collages of digital watercolors, stock images, and “old art” that are out of copyright. Many of her popular designs incorporate motifs from famous works of art such as Van Gogh’s “The Starry Night” and Monet’s “Water Lilies,” which she uses as a base to create unique yet recognizable pieces. I am creating a pattern. After she modifies and builds on her existing piece, she prints it onto her gauze fabric and uses it to construct billowing dresses and ruffled ornaments.
Gordon claimed that the Valentine’s Day drop was no different, except that it used generated images as the design basis rather than public domain artwork. The patterns she created for this collection are as transformative as those she designed for her previous drops, and include just as much original illustrations and “creative eye” modifications. she said.
“I say this is art. This is the future of art, and as long as artists are utilizing it, it’s the same as what we’ve been doing with clip art,” Gordon said. “I think it’s very similar, except it gives artists more power and allows them to compete in a world where big corporations own all of this structure.”
Gordon was furious at accusations that she equated her use of generative AI with that of companies that replaced employed artists with AI image generators. She notes that because Selkie is the brand’s only in-house artist, she can’t “take the place of an artist,” and the high price Selkie charges for each ruffled dress takes into account the cost of materials and labor. he pointed out. When clothes are cheap, she says, it’s usually because the garment workers who make them aren’t paid a fair wage. She added that although she is paid as a “business owner,” Gordon does not factor her own labor as a designer into her paycheck to reduce her overhead costs.
Gordon also noted that he did not use other artists’ names or works as prompts when using Midjourney to generate the base images. She turned to her AI for efficiency. She said AI was a “great brainstorming tool” for visualizing what she wanted the collection to look like. It was also out of fear of being left behind. Artists face increasing pressure to adapt to new technology and want to stay ahead of the curve, she said.
“I don’t use AI models. I usually just use AI as a tool. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s job at my company,” she said. “Instead, I use it as a way to be more efficient myself. If I was using a lot of artists to make my prints and suddenly I used AI, I would definitely lose the rights from the artists. How can I leave myself?”
This is a nuance that isn’t always reflected in conversations about art and AI. Gordon owns a popular but relatively small fashion brand, which he uses as a means to monetize his artwork. Could he have commissioned another artist to paint an oil painting of a lovesick puppy or kitten? yes. Is it possible that the generated image on his generic vintage Valentine’s Day card elevated the work of a living artist? Not sure, but no one has publicly denounced Selkie so far. copy their art For the new collection. While Gordon’s use of his AI-generated images isn’t as egregious as other big fashion brands, more devout critics argue that any use of AI art perpetuates damage to the artist.
Gordon, for one, said she has listened to the criticism and has no intention of using AI-generated images in future Selkie collections. She believes there is a lack of regulation when it comes to generative AI and suggested artists receive some kind of payment each time their name or work is used in a prompt. However, she intends to continue experimenting with it in her personal art, maintaining her stance that at the end of the day it is just another medium to work with.
“Maybe the way I did it or this route is not the right way, but I don’t agree with that.” [AI] That’s bad,” Gordon said. “I feel like it’s an advancement in technology. And it’s neither good nor bad. It’s just a way of life.”