Keith Haring Artwork "Completed" by Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence has no conscience; it does what it does when a human requests it. Generative art done by AI is dependent on existing art to teach it. And that's where things get sticky. When neural networks generates art, what does it owe to the artists it learned from? How will algorithms learn the intent and purpose of the art it uses, and if it does, will that make any difference?

New York artist Keith Haring created a piece in 1989 titled Unfinished Painting. It was a commentary on the AIDS crisis, alluding to the unfinished lives the disease took. It is a powerful piece with a powerful message. Haring died the next year, just weeks before his 32nd birthday.

Fast forward to 2023, and generative artificial intelligence programs are available to everyone. Twitter/X user @DonnelVillager used an AI program to "complete" Haring's work.

That Tweet has 30 million views. The reaction was swift and strong, from those who found it funny, those who liked the completed version, and many who strongly objected to the very idea for several reasons.

1. It is disrespectful to the artist to "complete" his work after his death.
2. The painting isn't unfinished because Haring died. It was intentionally designed to be unfinished as its purpose was to illustrate unfinished lives.
3. The generated art is not even consistent with Haring's style.

Donnel described the backlash and his response in a video.

The Tweet may have been a joke, and just a ripple in the grand scheme of things, but it brings up real questions regarding art and AI. Read about the impact of the "completed" art and the implications for the art world at Smithsonian. 

(Top image credit: Rob Bogaerts (Anefo))