Graphic design
fromwww.theguardian.com
2 days agoIs AI the greatest art heist in history?
Generative AI is criticized for harming creativity, exploiting artists, and causing societal issues while tech leaders promote it as a revolutionary tool.
"Until recently, there was no specific legislation addressing the forgery of artworks and collectibles. Instead, these cases fell under the 'smoother' general provisions of the criminal code concerning fraud and forgery, which required proof of a financial transaction in order for an offence to be established."
Author Malorie Blackman said the scheme seeks to highlight the imagination, commitment, craft and care taken to produce stories and books which can be enjoyed by everyone. She added: Any creative endeavour requires time, effort, a willingness to learn from mistakes and failure, and a determination to persevere lifelong, essential skills which cannot be learned and honed by allowing AI to do all of our creative thinking and production for us.
Yale came to me and said there isn't an overarching book about the history of printmaking; they wanted it to be about the printed image. There are a lot of books about printing-about the history of journalism or the history of books, the printing press and the printed word-but not so much about the printed image and its processes. So that was my challenge.
What if I took my design lens and built out my essentials capsule for the Everlane customer? I felt like that would be a really amazing opportunity for me to introduce myself as a designer to an audience outside of EB Denim.
There's a crisis of creativity in mainstream American culture. We have fewer and fewer studios and record labels fewer and fewer platforms online that serve independent artists and creators. At its core, copyright is a monopoly right on creative output and expression. It's intended to allow people who make things to make a living through those things, to incentivize creativity. To square the circle that is "exclusive control over expression" and "free speech," we have fair use.
A few years ago, I put together what I felt was a truly innovative concept, which I presented in a conference poster at an international meeting in my field. After the presentation, I spoke to another early-career scientist about my work and how it might apply to their findings. Two years later, they scooped me by publishing a preprint paper that presented my idea, with many of the same verbal formulations and an identical flow of ideas, without any acknowledgement or attribution to my work.
The terms are often conflated to portray an air of desirability and a limited opportunity. Rarity generally refers to the unusualness of an object—something that is infrequently encountered or 'rare to market.' With modern works from the past century, rarity can stem from limited original production, or the fact that many examples are held in museum or institutional collections, reducing their availability in the marketplace.
Once again, A.I. and human experts are butting heads over the authenticity of a world-famous painting. A Belgian art historian has refuted claims made by Swiss company Art Recognition that two paintings have been falsely attributed to the Northern Renaissance master Jan van Eyck. The paintings in question are versions of Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata (ca. 1428-32) belonging to the Royal Museums of Turin and the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the "inalienable" rights of man in the US Declaration of Independence 250 years ago, it's possible he lifted the term from the French. And long before it was ever used as an adjective to describe human rights, it defined royal property. To this day, "inalienability" remains a cornerstone of public collections in France-and many other countries-impacting museums and their ability to deaccession, including for purposes of restitution.
Recently, AI decided that a painting long thought to be a copy of Caravaggio's The Lute Player is actually by the master, while another version of the same subject, previously thought to be authentic, is not. Both conclusions were disputed by the former Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Keith Christiansen. A similar debate erupted in March 2025 when AI declared that portions of The Bath of Diana, also long believed to be a copy, could have been painted by Peter Paul Rubens.
An analysis of two paintings in museums in the US and Italy by the 15th-century Flemish artist Jan van Eyck has raised a profound question: what if neither were by Van Eyck? Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata, the name given to near-identical unsigned paintings hanging in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museums of Turin, represent two of the small number of surviving works by one of western art's greatest masters, revered for his naturalistic portraits and religious subjects.
The traditional museum experience, pausing in front of an object, and absorbing its history visually or by reading its description, has long shaped how collectors and others relate to cultural treasures. Yet, over the last few decades, digital technology has quietly rewritten many of those rules, changing not only how collections are exhibited but also how they are documented, preserved, and even inherited.