The problem with literary publications using AI-generated images
The intentions may not be bad, but the results are.
Recently, I came across a literary publication which seemed like a perfect fit for one of my short stories. There was a catch, though. When taking a look at their website, I noticed that they used AI-generated images to illustrate what they publish.
Being an artist myself, that didn’t sit well with me. So I decided not to submit my work to the magazine, and kept on searching for a home for my story.
But soon I came across another publication which also used AI-generated images, then another, and another...
And an unsettling feeling started to weigh on my heart.
I paused my search.
This is a big problem. Why? Let’s talk about it.
What’s The Problem?
Check the submission guidelines of these publications which use AI-generated images. They are interested in publishing human-made writing. Some even state, “We do not accept AI-generated work”.
Why would a literary publication that doesn't support AI-generated writing, use AI-generated images instead of human art to illustrate their stories?
Well, by using AI images you don't have to lose time in a free image stock website, searching for an image that kinda matches the story you need to illustrate; you also don't have to open a call for art submissions and go through them selecting art that makes sense for your publication, and you absolutely -- god forbid -- don't have to pay artists.
In short, they are trying to save time and money. The intentions may not be bad, but the results are.
At this point, I’m sure it is well-known that these generative AI models, such as Midjourney, are trained with the work of artists without their consent. There’s a simple word for it: stealing.
So, what are these publications endorsing by using AI, and what am I endorsing, as a writer and creative, when I allow my work to be displayed beside AI-generated images?
The underline message is:
It is okay to hurt an artistic class, as long as it is not MY artistic class.
Because that’s what AI is doing to the visual art community: it is killing the opportunities of artists.
Say you own a literary publication. Even if you own a small lit mag, you’ll have a reader-base interested in what’s being published, and many artists would be willing to share their artwork for free with you.
Sharing their art, even if they don't receive a monetary compensation, is beneficial: it's a way for artists to participate in the creation of a community, it can help them promote their art and reach more people, and it can help them connect with and inspire others.
When instead you decide to generate images using AI to illustrate your published stories, the chance for a community, a medium for connection, an opportunity for an artist to succeed in their craft, is castrated.
And I think that's not the only problematic point.
We can't put writing on a pedestal and call it a day
Recently, the director David Lynch passed away, and I felt as if I had lost a friend. Even though I never met Lynch personally, I met his art. Moreover, his art inspired me. Maybe some aspects of my personal writing style wouldn't have surfaced without the inspiration he provided. And I can say the same about the French photographer Brassaï, the American painter Edward Hopper, and the band Siouxsie and the Banshees.
My writing was heavily influenced by their visual artwork and music.
My point is, writers don't create in a vacuum. We get inspired by other artists from different mediums.
That's why I don't like this attitude of placing writing on a pedestal, while visual artist are being treated as disposable, now that AI can do a bad copy of their art (minus the meaning, which was what made their art special.)
By passively allowing AI-generated images to intrude in the writing community, we are giving permission for art to be treated as a mere scrollable distraction, devaluing all the important aspects of art as a means to create bridges between people.
I'm against AI-generated images and AI as a whole because it opposes everything real art represents. While human art is a celebration of individuality, self-expression and creativity, AI is nothing but a glorification of efficiency, of mass-produced creations without meaning or history behind them.
We must remember: writers are artists too. If we respect our own art, we must respect and stand for all art forms, and for the artists that inspire us to write.
So where do I stand?
I made the personal decision of not submitting my work to publications that use AI-generated images, or for that matter, that support any type of AI usage. This may limit my opportunities, but at least I'm standing for what I believe in.
I believe in and respect all arts.
If you're a writer too, I encourage you to do the same.
Excellent post. When it comes to art, the entire expression of the work matters. When publications use AI-generated imagery, they are devaluing the writing that they are illustrating. All writers should avoid such publications, and stick to ones that use human-made art. The only way to fight AI is to join together against it, and crush those who would use AI to make a quick buck or make things easier for themselves at the expense of other human beings.
Great post. I was going to apply to a publishing house / mag a few weeks ago. But on their website, I clicked on AI Policy and they are transparent but they state they use AI artwork. I decided not to apply because I can’t support that, even if it was an opportunity to break into the work I want. You’re right, as writers, we must support other creatives. 🫶