On Shanzhai and Art Ownership in the age of AI

AI art challenges traditional notions of originality and creativity. As technology reshapes artistic production, a new perspective on art and ownership emerges are required.

Just a few days ago, OpenAI released a new image-generation model. This time the model shook the internet again. Social media and the internet quickly got flooded with meme and images generated from the new AI model. Most of them are classic memes but remade in the style of Ghibi movie or casual photos filtered in the same style.

A sample of image generated by OpenAI (Left) and the original meme (Right)

The quality of them is very good. Some might say this is the best image-generation model so far. Although images filtered in Ghibi style now take over the internet, the model has much more capability. It’s not hard to find other versions of real-life photos filtered in South Park style (another famous cartoon series), or simply do image modification job that real-life graphics designer often does: like replace human face, change objects in the photo, etc. …

However, this is not the end of the story. The powerful new Ai model doesn’t pave the road full of roses. Controversy was sparked. Some artists and photographers speak about this. One of the most shared posts on this topic comes from a photographer/artist named Jingna Zhang

Jingna's Facebook post

The story is someone took her photo, pass it through the new image model and recreate another image in the same style. This shook Jingna to her core. She felt frustrated, sad and disappointed. Seeing AI-generated versions of her work made her feels like an erasure of that experience, reducing their artistic labor to something that anyone can easily replicate. The post has been shared so many time and trigger debates around AI.

This is not the first time the controversy on AI art started. While I’m neither a fan of AI nor taking sides in the current AI debate, one thing is clear: this trend is irreversible. The long-standing “cult of originality” is being challenged, and the pro-AI status quo is unlikely to be reversed. So how should traditional, hand-drawn artists act toward this? Can this debate and controversy be resolved?

Interestingly, at the same time OpenAI released its new model, I was reading another book by Byung-Chul Han. Han is a Korean born philosopher now living in Germany. His most well-known book is The Burnout Society, which I also very recommend young people to read. This time the book by him I read is “Shanzhai: Deconstruction in Chinese”. The books discussed how the notion of “originality” and “artwork” and “forgery” differs from the West and the Chinese.

At first glance this topic is in no way directed to the controversy on AI Art, however, the points Han trying to make is very clear: a different perspective on art and artistry do exist. As AI technology advances and the pro-AI movement gains momentum, artists may need to rethink their approach to artistry itself. Perhaps, by the end of this century, our entire notion of art and ownership will be fundamentally redefined.

Book Cover

A Philosophical Take on “Essence”

I would love to use Han’s analysis to illustrate how the notion of art can be different. His first point is a philosophical take on the concept of “Essence”, In the West, the notion of “Essence”, or “Being” are well-analysis. As an example, we have Plato with his “Absolute World” to be the most obvious. In his metaphysics, there is a better world (Realm of Forms) of unchangeable, immutable object. The current world is an imperfect reflection casted down from the higher realm.

Somewhat similar to Plato, philosophers of the West focus on a truth, or at least they want to know the absolute. The same is not true with the Chinese. The Tao in Chinese is literally “the way”, which emphasized on the change itself. The Chinese of “originality” simply not exist. Tao of Chinese embrace transform and by itself is a deconstructive force.

The Tao of Chinese has no origin. In fact, I would quote Han in the next paragraph:

“In classical Chinese the original is called zhen ji (真跡). Literally this means the “authentic trace.” This is a particular trace, as it does not follow a teleological path. And there is no promise inherent in it. It is associated neither with anything enigmatic nor kerygmatic. Moreover, it does not condense into a clear, monomorphic presence. Rather, it deconstructs the idea of any such original that embodies an unmistakable, immutable, centered presence and identity.”

This basically means four things: The Originality in Chinese has no teleological meaning, no secret revelation or hidden ideology, no clear form and even no fixed, centered identity. I would want to put extra warning that the above paragraph is from Han, not mine. The next paragraph gives more breakdown on what its mean to be “original” – in Chinese sense.

“The Chinese idea of the original is determined not by a unique act of creation, but by unending process, not by definitive identity but by constant change. Indeed, change does not take place within the soul of an artistic subjectivity. The trace effaces the artistic subjectivity, replacing it with a process that allows no essentialist positing.”

Of course, Han argued in later pages, changes are not something unique for Eastern artistry. The same also happens to Western artwork. He quotes the opinion of Adorno (another famous philosopher) on the work of Wagner (well-known music composer of the late 19th century) to be somewhat similar to a living creature. Ardono argued that the music of Wagner evolves over time, earn more richness and deepen from within. However, this change is characterized by the deepening in vertical depth and took place from the artwork itself. By contrast, Chinese art is flat and empty, the change is happened horizontally and dependent to the external influences. As Han puts it, “It is not the inwardness of the essence but the outwardness of the tradition or the situation that drives change onward.”

The best example Han made in this part is how original painting which held no culture-relevancy value or no longer fashionable often be modified to fit the contemporary taste. Again, I quote him directly:

“For example, if an era is characterized by a love of folklore, pictures with folkloric motifs turn up more frequently in Dong Yuan’s oeuvre. The quiet transformations of his oeuvre follow the various requirements of the time. In the Ming dynasty, for instance, when merchants played an important role in art as patrons, a new motif suddenly appeared in Dong Yuan’s pictures: that of the dealer. Forgeries and replicas are constantly transforming oeuvres.”

Taoism

On replica and forgery

Han van Meegren (left) and Chang Dai-chien (right)

Not only the notion of “originality” varies between the East and the West. The same is true with the notion of “forgery”. In the East, making a clone or replica in ancient style is totally acceptable. Han retold and made a comparison between Han van Meegeren and the most famous Chinese painter of the twentieth century, Chang Dai-chien. The story is so well-documented, Han van Meegren is a talent painter but his painting did not sell well. However, due to his passion of Renaissance painting and painting technique used in the Renaissance time. He himself make painting in the style of 17th century, using the exact inks, bush technique and even original canvas used in 17th century (acquired from buying worthless painting in that era just to retrieve the original canvas). His forges are so believable until the truth is known and Han was arrested.

In the other hand is Chang Dai-chien of the China, who also got into controversy in 1956 when his art submitted to the French museum were detected to be forgeries. The critical difference is that for Chang Dai-chien (and the contemporary Chinese): they are not forgeries at all, but rather the continuance of the “authentic trace”. There is new trace, new addition that Chang Dai-chien made that is entirely himself, full of his uniqueness and creativity. For example, quote Han: “he would transform images in totally unexpected ways; he might recast a Ming dynasty composition as if it were a Song dynasty painting”. For him, the requirement to be called “original” is that they follows the “authentic trace”, and they are mere forges if they are only pure duplicate. Again, I quote Han:

“His paintings are originals insofar as they carry forward the “real trace” of the Old Masters and also extend and change their oeuvre retrospectively. Only the idea of the unrepeatable, inviolable, unique original in the emphatic sense downgrades them to mere forgeries.”

Even the meaning of “copy” or “duplication” in the Far East is significantly different than the West. In some cases, they are interchangeable with the origin and hold similar value. According to Han, in China there are two notion of copy. The first is smaller replica with obvious modification, for example a small version of the Eiffel Tower that often be sold in the souvenir shops. But the second case is the exact replica. For the later, this holds no negative connotation, in fact the Chinese will send them abroad and thoroughly think they are the same as the original. As Han puts it:

“Fangzhipin (仿製品) are imitations where the difference from the original is obvious (…)The second concept for a copy is fuzhipin (複製品). They are exact reproductions of the original, which, for the Chinese, are of equal value to the original.”

The Ise Jingu grand shrine

Finally, I would love to provide another example of Han, this time not from China but Japan. This time it is about Ise Jingu grand shrine in Japan. This shire, by tradition, is rebuilt for every 20 years. Although this tradition had taken place for 1300 years (some claimed to be 2000 years old), the UNESCO do not accept this shire to be in the list of World Heritage record. Obviously, the expert in the UNESCO thinks the shire to be 20 years old at most! I would quote Han below:

“In the West, when monuments are restored, old traces are often particularly highlighted. Original elements are treated like relics. The Far East is not familiar with this cult of the original. It has developed a completely different technique of preservation that might be more effective than conservation or restoration. This takes place through continual reproduction. This technique completely abolishes the difference between original and replica. We might also say that originals preserve themselves through copies”

Han also points out that nature preserve itself through constant self-replacement. Human cell or animal cell constantly renew themselves thorough cell-multiplication. In this process, the old cells are discarded, replaced by new replicas, “In this case, the question of an original does not arise.”

Again, from Han:

“In a culture where continual reproduction represents a technique for conservation and preservation, replicas are anything but mere copies.”

Hwang Woo-suk

In fact, this difference from the West is also revealed from the way people of 21st century view taboo topic such as cloning. Han argued that Asian researcher has far fewer crude against cloning. Hwang Woo-suk, a controversial figure and researcher, scientist on cloning are quoted saying: “I am Buddhist, and I have no philosophical problem with cloning. And as you know, the basis of Buddhism is that life is recycled through reincarnation. In some ways, I think, therapeutic cloning restarts the circle of life.” Or according to Hans:

“For the Ise shrine, too, the technique of preservation resides in allowing the circle of life to begin anew over and over again, maintaining life not against death but through and beyond death. Death itself is built into the system of preservation.”

Or:

“In the unending cycle of life there is no longer anything unique, original, singular, or final. Only repetitions and reproductions exist.”

Back to AI Art

Returning to the topic of AI art, one of its most significant advantages over traditional hand-drawn artwork is speed and reproducibility. Very often, user of image generator create art based on previous style, the other way of saying is that art uniqueness is never a requirement of the user. However, image generator tool allows for alteration or slight variation. In fact, creativity of the AI users is shown through their small modification. Han would argue that creativity of AI users is not empty, but simply in another form of production. Here, I quote:

“Here Chinese cultural technology works like nature: “Chinese artists … never lose sight of the fact that producing works in large numbers exemplifies creativity, too. They trust that, as in nature, there always will be some among the ten thousand things from which change springs.” Chinese art has a functional relationship with nature, not a mimetic one. It is not a question of depicting nature as realistically as possible but of operating exactly like nature. In nature, successive variations also produce something new, clearly without any kind of “genius””

So the creativity in this sense do not required uniqueness. Just slight modification is enough. The shift in art style and innovation in technique is conducted in slow, gradual process. There is no need for groundbreaking shift. And last but not least, mass production itself is still, a form of creativity.

Another image generated by AI

Conclusion

So, the conclusion is that AI (and of course ancient Chinese artistry) is a different form of creativity. A different mode of production and that requires different mode of thinking for the artists. As technology improves daily, so does the push to change the concept of artists and even art ownership. Byung-chul Han clearly shows that the alternative way to view art is possible as it exists in Far East long before the modern time. From his breakdown analysis and AI status quo, I strongly believe AI will force human to rethink about artwork in the 21st century. This is not necessarily a good nor a bad phenomenon, but simply something different.

Some may argue that this marks a revival of the Far Eastern attitude toward artistry, and while there are undeniable similarities, it is too soon to draw that conclusion. Nevertheless, a new systematic view on art is necessary, and I am eager to speculate on how this perspective might evolve. For now, the discussion remains open—I have my own theories, but I leave it to you, the audience, to explore further.