When Selkie, o The fashion brand is viral on Instagram and TikTok for its bubbly, extravagant dresses, announces new collections, reception is generally positive. Known for being size inclusive — they range in size from XXS to 6X — and owned and founded by an independent artist who is outspoken about fair pay and sustainability in fashion, Selkie tends to be highly regarded as one of the most ethically “good” brands online. .
The brand upcoming drop for Valentine’s Day it was inspired by vintage greeting cards and features saccharine images of puppies surrounded by roses or comical fluffy kittens painted on a pastel background. Printed on sweaters and dresses adorned with bows, the collection was meant to be a nostalgic, cheeky nod to romance. It was also designed using the AI image generator Halfway trip.
“I have a huge library of really old art, like the 1800s and 1900s, and it’s a great tool to make art look better,” Selkie founder Kimberley Gordon told TechCrunch. “I can paint using it, on top of the art being created. I think the art is funny, and I think it’s cheeky, and there are little details like an extra toe. Five years from now, this sweater will be very cool because it will represent the beginning of a whole new world. An extra toe is like a representation of where we start.”
But when the brand announced that the collection was designed using genetic artificial intelligence, the backlash was immediate. Selkie addressed the use of artificial intelligence in art in an Instagram comment below the drop announcement, noting that Gordon felt it was “important to learn about this new medium and how it may or may not work for Selkie as a brand.”
Criticism flooded the brand’s Instagram comments. One described the choice to use artificial intelligence as a “slap in the face” to artists and expressed disappointment that a brand selling at such a high price ($249 for the polyester viral mini dress to $1,500 for custom silk wedding dresses) did not they would simply commission a human artist to design graphics for the collection. Another user simply commented, “the ‘I’m an artist and I love Ai!’ argument is very awkward.” One user questioned why the brand chose to use genetic AI given the “overwhelming number” of stock images and vintage artwork that are out of copyright and “identical in style”.
“Why make the overwhelmingly controversial and morally dubious choice when equally cost-effective and more ethical options are widely available?” the user continued. “If you have actually done the research you claim to have on AI, then you also understand that it is a technology that requires stealing and exploiting workers to operate.”
Gordon said she spends about a week designing collections, but it takes months to a year of development and manufacturing before they are actually sold online. In the year since he finished the designs for this fall, public opinion of AI art has changed significantly.
As AI production tools become more sophisticated, the use of AI in art is also increasingly polarizing. Some artists like Gordon, who designs the Selkie patterns herself using a mix of royalty-free clip art, public domain paintings, digital illustration and Photoshop collages, see AI image generators as a tool. Gordon likens it to photography: it’s new now, but future generations may accept it as another art medium. Many artists, however, are she objected loudly in the use of genetic artificial intelligence in art.
Their concerns are twofold – one, artists are missing out on opportunities for cheaper, faster AI image generators, and two, that many producers have been trained on copyrighted images that have been ripped from the Internet without the artists’ consent. Pushing back against genetic artificial intelligence it spans all creative disciplines, not only in visual art. Musicians are speaking out against its use deepfake coversactors question whether SAG-AFTRA’s new contract adequately regulates artificial intelligence in entertainment, even fantasy writers are taking steps to prevent their work from being used to train artificial intelligence models.
Of course, not all productive AIs are exploitative. as a VFX tool, it’s incredibly useful to enhance animations, from creating more realistic flames in Pixar’s “Elemental” to visualizing complex scenes in HBO’s “The Last Of Us.” There are many examples of ethically bankrupt applications of genetic artificial intelligence. Creation deepfake revenge pornfor example, or creating “diverse models” instead of hiring actual people of color it’s objectively terrifying. But most of the debate about genetic artificial intelligence settles into a morally gray area, where the parameters of exploitation are less defined.
In the case of Selkie, Gordon exclusively designs all of the graphics that appear on Selkie apparel. If someone else designs them, make it clear that it is a collaboration with another artist. Her designs typically include a collage of digital watercolor painting, stock images, and “old art” that is no longer copyrighted. Many of her popular designs incorporate motifs from famous works of art, such as Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” and Monet’s “Water Lilies,” which she uses as a base to create a unique, yet recognizable pattern. After changing and building on the already existing work, it is printed on shiny fabric and used to make puffy dresses and accessories.
The Valentine’s Day drop, Gordon argued, is no different, except it used created images as a design basis, rather than public domain artwork. The patterns he created for this collection are just as transformative as those he designed for previous drops, he said, and involved just as much altering, original illustration and a “creative eye.”
“I say this is art. This is the future of art, and as long as an artist uses it, it’s the same as what we did with clip art,” Gordon said. “I think it’s very similar, except it gives artists a lot more power and allows us to compete in a world where big business owns this whole structure.”
Gordon voiced accusations that equate the use of productive AI with that of companies replacing working artists with AI image generators. She pointed out that she could not have “replaced artists” as she is the brand’s only artist, and that the high prices Selkie charges for each ruffled dress reflect the cost of materials and labor. If clothes are cheap, he said, it’s usually because the garment workers who make them aren’t paid fairly. Gordon added that although she is paid as a “business owner,” she does not factor her own work as a designer into her salary in order to keep overhead down.
Gordon also noted that he did not use other artists’ names or works as prompts when he used Midjourney to create the basic images. He turned to AI for efficiency – he said it was a “great brainstorming tool” to visualize what he wanted the collection to look like – and for fear of being left behind. Artists face increasing pressure to adapt to new technology, he said, and he wanted to be ahead of the curve.
“I don’t use AI models. I only use AI as a tool where I normally would. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s job at my own company,” he said. “I use it as a way to be efficient. If I used multiple artists to make my prints and then suddenly used AI, I would definitely remove them. How can I remove myself?’
This is the nuance that is not always reflected in discussions of art and artificial intelligence. Gordon owns a popular but relatively small fashion brand, which she uses as a vehicle to monetize her own artwork. Could he have commissioned oil paintings of puppies and kittens in love to another artist? Yes. Is it possible that the created images of generic, vintage Valentine’s Day cards elevated the work of any living artist? Unclear, but so far, no one has publicly accused Selkie copying their art for the new collection. Gordon’s use of AI-generated imagery isn’t as egregious as that of other, bigger fashion brands, but more sanguine critics argue that any use of AI art perpetuates the artists.
Gordon, for one, said he’s heard the criticism and doesn’t plan to use AI-generated imagery in future Selkie collections. He believes there is a lack of regulation when it comes to genetic artificial intelligence and suggested that artists receive some sort of payment whenever their names or work are used in prompts. But she plans to continue experimenting with it in her personal art and maintains that at the end of the day, it’s just another medium to work with.
“Maybe the way I did it and this route is not the right way, but I don’t agree [AI] it’s a bad thing,” Gordon said. “I feel like it’s technological progress. And it is neither good nor bad. It’s just the way of life.”
