The story behind this painting is so sad! 😢
Now using AI we can complete what he couldn’t finish! ❤️ https://t.co/RuASoTfFdk pic.twitter.com/uAwM6SBUGW— Donnel (@DonnelVillager) December 31, 2023
The celebrity graffiti artist Keith Haring died in 1990, at the age of 31, no doubt having completed only a fraction of the artwork he would have produced in a life a few decades longer. Upon first seeing his Unfinished Painting of 1989, one might assume that his early death is what stopped him from finishing it. In fact, painting only about a quarter of the canvas was his deliberate choice, intended to make a visual commentary on the AIDS epidemic that had claimed so many lives, and, not long thereafter, would claim his own. Presumably, it never occurred to anyone to “finish” Unfinished Painting — not before the age of artificial intelligence, anyway.
“Last summer, artist Brooke Peachley … posted a photo of the work on X” — the social media platform formerly known as Twitter — “alongside a prompt asking others to respond with a visual art piece ‘that never fails to destroy [them] every time they see it,’ ” write Elaine Velie and Rhea Nayyar at Hyperallergic. “Over six months later, another user responded to the original post with a generative AI image that ‘completed’ Haring’s purposely half-painted work, writing, ‘now using AI we can complete what he couldn’t finish!’ ”
One might, perhaps, sense a joking tone in that post, though the many incensed commenters it continues to draw seem not to take it that way. “The post swiftly caught the ire of the X community, with users describing the action as ‘disrespectful,’ ‘disgusting,’ and a ‘desecration,’ ” says Artnet News. “Some praised the powers of A.I. for ‘showing us a world without AIDS,’ while others deemed the tweet excellent ‘bait’ on an Elon Musk-led online platform that newly rewards outrage with engagement.” As often these days — and very often when it comes to applications of artificial intelligence in popular culture — the reactions to the thing are more compelling than the thing itself.
“The A.I.-generated image doesn’t appear to be faithful to Haring’s style, which often included images of human figures,” writes Julia Binswanger at Smithsonian.com. “These kinds of figures are visible in Haring’s original piece, but the image generator wasn’t able to replicate them.” The algorithmically filled-in Unfinished Painting may be without aesthetic or intellectual interest in itself, but consider how many viewers have only learned of the original work because of it. Nevertheless, stunts like this (or like zooming out the Mona Lisa) ultimately amount to distractions from whatever artistic potential these technologies may actually hold. A.I. will come into its own not by generating images that Haring or any other artist could have created, but images that no human being has yet imagined.
Related content:
Demystifying the Activist Graffiti Art of Keith Haring: A Video Essay
A Short Biography of Keith Haring Told with Comic Book Illustrations & Music
Keith Haring’s Eclectic Journal Entries Go Online
Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities, language, and culture. His projects include the Substack newsletter Books on Cities, the book The Stateless City: a Walk through 21st-Century Los Angeles and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.
This is just vile. Nothing was completed and we shouldn’t be giving it any attention.
besides just how wrong it is to finish this painting — the AI doesn’t understand how Haring did little body outlines. there are none in the “interpretation” of the finished product. Moral of the story? Stop using AI to do art. It’s insulting.
A fun conceptual project that has, for very weird and overtly pearl-clutching reasons, riled up some folks who seem to thrive on their borrowed definitions of what’s morally wrong. I’d ask a class of young art students to each make a version of their own and spend the class time discussing their varied differences thereby engaging them in ways of discovering the very specific elements of an artist’s work. Apparently, it’s easier to throw a blanket on some idea than to embrace it — even swaddle it — with a creative learning experience.
Look, look at what my computer can do! (yawn)
Who cares? Haring didn’t do it.
AI isn’t an “art student.”
Aside from that, the “interpretation” it gave here is hilarious garbage.
This is the art equivalent of 7‑fingered hands in AI rendered “photos.”
If you understand anything about line or composition, you can look at the AI rendering and see exactly where it started and Haring stopped. The valley is quite uncanny.
From a purely formal standpoint, what the AI did is simply bad… Honestly terrible. It misses development completely, breaks down the extent elements in an interesting way, and then overdetermines them throughout.
It’s amateurish and quite dumb.
How many of you lost a loved one to aids in the 90s? I can tell you from first hand experience it was horrific. One thing I’m almost certain of is that if the people who did die from it had the chance to be alive and observe what an uproar finishing this painting caused they wouldn’t care because they would be alive again and greatful. So maybe we should take that into perspective and chill out we’re alive and look at what we get to complain about.
The AI literally just focused on like four details and copied them everywhere with jagged line connecting them. You can clearly see where the interpretation of the work starts. AI is not there yet.
I came here to say the same thing. It’s missing the human figures. It’s too compact and visually different from the upper corner. It shows no comprehension of what the artist style actually is, and of course the use of it destroys the meaning of the original. I lived in Boston and I never got to meet him but I’ve seen his art in various places. There is a post office that was painted by him on the inside downtown Boston. I don’t know if it’s still there but it was nice to be able to see and touch his art.
Oxymoronic terms; artificial, intelligence.