This article pretty much makes no sense, from the Guardian on Jeff Koons. First it quotes him as saying:

“I wouldn’t – for my own base work – be looking at AI to be developing my work.”

And then it turns around and quotes him saying exactly the opposite:

“I do not work with AI at this time directly other than to produce options. Here’s this table: could I see this table in a wood? And then, could I see this shape in, you know, a marble? I’d like to see it in reflected steel. Only in that scenario. I’ve been using AI as a tool, not as an agent.”

That’s… nonsense?

I don’t actually give much of a shit if Jeff Koons’ work isn’t physically made by him, but by employees and interns working on his behalf. I actually think that’s a historically coherent modality for productive workshops, which I went into a bit more here, and quoted someone from a random thread on Reddit:

To give you a wider explanation, artists worked as traders running workshops as a business. They would hire employees, assistants, and trainees, just like, say, modern plumbers.

So I’m personally fine with that, even if I think that Koons art is pretty much ugly and lifeless. I just think it’s a stupid claim to say you don’t use AI except for… all the times you do during the process.

Related writing & research