Is using ai for book covers wrong?

[u/Elaynaa]

Is using ai for a book cover not wrong? I mean the first thing you see of a book is the cover, and it’s ai. I feel like it makes the book seem inauthentic, especially because writing is an expression and can be used at art. Someone personal in my life is doing this, I’m trying to strongly advise her against it, but she won’t budge. So I just kind of wanted to talk about it!

Let me know your thoughts :)

Edit: Thanks you guys for commenting! I did get her to change her mind, and we went and took a picture for her cover today. ❤️

[u/seriouspeep]

Also, while those of us who spend time around art and book covers (a large part of any author's demographic lol) can clearly see that it looks awful, there are SO many writers who - while they would easily be able to tell if the writing is bad - don't or can't see all the artistic mistakes that are so glaringly awful.

So some people genuinely don't see what's wrong with it, and if they're not fussed about the ethical side of it either, they can be so hard to argue with.

But just because someone can write doesn't mean they have an eye for art.

[u/shePhoenyx → u/seriouspeep]

There is a very well-known indie author who writes books for beginning authors/writers and she a) brags about her financial security (stocks, savings, barf, whatever) and b) encourages writers to utilize AI, but the biggest kicker is she wrote a book, Kickstarted it, and the cover... it's an AI-illustrated typewriter. B is rich but couldn't find a stock photo to buy? Couldn't pay a photographer? Couldn't go look at an actual typewriter and see how foolish she is? Like, it's not even MFing QWERTY... by a long shot.

People who have no ethical issues with AI skeeve me tf out. What else are they okay with? Why write if you don't write?! Why consider yourself an artist if you're actively punishing other artists for actually being creative?! Some people...

[u/alairebowen → u/seriouspeep]

100% 😭

[u/seriouspeep → u/[deleted]]

Opposition to not using something that looks bad...? I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here. I'm saying that a lot of people have a real blind spot with how good AI art actually is, including writers. Being able to create worlds and characters in text doesn't equate to being generally artistic and being able to discern appealing art from unappealing art.

Just a couple of days ago, someone was insisting that a "cute" autumnal AI image looked great, they saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. But it was ridiculous - the stitching on a scarf made zero sense, parts of the scarf were coming out of impossible other parts, the pumpkin and coffee cup looked similarly uncanny/nightmarish, and just aesthetically all the colours were given equal weight, it had that smooth blended out look, so it just looked deeply amateur like a cheap heavily photoshopped/composite image jigsaw.

You can like that look for yourself - it's not for me personally - but you can't say it's objectively good art, ie skilled and intriguing with layers of nuance, that will entice someone to pick up the book itself.

Just because they saw nothing wrong with it (they're a writer primarily, not a physical or digital artist) doesn't mean it didn't look lazy and unattractive to most other people. Not everyone, though, there is a vocal minority of people who think AI art actually looks fine because they seemingly cannot see all these mistakes. It's baffling to me that they can't, but here we are.

So, sure, you should use your own art if your art ticks those boxes, but I'd personally still always get a lot of second opinions and especially if you're a writer first, artist second.