Selkie, the viral fashion brand garnering attention on Instagram and TikTok for its extravagant, frothy dresses, never fails to impress with its new collections. With a strong commitment to size inclusivity, offering sizes from XXS to 6X, and a founder who advocates for fair pay and sustainability in the fashion industry, Selkie is often considered one of the “good” brands online.
The brand’s upcoming Valentine’s Day drop draws inspiration from vintage greeting cards, featuring darling images of puppies nestled in roses and comically fluffy kittens set against pastel backgrounds. The collection, featuring bows and printed on dresses and sweaters, is meant to evoke a nostalgic and playful nod to love and romance. However, what sets this collection apart is the use of an unconventional design tool – AI image generators such as Midjourney.
“I have a library of very old art from the 1800s and 1900s, and it’s a great tool to enhance the look of the art,” shared Selkie founder Kimberley Gordon in an interview with TechCrunch. “I can use it to paint over or on top of the generated images. I find the results humorous and cheeky, with small details like an extra toe. In five years, this collection will be even more special as it represents the start of a whole new world. The extra toe symbolizes the beginning of this journey.”
However, the brand faced immediate backlash when it was revealed that the collection was created using generative AI. To address the criticism, Selkie commented on their Instagram post announcing the drop, stating that they believe it is important to explore this new medium and how it can be incorporated into their brand.
The brand’s Instagram comments were flooded with criticism, with one person calling the use of AI a “slap in the face” to artists and expressing disappointment that a brand with such high price points (ranging from $249 for the viral polyester puff minidress to $1,500 for made-to-order silk bridal gowns) didn’t choose to collaborate with human artists instead. Another commenter simply wrote, “the argument of ‘I’m an artist and I love AI!’ is very concerning.” Questions were also raised as to why the brand chose to use generative AI when there are countless stock images and vintage artwork available that are not copyrighted and share a similar style.
Selkie’s response was that founder Kimberley Gordon spends a week designing collections, but it takes months to a year for development and manufacturing before the pieces are sold online. In the year since the designs for this collection were finalized, public perception of AI art has changed significantly.
As generative AI becomes more advanced, the use of AI in art continues to spark controversy. Some artists, like Gordon, who designs Selkie’s patterns by combining royalty-free clip art, public domain paintings, digital illustration, and Photoshop collaging, view AI image generators as just another tool to enhance their work. Gordon compares it to photography: a new medium currently, but one that may be accepted as a legitimate art form by future generations. However, many artists are vocally against the use of AI in art.
One such concern is that artists are losing opportunities to cheaper and quicker AI image generators, and that many of these generators have been trained on copyrighted images taken from the internet without the creators’ consent. This pushback against AI isn’t limited to visual art – musicians are also speaking out against the use of deepfake covers, actors are questioning if SAG-AFTRA’s new contract sufficiently regulates AI in entertainment, and even fanfiction writers are taking measures to prevent their work from being used to train AI models.
Of course, not all uses of generative AI are exploitative. It can be incredibly useful as a VFX tool to enhance animations, such as creating more realistic flames in Pixar’s “Elemental” or visualizing complex scenes in HBO’s “The Last of Us.” There are also numerous examples of morally questionable applications of generative AI, such as creating deepfake revenge porn or generating “diverse models” instead of hiring actual people of color. However, for the most part, the use of generative AI falls into a grey area where the boundaries of exploitation are not clearly defined.
In the case of Selkie, founder Kimberley Gordon is the sole designer of all artwork featured on Selkie garments. When collaborating with other artists, this is made clear. Gordon’s designs often incorporate elements from iconic works of art, such as Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” and Monet’s “Water Lilies,” which she transforms into unique and recognizable patterns. For the Valentine’s Day collection, Gordon argues that the use of generative AI was no different – she simply used generated images in place of public domain artwork. She stands by the fact that the patterns she created are just as transformative as those used in previous collections, involving extensive altering, original illustration, and her own creative vision.
Gordon’s use of generative AI as a design tool was purely for efficiency and out of a fear of being left behind. As technology continues to advance, there is mounting pressure on artists to adapt and keep up. However, she has taken the criticism to heart and does not plan to use AI-generated images in future collections. She also believes that there should be some form of regulation in place, such as artists receiving compensation every time their work or name is used as a prompt for AI. Despite this, she plans to continue experimenting with AI in her personal art, maintaining the belief that it is simply another medium to be explored.
This nuance is often lost in discussions about AI and art. As the founder and designer of a popular, yet relatively small fashion brand, Gordon uses Selkie as a means to monetize her own artwork. Could she have commissioned other artists for oil paintings of lovestruck puppies and kittens? Yes. Is it likely that the AI-generated images used in the collection were taken from living artists’ work? It is unclear, as no accusations have been made. While Gordon’s use of generative AI may not be as egregious as other larger fashion brands, some critics argue that any use of AI in art perpetuates harm against artists.
For now, Gordon has taken the criticism into consideration and does not plan to continue using AI in her designs. She acknowledges the lack of regulation surrounding generative AI and suggests that steps be taken to ensure artists are fairly compensated for their work. However, she maintains her stance that AI is simply another tool that can be used in art. As she puts it, “it is neither good nor bad – it is just a part of life.”
Remember, the use of AI in art is a complex and often debated topic. While some see it as a valuable tool, others view it as a threat to artists. Regardless, it is important to continue the conversation and find ways to support and fairly compensate all artists involved.
