This study explores artificial visual creativity, focusing on ChatGPT's ability to generate new images intentionally pastiching original artworks such as paintings, drawings, sculptures and installations. The process involved twelve artists from Romania, Bulgaria, France, Austria, and the United Kingdom, each invited to contribute with three of their artworks and to grade and comment on the AI-generated versions. The analysis combines human evaluation with computational methods aimed at detecting visual and stylistic similarities or divergences between the original works and their AI-produced renditions. The results point to a significant gap between color and texture-based similarity and compositional, conceptual, and perceptual one. Consequently, we advocate for the use of a "style transfer dashboard" of complementary metrics to evaluate the similarity between pastiches and originals, rather than using a single style metric. The artists' comments revealed limitations of ChatGPT's pastiches after contemporary artworks, which were perceived by the authors of the originals as lacking dimensionality, context, and intentional sense, and seeming more of a paraphrase or an approximate quotation rather than as a valuable, emotion-evoking artwork.
Figures & tables
Model
Org → Pst1
Org → Pst2
Average
Pst1 ↔ Pst2
Feature type
AdaIN-Style
0.055
0.071
0.063
0.068
texture, color
CLIP-ViT-L
0.194
0.200
0.197
0.173
conceptual
ResNet50-Style
0.427
0.481
0.454
0.402
artistic style
DINOv2
0.441
0.484
0.463
0.396
fine-grained visual
VGG19
0.648
0.701
0.674
0.662
perceptual
Table 1: Average Cosine Distances by Model. Lower values (the lowest in bold) indicate higher similarity. AdaIN-Style is the most forgiving, while VGG19 is the strictest.
Figure 1: Bar charts comparing average cosine distances for Orig → Past1, Orig → Past2, and Past1 ↔ Past2 comparisons across all five models.
Figure 2: Distance distributions for each of the five models. Note the tight, low-distance grouping of AdaIN-Style versus the wide, high-distance spread of DINOv2 and VGG19, illustrating their respective discrimination power.
Model
Variance
Discrimination
Pastiches
Consistency
(Avg. Diff.)
DINOv2
0.0349
Most Discriminative
0.131
Most Variable
VGG19
0.0274
High Discrimination
0.111
Moderate
ResNet50-Style
0.0249
Balanced
0.115
Moderate
CLIP-ViT-L
0.0103
Consistent
0.046
Very Consistent
AdaIN-Style
0.0014
Least Discriminative
0.034
Most Consistent
Table 2: Model Discrimination (Variance) and Pastiche Consistency. Discrimination measures the spread of all measurements, while Consistency measures the average difference between the two pastiche distances for the same artwork.
Figure 3: We computed pairwise correlations to see if models that rank one pastiche as very similar to the original (low distance) also rank others similarly. This scatter plots visualize the agreement for all model pairs.
Figure 4: Visual example of the “Compositional Gap” (High DINO, Low AdaIN). This case illustrates pastiches that successfully mimic the texture and color palette of the original (low AdaIN distance) but fail to capture the structural composition (high DINO distance).
Figure 5: Visual example of Structural Alignment (Low DINO, High AdaIN). Representing the inverse of the “Compositional Gap,” this case shows where the AI successfully replicates the spatial composition and geometric blocking (low DINO distance) but deviates in texture or color statistics.
Figure 6: Artists’ Graded Perception of ChatGPT’s pastiches after their works.
Figure 7: Ion Grigorescu’s artwork Măriuca versus its Pastiche 1.
Figure 8: Tom Chamberlain’s artwork Dimmer versus its Pastiche 1.
Figure 9: Philip Patkowitsch’s artwork Untitled versus its Pastiche 2.
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it investigates whether newer generative models are getting better at pastiching contemporary artworks. Second, it explores the consistency of the multidimensional nature of stylistic evaluation across different LLMs. Building on previous work, we analyze stylistic similarity between AI generated pastiches and the original artworks of twelve contemporary artists. We used five complementary computer vision models to capture texture, color, semantics, composition, and perceptual features through cosine distance in high-dimensional embedding spaces. The distances obtained show that the newer image generation model that we used has produced pastiches with improved semantic alignment and greater diversity than the model used in previous work. However, it was slightly less performant on shallow features such as color, texture, and perceptual adherence. Our findings confirm that artistic style is inherently multidimensional, and measuring it does not depend on any spatial architecture. These quantitative findings are contextualized through feedback from human evaluators, which are the artists themselves.
Anca Dinu, Andreiana Mihail, Andra-Maria Florescu +2
AI-generated art has sparked debates around potential plagiarism, as these images may closely resemble existing artworks. This research quantifies the similarity between original pieces and AI-generated counterparts, particularly those produced by the Stable Diffusion XL Refiner 1.0. We use Siamese Networks with frozen CLIP encoders and cosine similarity optimized through triplet loss. A dataset of paired original and generated images was built using image-to-image generation and custom prompts, enriched with semantic descriptors and BLIP-2 captions. Prior studies report up to 81% style replication and 90% visual similarity. Our results show high discriminative performance: training accuracy reached 99.9%, and the best model configuration achieved 99.4% test accuracy with strong inter-class separation (δμ = 0.677), demonstrating the effectiveness of our semantic-visual embeddings.
Diego Castro Elvira, Navil Pineda Rugerio, Jesús García-Ramírez +2
UPIIT, Instituto Politécnico Nacional Guillermo Valle 11, Centro, C.P. 90000 Tlaxcala de Xicohténcatl, Tlaxcala, Mexico.
Generative text-to-image models are typically trained on large-scale web-scraped datasets that include diverse visual content such as copyrighted and stylistically distinctive artworks, raising concerns about ownership, attribution, and the unintended reuse of protected visual expressions. A key issue is that models can learn stylistic patterns from this data and reproduce them in generated outputs without any explicit reference in the prompt. We refer to this phenomenon as The Silent Brush, where such learned styles reappear even when they are not requested. Existing evaluation methods mainly focus on near-duplicate retrieval or membership inference and do not account for this form of unintended stylistic resurfacing across prompts. To address these gaps, we first formulate guiding principles for evaluation of The Silent Brush. We then introduce Art Arena, an evaluation protocol that measures how strongly artworks are encoded, how they interact, and how frequently their stylistic traits reappear in generated outputs without explicit mention in prompts. We evaluate Art Arena on widely used text-to-image diffusion models, including Stable Diffusion v1.5, Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL), and SANA-1.5, and design it to generalize across text-to-image generative systems. Our results show that The Silent Brush arises from differences in representational strength and interaction dynamics between artworks, leading to asymmetric blending in model generations. Code and evaluation resources are available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ArtArena-EBE4.