As a full-time painter and educator, I can safely say that technology has completely changed the art world. I am passionate about it and use it every day in my practice. Not just for painting – today, artists like me use it too students from all over the world learn and make art more accessible. I welcome technology as a tool for efficiency, connection and education. Some artists have even built their entire creative careers using digital tools and platforms. Technology is allowing creativity to be channeled in powerful and exciting ways. But there is one major issue that comes with this: AI
Using technology to create and share art is not the same as replacing artistic creation with technological creation; something essential is lost when the creative process itself disappears. But as AI-generated content becomes more commonplace online, I believe there will be a moment when we’ll see a shift in the opposite direction: people, tired of being overwhelmed with artificial images, turning to authentic, handmade creation. People relating to people and the emotions behind art.
Digital art vs. AI imaging: a distinction worth making
Some people outside the art world still believe that digital painting and AI image generation are the same thing. I find myself explaining that digital art is not done with the push of a button. They understand that both happen on a screen, both use software, and both produce digital images, so they must be the same. But for artists, the creative process is at the heart of the difference. And I agree that throughout the history of art, there have been points where new technological tools have threatened artists. But this is different. This is the first time we are completely bypassing the human part of creation.
Just as photography has its own creative process, digital painting is still a form of painting. The artist is still finding inspiration, making sketches, experimenting through trial and error, interpreting references, adjusting the composition… all the things that, in sum, bring ideas to life. Tools – e.g. tablet and stylus – it’s just a different canvas and brush, but the magic of creation is the same.
AI is another tool, but image generators create images using a database of (stolen) artistic output. The system generates results by processing large datasets of existing images and models available online. The user can drive the requests, but the machine does the visual rendering and execution. This difference is important because artistic growth comes not only from having an idea, but also from execution. It comes from learning how to translate that thought into something meaningful through personal skill and interpretation. Consider Bob Ross’s “happy accidents”; experimentation is the root of creation.
No request can replace the artist’s journey
Digital tools support the artist’s hand. HE tries to replace it. In digital painting, the medium may differ from traditional painting, but the knowledge required to create a work of art remains the same (and sometimes there is an even greater learning curve to use complex software). A skilled digital painter still needs to understand anatomy, perspective, composition, color theory, and visual storytelling. They still spend years training their eyes and hands to communicate what they see and feel. Painters naturally understand how the experience of struggle and failure leads to artistic growth. Those moments are opportunities for growth and improvement to develop identity and artistic ability.
Making art has always required time and patience, and young artists should be encouraged to appreciate this. The basics of color, composition, etc., take years to master – and that’s on top of understanding art history. When budding artists are led to believe they can avoid the basics entirely and create images in the blink of an eye, they may never experience the creative confidence or reward of developing a craft.
HE removes war; instead of interpreting the world, a prompter simply curates results. In art spaces, young learners turning to AI miss out on opportunities for experimentation. We live in a fast-paced world that demands instant results. Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. And with that, some would-be artists won’t consider training for years when they can achieve what feels like instant gratification at the push of a button.
This is not about elitism or conservation. It is about collective growth and about humanity. This is why we study and honor Masters in the first place. The more deeply artists understand their journey and learn through trial and error, the more clearly they can express their ideas. We should not take hundreds of years of history for granted.
And, on the technical side, things get less and less colorful with AI when you understand how these systems are trained. Artists’ works are added to training databases without consent, compensation or acknowledgment. Years spent developing a personal style become raw material for systems that can mimic it in seconds. Artists can’t complain, because when they accepted the dangers of online sharing, AI hadn’t been invented (or at least it wasn’t the hungry monster it has become today). We are still awaiting laws and regulations; when they finally get through, it’s likely too late.
For working artists, issues related to AI and ownership are not simply part of a philosophical debate about technology. It’s about work, authorship and respect for creative work. (And let’s not bring the environmental cost to the plate. We already have enough.)
What AI cannot replicate is what makes art important
Ironically, the rapid growth and widespread use of AI will, I believe, make human-made art more valuable than ever. Even now, there are many social media trends that encourage artists to share their processes, even themselves at work, not just their art. (Let’s face it, we’re becoming less adept at distinguishing between what is AI and what isn’t.)
We are currently living in a period in which most of us are surrounded by constant streams of images and created content. Hopefully, as our feeds become saturated with AI imagery, more and more people will crave human-made art—work that may be imperfect, but has emotion behind it that allows the viewer to connect with the artist.
Art and craft have always been valuable in part because they were so human and involved in common struggles and emotions, not simply because they were pleasing to look at. Why do you think people still pay to see half of Michelangelo carved? Slaves? These unfinished sculptures look like they are trying to escape from the rock, powerful representations of struggle and suffering. AI will never create anything quite as mobile, and as AI-generated content overwhelms the internet, people will demand art that feels distinctly human. We are moving towards a future where authentic human creation will matter more, not less.
The future of art will not be about the images we can generate. Art will always be about what people choose to create for other people. Strauss ZelnickThe CEO of Take-Two Interactive (the company behind GTA), acknowledged that AI has its uses during a podcast with David Senra, but was also quick to point out that “datasets by their very nature are backward-looking, creativity by its very nature is forward-looking.” And he is right. After all, AI does not create art; it creates, as Zelnick put it, “derivative property.”
More on AI in art
