As a full-time artist and educator, I can confidently say that technology has completely changed the world of art. I love it and use it every day in my work. Not just painting—today, artists like me also use it to teach students from all over the world and make art accessible. I embrace technology as a tool for efficiency, communication and education. Some artists even create their entire creative works using digital tools and platforms. Technology allows creativity to be communicated in powerful and exciting ways. But there’s a big problem that comes with that: AI
Using technology to create and share art is not the same as replacing the creation of art with technology; something important is lost when the creative process itself disappears. But as AI-generated content becomes more common on the Internet, I believe there will be a moment when we see a shift in the other direction: people, tired of being bombarded with artificial images, are moving back towards authentic handmade creations. People are the connections between people and the emotions behind art.
Digital art vs. AI graphics: the difference to make
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 by pressing a button. They understand that both take place on a screen, both use software and both produce digital images, so they must be the same. But for artists, the creative process is the root of the divide. And I agree that throughout the history of art, there have been points where new technological tools threatened artists. But this is different. This is the first time we have completely bypassed the human part of creation.
Just as photography has its own creative process, digital painting is still a form of painting. The artist still finds inspiration, makes drawings, tries through trial and error, interprets clues, adjusts the composition… all the things, in short, that bring ideas to life. The tools—eg, a tablet and a stylus—are just another canvas and brush, but the magic of making is the same.
AI is another tool, but image generators create images using a database of (stolen) artwork. The system produces results by processing large data sets of images and patterns available on the Internet. The user can direct the information, but the machine does the visual interpretation and execution. This distinction 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”; exploration is the root of creativity.
No information can replace an artist’s journey
Digital tools support the artist’s hand. The AI tries to restore it. In digital art, the medium may be different from traditional art, but the knowledge required to create a work of art remains the same (and sometimes there is a steeper learning curve for using complex software). A skilled digital artist 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 hear. Natural artists understand how the experience of struggle and failure leads to artistic growth. Those moments are opportunities for growth and improvement to develop your artistic identity and skills.
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 more than understanding art history. If budding artists are led to believe that they can avoid the basics entirely and create images in an instant, they may never feel confident in the craft or the reward of developing the craft.
AI removes the struggle; instead of interpreting the world, the influencer simply chooses the results. In creative spaces, new students turning to AI are missing out on opportunities to explore. We live in a fast-paced world that demands fast results. Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. And with that, some powerful artists won’t consider training for years when they achieve what feels like instant gratification at the push of a button.
This is not about elitism or gatekeeping. It is about growing together and humanity. This is why we study and respect the Masters in the first place. The more deeply artists understand their journey and learn from mistakes, 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 a little more colorful with AI when you understand how these programs are trained. Artist works are added to the training information without permission, compensation or acknowledgement. Years spent developing a personal style become raw material for programs that can be imitated in seconds. Artists can’t complain, because when they accepted the risks of sharing online, AI hadn’t been invented yet (or at least it wasn’t the hungry monster we are today). We are still waiting for laws and regulations; when they finally succeed, it will probably be too late.
For practicing artists, issues surrounding AI and ownership are not just part of a philosophical debate about technology. It’s about work, ownership and respect for creative work. (And let’s not bring environmental costs to the plate. We already have enough.)
What AI can replicate is what makes art valuable
Ironically, the rapid growth and widespread use of AI will, I believe, make human creativity more important than ever. Even now, there are many trends in social media that encourage artists to share their processes, and themselves at work, not just their art. (Let’s face it, we’re getting less and less clear on what is AI and what isn’t.)
We currently live in an age where most of us are surrounded by a stream of manufactured images and content. Hopefully, as our feeds become more saturated with AI images, more people will yearn for human art—a work that may be imperfect but has feelings behind it that allows the viewer to connect with the artist.
Art and craft have always been valued in part because they were human and engaged in shared struggles and emotions, not just because they were pretty to look at. Why do you think people still pay to see half of Michelangelo’s carvings? Slaves? These non-finito sculptures look like they are trying to escape from the rock, a powerful representation of struggle and suffering. Artificial intelligence will never create anything that moves, and as AI-generated content floods the internet, people will look for art that feels undeniably human. We are headed for a future where human creativity will matter more, not less.
The future of art will not be about what pictures we can make. Art will always be about what people choose to do for other people. Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive (the company behind GTA), admitted that AI is using it during a podcast with David Senra, but was quick to point out that “datasets are by their nature backward-looking, intelligence by their nature forward-looking.” And you are right. Ultimately, AI does not create creativity; it creates, as Zelnick puts it, “commodity output.”
More on AI in art
