As a full-time artist and teacher, I can say with certainty that technology has completely changed the art world. I am passionate about it and use it every day in my practice. Not just for drawing, artists like me use it today too Teaching students from all over the world And make art accessible to everyone. I welcome technology as a tool for efficiency, communication and education. Some artists have even built their entire creative careers using digital tools and platforms. Technology allows creativity to be conveyed in powerful and exciting ways. But there’s a major problem that comes with that: artificial intelligence
Using technology to create and share art does not mean replacing artistic creativity with technological creativity; Something essential is lost when the creative process itself disappears. But as AI-generated content becomes more widespread online, I think there will be a moment when we see a shift in the opposite direction: where people, tired of being inundated with artificial images, return to authentic, manual creativity. Humans connect with the people and emotions behind art.
Digital Art vs AI Photos: A Worthwhile Distinction
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 they both happen on a screen, and they both use software and produce digital images, so they should be the same. But for artists, the creative process is the root cause of discrimination. I agree that throughout art history, there have been points where new technological tools have threatened artists. But this is different. This is the first time we have completely transcended the human part of creation.
Just as photography has its own creative process, digital drawing is still a form of drawing. The artist still finds inspiration, makes drawings, experiments through trial and error, interprets references, adjusts composition… all the things that, in short, bring ideas to life. The tools—for example, a tablet and pen—are just another canvas and brush, but the magic of crafting is the same.
AI is another tool, but image generators create images using a database of (stolen) artistic output. The system generates the results by processing large datasets of existing images and patterns available online. The user can direct the prompts, but the machine does the visual interpretation and execution. This difference is important because artistic growth comes not only from having an idea but also from executing it. This comes from learning how to translate that thought into something meaningful through skill and personal interpretation. Consider “Happy Accidents” by Bob Ross. Experience is the origin of creation.
No claim can replace the artist’s journey
Digital tools support the artist’s hand. Artificial intelligence is trying to replace it. In digital drawing, the medium may differ from traditional drawing, but the knowledge required to create an artwork remains the same (and sometimes there is a greater learning curve to using complex software). A skilled digital painter still needs to understand anatomy, perspective, composition, color theory, and visual narrative. They still spend years training their eyes and hands to communicate what they see and feel. Painters innately understand how the experience of struggle and failure leads to artistic growth. These moments are opportunities for growth and improvement to develop artistic identity and skill.
Making art has always taken 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 in addition to understanding art history. When budding artists think they can avoid foundations altogether and create images in the blink of an eye, they may never experience the creative confidence or reward of developing a craft.
Artificial intelligence removes the struggle; Instead of interpreting the world, the stimulus simply organizes the output. In artistic spaces, new learners turning to AI miss out on opportunities for experimentation. We live in a fast world that requires instant results. Attention spans get shorter and shorter. However, some would-be artists would not 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 gatekeeping. It is about collective growth and humanity. This is why we study and honor Masters in the first place. The deeper artists understand their journey and learn through trial and error, the more clearly they will be able to express their ideas. We should not take hundreds of years of history for granted.
On the technical side, things become less varied with AI when you understand how to train these systems. Artists’ works are added to training databases without consent, compensation or acknowledgment. The years you spend developing personal style become the raw material for systems that can imitate it in seconds. Artists can’t complain, because when they accepted the risks of online engagement, AI hadn’t been invented (or at least it wasn’t the hungry monster it has become today). We are still waiting for laws and regulations; When they are finally passed, it will likely be too late.
For working artists, the issues surrounding AI and ownership are not just part of the philosophical debate about technology. It’s about work, authorship, and respect for creative work. (And let’s not exaggerate the environmental costs. We already have enough.)
What AI cannot emulate is what makes art important
Paradoxically, the rapid rise and widespread use of artificial intelligence will, I believe, make human-made art more valuable than ever before. To date, there are many social media trends that encourage artists to share their processes, and even themselves in the work, not just their art. (Let’s face it, we’ve become less efficient at figuring out what AI is and what it isn’t.)
We are currently living in a period where most of us are surrounded by constant streams of images and generated content. Hopefully, as our feeds become saturated with AI images, 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.
Arts and crafts have always been valuable in part because they were so human and tapped into common struggles and emotions, not just because they were nice to look at. Why do you think people still pay to see a half-sculpted Michelangelo statue? Slaves? These unfinished sculptures appear to be trying to escape from the rocks, and are powerful representations of struggle and suffering. AI will never create anything impactful, and as AI-generated content overwhelms the internet, people will search for art that looks unambiguously human. We are moving toward a future where authentic human creativity will matter more, not less.
The future of art will not be about the images we can generate. Art will always be about what humans choose to create for other humans. Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive (the company behind GTA), acknowledged that AI has its uses during a podcast with David Senra, but he was also quick to point out that “datasets are inherently backward-looking, and creativity is inherently forward-looking.” And he’s right. Ultimately, AI does not create art; It creates, as Zelnick puts it, “derivative ownership.”
More on Artificial Intelligence in Art
