Creativity isn’t the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn’t reflective of one’s creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Now you are just arguing in circles. All it takes is practice. And if they truly don’t want to do the work themselves, working with an artist can be a very rewording experience. Will hiring an artist cost money? Yes, but then you get to directly support the people making your idea come to fruition. Instead of using AI that steals those artists work to train it’s algorithm and does nothing to support artist.
But being able to mechanically draw well doesn’t make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do
High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That’s a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art
Yes, that is also something you can practice and get better at. Every aspect of Art is something you need to practice at to get better at. im not arguing that skill with an art tool is important to being an artist. I’m only arguing that AI isn’t a tool, it’s a shortcut that tarnishes artistic integrity at best. And at worst, it takes the place of an artist and the user becomes nothing more then the commissioner. (Hence why you can’t copy write AI “art”, it legally not something you made.)
I’m sorry, how is a favorable view on AI “art” not the “STEM view” of things? It literally lacks all connection between life and art. It’s just a fucking algorithm. I’m the one saying a connection between life and art is important for it to be art.
The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.
Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.
Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.
Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.
As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.
AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.
The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.
Creativity isn’t the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn’t reflective of one’s creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Now you are just arguing in circles. All it takes is practice. And if they truly don’t want to do the work themselves, working with an artist can be a very rewording experience. Will hiring an artist cost money? Yes, but then you get to directly support the people making your idea come to fruition. Instead of using AI that steals those artists work to train it’s algorithm and does nothing to support artist.
But being able to mechanically draw well doesn’t make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do
High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That’s a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art
Yes, that is also something you can practice and get better at. Every aspect of Art is something you need to practice at to get better at. im not arguing that skill with an art tool is important to being an artist. I’m only arguing that AI isn’t a tool, it’s a shortcut that tarnishes artistic integrity at best. And at worst, it takes the place of an artist and the user becomes nothing more then the commissioner. (Hence why you can’t copy write AI “art”, it legally not something you made.)
I’m sorry, how is a favorable view on AI “art” not the “STEM view” of things? It literally lacks all connection between life and art. It’s just a fucking algorithm. I’m the one saying a connection between life and art is important for it to be art.
The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.
Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.
Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.
Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.
As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.
AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.
The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.