Fanciful Friday: AI Art III, The Leap

So, can AI images be art, and why?

The topic is still debated, but there is a good argument for AI art to be accepted, much like photography eventually was.

The case for yes

• Art has always used tools and embraced chance. For example, photography was once dismissed as “not art” because a machine captured the image. Collage, found objects, and generative or algorithmic art also have a long history.
• The person still makes choices about prompts, curation, selection, editing, and intent. These decisions are creative acts in themselves.
• If art is about meaning and communication, then an AI image can express both, just like any other medium.

The case for hesitation/no

• Traditional art involves the artist shaping the work by hand, using skills developed over time. AI images skip that hands-on craft.
• Authorship becomes unclear because the model was trained on millions of other artists’ works without their consent or payment.
• Some people say that the real meaning in art comes from the work of turning intention into form, and that AI shortcuts this process.
• Legal systems are still catching up. For example, the U.S. Copyright Office has denied copyright to images made entirely by AI without significant human involvement.

Most people end up separating the question of whether something can be art (usually yes, depending on your definition) from whether it is good art or was made honestly. Those are tougher questions that involve judging originality, intent, and how the tool was used.

Broadly and personally

In general, AI images fit most definitions of art, such as expression, communication, and aesthetic form. However, they challenge the traditional ways we have valued art, especially in terms of institutions and labor.

• Training data consent is an issue because models learned from artists’ work without getting permission.
• Effort and skill have always signaled value in art, since we often use visible craft as a stand-in for worth. AI changes that standard.
• There are real economic stakes. For working illustrators, this is not just a philosophical question, so “is it art” often gets mixed up with “is it fair.”

When it comes to your own work, the more interesting question is not “is this art” in the abstract, but something else:

• What are you adding to the process? Are you crafting prompts, iterating, curating, combining with other media, or editing?
• Are you using AI to explore ideas you could not create otherwise, or are you using it as a shortcut instead of developing your own artistic eye?
• Does the process matter to you, or is it only the final result that counts?

On using AI images to understand your own creativity and taste

Using AI images as a way to reflect on your own taste, rather than just as a tool for making outputs, is a genuinely good use of the technology. I began exploring AI image generation not only out of curiosity but as a means of unleashing my own creativity as well as a tool to understand my own likes and dislikes. I think that’s a genuinely good use of the tool — using it as a mirror for your own taste rather than just an output machine. As I’ve become more confident and sure of my genuine creative input to the process, I’ve started using many of the images on this blog, but I’ve tried to make them either support my photography or be value-added to the posts. The reality is that there is a valid ease-of-use question, and it’s not a trivial worry to wave away.

About the question of ease: The concern is really about what makes something valuable. If you can make 50 images in an hour by prompting, the usual idea that more hours means more value does not fit. But if you use the tool to learn about your own likes and dislikes, it changes what counts as work. The effort is not in making the image itself, but in the process of trying, rejecting, and refining your eye over many attempts. That is a real skill, even if it is not as obvious in the final image as brushstrokes are in a painting.

If people raise the question about how easy it is and therefore not being work or even art, I think the artist needs to:

• Be open about the process. Show how you used your prompt changes, share the images you did not choose, and explain what you were aiming for. At least initially, this helps people see that there is real curatorial work involved, not just typing a sentence.
• When you share your work, focus on what you learned about your own taste, not just the final image. This way, the images show your process, not just the end result.

Here is a question to consider: Does the ease of using AI bother you because others are questioning it, or because you also feel some doubt about whether it was too easy? These are different issues. One is about how you present your work, and the other is about whether this medium gives you what you want from making art. I’m finding, for me, it’s opening doors and giving me more creative opportunities.

Looking Forward – Art as a commodity or as value added

Artists and those involved in the art world are justifiably worried about being replaced and losing their income stream by AI-generated art and images.

I believe we will soon see, if not already, downward pressure on commissioned and commercial work. Segments such as illustration, concept art, stock photography, and “in the style of” commissions may be hit the hardest. This is because generated images can serve as nearly free substitutes for clients who need an image rather than a specific artist’s vision. I’ve read there are currently AI images being sold for substantial amounts on Etsy.

I expect there will be an increasing divide between the “artist as commodity supplier” and the artist who adds value through their talent, uniqueness and reputation. It will come down to those artists and works that add value having an easier time being considered true art. AI artists may be walking a thin line for some time, trying to find their own niche and style that makes them consistent and unique enough so even the more ardent AI doubter has to accept their work. But then there will always be those who don’t.

Final Thoughts (At least for now)

At its heart, art is a private conversation that becomes public. For the creator, it starts as an attempt to give shape to something felt but not yet spoken, like a memory, an ache, or a moment of clarity. Making it visible is a way of understanding it. For the viewer, art connects in a different but just as personal way: a piece resonates not because it explains itself, but because it recognizes something the viewer already feels inside, quietly and without words. When that happens—when someone else’s creation reflects a truth about your own life—the artwork stops being just an object and becomes a shared experience between two people who may never meet. Even before that connection, or even if it never happens, there’s still something valuable: the quiet satisfaction of trying to say something true, and the fulfillment that comes not from being seen, but from seeing clearly enough to make the attempt.

I think I’ve worn this subject out, or at least my knowledge and understanding of it, so this will be the end…or perhaps it’s the beginning and I’m just facing the wrong direction. 😉