What to think about AI art ?
Share
Introduction
The history of art reveals a fascinating truth: every artistic revolution has initially been met with rejection before eventually being celebrated. Photography, for example, was dismissed as an art form when Louis Daguerre introduced the daguerreotype in 1839. Charles Baudelaire, a staunch defender of traditional painting, saw photography as a threat, viewing it as a mere technical tool serving art, not an artistic practice in itself. While elitist at the time, his critique highlights the tensions that artistic revolutions often provoke. Today, photography is fully recognized as an art form, demonstrating that debates over the legitimacy of new mediums are often temporary. Impressionism, Cubism, Abstract Art, Pop Art, Graffiti, Digital Art, critiques of "Control Z," and even 3D art have all followed similar trajectories, evolving from rejection to celebration. Today, artificial intelligence is walking this same historical path, facing similar questions about its legitimacy as an art form.
The advent of AI in the artistic realm has sparked reactions similar to those photography once faced. Some argue that creating with AI is no more than "typing a few words." This critique echoes the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias identified by psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning, where individuals with limited expertise in a field overestimate their understanding. For instance, some critics claim it’s merely about "pushing a button" to create with AI, without grasping the technicality and thought required in the process of prompt art.
Parallels with Photography
A prompt designer works similarly to a photographer adjusting their settings. Where a photographer tweaks ISO, aperture, and focal length, a prompt designer manipulates keywords and parameters to guide AI toward their artistic vision. Every chosen keyword influences the final result, just as every camera adjustment affects the captured image. This mastery requires time, practice, and a deep understanding of the tool.
Debunking Prompt Art Misconceptions
One of the most persistent misconceptions about prompt art is that it’s merely about "giving orders" to an AI, akin to a client commissioning an artwork or the common punchline on social media: “It’s like ordering a burger at a fast food joint.” While tempting, this comparison reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of prompt art.
Unlike a commissioner who delegates the creative process to an artist, the prompt designer remains fully responsible and involved in the creation. The AI is not an artist to whom one can delegate creativity—it is a sophisticated tool whose mastery demands deep understanding and methodical approach.
Prompt design is, in fact, an art form in its own right, where every word acts as a brushstroke in a composition. Just as a traditional artist carefully selects their colors, textures, and materials, a prompt designer selects and arranges words with intention to achieve the desired visual effect. These words are not mere instructions—they are creative tools that, when combined with expertise, shape the final aesthetic of the piece.
A well-crafted prompt demonstrates the depth of this creative process. The artist describes a scene, specifying not only basic elements like characters or artistic style but also nuances such as concepts, colors, lighting, framing, expressions, era, aesthetic genre, artistic movement, and even the intended render. Every additional parameter—be it image quality, level of creativity, or artistic style—is a deliberate creative choice guiding the AI toward the artist’s vision.
The complexity of this art becomes evident when examining the structure of an elaborate prompt. Far from the simple “generate me a cat,” a professional prompt may include numerous parameters:
- Photographic characteristics (framing, lighting, etc.)
- Detailed descriptive elements (imagined scene, style, era, ambiance, etc.)
- Technical parameters (aspect ratio, level of stylization, version, quality)
- Stylistic and character references (aesthetic genre, artistic movement, etc.)
- Exclusion instructions or weighting of images or keywords to refine results
Here’s an example of what a prompt might include:
Keywords: [Photography] [imagined scene description] [framing] [colors] [clothing] [expression] [style] [shapes] [era] [lighting] [rendering] [and more] --p [personalized] --ar [aspect ratio] --style [Raw, cute, scenic, expressive] --sref [style reference] --cref [character reference] --weird [weird] --no [to exclude an element] --seed [generation root] --q [quality] --version [v1-v61, Niji 4, 5, 6] --iw [Image weight] --s [stylize] --c [chaos] and multi-prompting with or without positive or negative weights [::].
Additional layers may involve specific workflows across model versions, remix features, or inpainting to refine the image and materialize ideas.
This detailed approach directly challenges the notion that AI-generated art is merely the product of an automated process with little human involvement. In reality, the user actively shapes every aspect of the creation by meticulously specifying content, style, quality, and many other image elements. Like any artistic tool, AI can be used at varying levels of sophistication. Typing "cat" to get a basic image is comparable to drawing a stick figure—it’s a rudimentary use that doesn’t reflect the tool’s true potential.
This complexity underscores another important truth:
Prompt art is not simply a series of instructions given to a machine, but a form of artistic expression in its own right, requiring expertise, creativity, and aesthetic sensitivity. It is the difference between using a tool and mastering the art of it.
The uniqueness of an AI-generated work lies in the specific journey the artist takes to achieve it. Only the artist knows the precise details of the process that led to the final result—the prompts used, the adjustments made, the artistic choices at every step. This unique knowledge of the process, combined with the initial creative intent, establishes the originality of the work.
Prompt art, therefore, goes far beyond simply formulating instructions for a machine. It is a sophisticated artistic expression where human creative intent is evident at every stage of the process, from the initial concept to the finest technical adjustments. This complex mastery sets apart the true prompt artist from the casual user, just as mastery of the brush distinguishes the painter from the novice.
Advantages and Limitations of Tools
The practice of art with AI reveals surprising discoveries that often exceed initial expectations. By exploring this medium, artists find that they can create works that truly reflect their personality and develop unique artistic directions aligned with their creative aspirations. This goes far beyond mere image generation—it is a genuine exploration of new creative possibilities that pushes the boundaries of imagination.
Like any artistic tool, AI comes with its own strengths and limitations that shape the creative experience. Its primary advantage is speed—it enables artists to produce in minutes what would take weeks with digital painting or even longer with traditional techniques, sometimes achieving results impossible to replicate manually. This speed allows unprecedented freedom for experimentation, letting artists quickly test different approaches, styles, and concepts.
AI excels particularly in certain areas: generating complex atmospheres, creating intricate textures, and blending artistic styles in unique ways. It also allows for exploring infinite variations of the same idea, offering artists the opportunity to discover creative directions they might never have considered otherwise.
However, this efficiency comes with compromises. The most notable is the need to accept a certain degree of unpredictability in the final result. For example, the precise features of a character may differ slightly from the artist’s initial vision. This "negotiation" with the tool is an integral part of the creative process—sometimes these "happy accidents" lead to unexpected and enriching artistic discoveries.
Artists must also contend with AI's technical quirks: achieving consistency in specific details, managing proportions, or precisely replicating specific elements may require adjustments or post-generation retouching. These technical challenges necessitate an adaptation of artistic practice and the development of new skills.
This reality is not unique to AI—every artistic medium comes with its constraints and opportunities. A painter must master the behavior of pigments and drying times of mediums. A digital artist navigates software limitations and layer management. A photographer learns to understand light and their camera’s capabilities. Similarly, AI demands a thorough understanding of its capabilities and limitations to be used effectively.
Mastering AI as an artistic tool, therefore, requires a delicate balance between leveraging its strengths and accepting its limitations. The most successful artists are often those who embrace these constraints as an integral part of their creative process, transforming them into opportunities for innovation and unique expression.
Data Usage and Ethical Considerations
Debates around generative AI and its use of data merit clarification. These systems are not mere copying tools but sophisticated neural networks inspired by the human brain. Like our brains, these networks are structured in layers that process information progressively, adjusting their connections to better understand the data they analyze.
If we accuse AI of "stealing" by "drawing inspiration" from existing works, should we not levy the same accusation against artists who learn by studying the works of other creators? The reality is that all artists build their style from their influences and experiences. AI follows a similar process, refining its ability to create new images based on what it has "seen." What it reproduces is not the works themselves but the skills acquired through analyzing millions of examples.
It’s crucial to distinguish this learning process from direct plagiarism or the unethical use of works. Just as a human artist uses mood boards or draws from influences to develop a piece, AI relies on the data it analyzes to generate new creations. It does not directly copy these images but reinterprets forms. This parallel, however, raises debates about the legality of training AIs, particularly when using copyrighted works without consent. But can we truly call this theft? I don’t believe so, because if anything, the AI "steals" skills. Yet skills are acquired, and style cannot be copyrighted. Thus, there is no theft of works, only a usage comparable to a mood board. As with any tool, it is the human user's application that determines whether the process is ethical or not. AI, as a medium, merely amplifies the creative capacities of its user.
The fundamental difference is that AI remains a tool devoid of intention, emotion, or artistic sensitivity—qualities that are uniquely human and remain the domain of the artist using the tool.
While generative AIs have been criticized for allegedly reproducing specific works, it’s important to note that this ability is neither systematic nor representative of their potential. Just as a human artist can choose to copy or be inspired, AI can be used ethically to generate original creations. The responsibility for this usage lies with the user, who decides how to exploit the tool.
As Picasso famously said, "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Art history shows that every creative process relies on inspiration, whether it involves an artist or AI. What should be sanctioned is not inspiration but the direct plagiarism or misuse of an existing work.
The creative mind remains human, but the tools for acquiring and using data evolve. This way of learning resembles the iconic scene in The Matrix, where Neo instantly downloads kung fu mastery into his mind. When he declares, "I know kung fu," his mind has acquired the skill without his body undergoing years of training. Similarly, AI functions as an extension of our creative brain, where millions of artistic examples are "downloaded." We can access this knowledge through its neural connections to create new styles and concepts, just as Neo can instantly use his newly acquired martial arts skills. While technology provides the necessary tools, it is still Neo who decides how to use these skills in his movements and strategies. Likewise, AI is merely a creative extension—its potential rests entirely on the intention and expertise of the human artist using it.
From a legal perspective, the situation requires nuanced analysis. While reproducing a work for distribution is considered infringement, the case of generative AI is fundamentally different. These systems do not directly reproduce images—they create new works based on their understanding of artistic forms, styles, and concepts acquired during training.
This approach recognizes a crucial distinction between copying a work and analyzing data to extract patterns and knowledge. This is precisely what generative AIs do: they analyze millions of images to understand the fundamentals of artistic composition, styles, and visual techniques rather than simply reproducing existing works.
Furthermore, the data used by AIs is not stored in its original form. AI transforms this information into mathematical abstractions, "understanding" concepts rather than memorizing specific images. This approach is akin to how a human artist internalizes techniques and styles they observe without directly copying the works that inspired them.
AI Art and Copyright
The use of AI in art raises significant questions about copyright and intellectual property. Under French law, copyright is established as soon as a work of the mind is created. The conceptualization of a personalized prompt could therefore legitimately fall under this category, as human intention plays a crucial role in qualifying a creation as a work of art.
But who owns the copyright to works created with AI? Several stakeholders could lay claim to these rights:
- The artists whose works were used to train the AI? No, because just as human artists are influenced by others in their development, AI merely draws from a vast database. As long as the output is not direct plagiarism, it belongs to the creator.
- The company that developed the AI? Again, no. The company created the tool, not the artwork—much like a brush manufacturer cannot claim rights over paintings created with its products.
- The AI itself? This is not an option, as AI, being a tool, lacks creative intent. Only a human, at least for now, can possess the true intention to create and take artistic initiative.
The answer lies in understanding AI as a tool rather than a creator. If we accept that musical composition, which relies on artistic intent and guidance given to performers, is protected by copyright, why should it be different for a prompt artist guiding AI? In a musical composition, the creator does not necessarily play every instrument but structures the piece, chooses harmonies, and directs the interpretation to shape the work. Similarly, the prompt designer crafts an artistic vision using AI as an executing tool. It is this intent and artistic choice that should be protected, just as in musical composition. Copyright should belong to the individual who takes creative initiative and guides the process, making the artistic decisions and infusing meaning into the final work—the human artist using AI. It is the artist who, through their choices and vision, transforms a technological tool into a medium of artistic expression.
The Debate in Legal Contexts
Some decisions, such as the U.S. ruling denying copyright for works purely generated by AI, seem more motivated by appeasing traditional artists and employment concerns than by a genuine analysis of AI's impact. Such positions overlook the similarities between AI and human creative processes and risk penalizing new creatives who embrace this technology to evolve their artistic practices. They also risk stifling innovation that, when used ethically, enriches the artistic landscape.
Traditional Artists and AI Artists Face the Same Challenges
Artists working with AI face the same challenges as their traditional counterparts. Visibility in a saturated market, building an engaged community, monetizing their art, and doubts about their legitimacy—these challenges are universal in the art world. The abundance of freely available artwork online further complicates making a living from art, regardless of the technique used.
Debates pitting traditional artists against AI artists obscure a fundamental truth: both face the same daily struggles in their creative journey. This reality highlights the lack of true competition between these practices, as it ultimately boils down to individuals confronting the same obstacles.
Visibility might be the most universal challenge. In an oversaturated artistic landscape, all creators struggle to get noticed and build a dedicated community. The success of an artwork remains unpredictable—whether created with a brush or AI, a personally satisfying piece might not find its audience, forcing artists to cope with disappointment while persevering.
Balancing personal vision and audience expectations is another shared struggle. All artists juggle the desire for authentic expression with the need to reach an audience, striving to adapt their style without compromising their artistic identity. Monetizing their passion poses identical challenges: how to turn art into a viable source of income while managing the business aspects of their career?
Doubts about artistic legitimacy, perhaps more acute for AI artists today, are not exclusive to them. Every creator experiences periods of questioning the value of their work and their legitimacy as an artist. The ever-evolving art world demands continuous learning—from mastering new traditional techniques to adapting to the latest digital tools.
Time management remains a universal challenge, as artists must balance creation, promotion, and personal life. Navigating critical reception requires the same resilience—learning to handle negative feedback while leveraging constructive criticism to improve. The need to diversify skills also unites all artists, who are compelled to become not only better at their craft but also adept at marketing, communication, and managing their online presence.
Finally, in an increasingly competitive art market, the quest for originality and innovation transcends mediums. Every artist seeks to develop a unique voice and find innovative ways to present their work, regardless of the tools they use.
This universality of challenges underscores an important truth: the divide between traditional art and AI art is largely artificial. At the core of each practice is a human artist, facing the same obstacles, doubts, and hopes of making a living from their creative passion.
This parallel teaches us a valuable lesson: while some artistic practices may evolve with new technologies, others will find ways to integrate these tools. Rather than perceiving AI as a threat, we should view it as a source of mutual inspiration and growth. The current tendency to focus excessively on fears of job loss and criticism of artists who enrich their creative process with AI obscures this technology's true potential. As the saying goes, "we must recognize that no matter how sophisticated tools may become, they are only as valuable as the hands that wield them." In the hands of those dedicated to a purpose and capable of infusing their creations with identity, AI represents a significant step forward in the evolution of art.
Value and Effort
It is crucial to understand that not all artistic practices require the same type of investment. Abstract art may demand less technical skill than realistic drawing, photography does not necessitate the ability to manually reproduce subjects, and digital art relies on software mastery that streamlines processes. These differences do not diminish the legitimacy of these forms of expression.
Take photography as an example: some photographers capture thousands of shots to achieve the perfect image, while others meticulously prepare a single shot for hours. Both approaches are equally valid and can produce works of comparable artistic value. Similarly, a street artist may create a deeply impactful piece with just a few spray strokes, while a hyperrealist painter spends months on a canvas—the artistic value is not measured by time invested.
Art history offers numerous examples challenging the link between technical effort and artistic value. Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, a simple urinal presented as art, revolutionized the concept of art itself. Andy Warhol, with his mass-produced silkscreens, proved that mechanical reproduction could yield works of immense value. Salvador Dalí, by making his personality an integral part of his art, demonstrated that artistic value lies more in the artist's intention and identity than in technical virtuosity.
Conceptual art takes this idea further. Piero Manzoni's Artist's Shit, consisting of 90 cans allegedly filled with the artist's excrement, sold for astronomical prices. Maurizio Cattelan's Comedian, a banana taped to a wall, fetched $120,000. These works show that artistic value can reside entirely in concept and intent, independent of technical prowess.
In contemporary digital art, seemingly simple NFTs like CryptoPunks or a pixel sold for millions illustrate this dissociation between technical complexity and value. These creations derive their worth from cultural significance, pioneering role in a new medium, and their impact on the art world—not from technical sophistication.
This reality applies especially to AI-generated art. Criticizing this form of art for its "lack of technical effort" denies decades of artistic evolution that have established that the value of a work lies in its concept, impact, and ability to provoke reflection or emotion. Art is not a competition of technical difficulty—it is a vehicle for expression, innovation, and cultural transformation.
The True Value of Art
The true value of a work of art lies in its ability to:
- Communicate a unique vision
- Elicit an emotional or intellectual response
- Capture the spirit of its time
- Contribute to artistic and cultural dialogue
- Push the boundaries of what art can be
History teaches us that every new form of artistic expression has initially been criticized for its "ease" or "lack of technique" before being recognized for its unique contribution to the evolution of art. AI-generated art is following this same path, reminding us that artistic value transcends the technical means of its creation.
Conclusion
The true innovation of AI in art does not lie in its ability to replace the artist but in its potential to enrich the creative palette and democratize artistic creation. Just as photography freed painting from the need for faithful reproduction, enabling new artistic movements to emerge, AI opens new creative horizons while preserving the essence of art: the expression of a unique and personal vision.
This democratization of art is perhaps the most significant revolution. AI allows individuals who have not had the opportunity to develop traditional technical skills to bring their creative visions to life. People who have always dreamed of creating but were limited by technical, temporal, or physical barriers can now express their creativity. It’s like handing brushes to everyone with stories to tell who previously lacked access to a canvas.
The future of art is not a binary choice between traditional techniques and AI. It is moving toward a symbiosis where each tool finds its place in the artist's palette, making artistic expression more accessible than ever. The evolution of artistic practices shows that while some may fade or transform, others integrate new technologies, creating a harmonious balance between tradition and innovation.
This increased accessibility does not diminish the value of art—on the contrary, it enriches the artistic landscape by allowing new voices to be heard and new perspectives to emerge. It fosters a more diverse and inclusive artistic dialogue.
Ultimately, art in the age of AI reminds us of a fundamental truth: it is not the tool that makes the artist, but their ability to communicate a vision, evoke emotion, and inspire thought. AI, like any tool before it, is merely a means of expression in the grand narrative of art. What truly matters is the human intention behind the work, the artistic vision that brings it to life, and its ability to connect with its audience, regardless of the technique used to create it. And now, more than ever, this ability to create is within everyone's reach.
Author's Note
This article is the result of over a year and a half of reflection and research. Hundreds of hours listening to the grievances of traditional artists, nuanced impressions from art directors in video games, enthusiastic artists, long online debates, and enriching exchanges have allowed me to deeply explore the controversy surrounding AI and art. My goal was to make these reflections accessible and digestible for everyone.
I must admit that this article may never fully satisfy me—as with any creation, it could always be refined and improved. However, it was time to share these perspectives, contribute to the debate, and offer, through my lens, answers to the questions raised by this technological and artistic revolution.
Some of my arguments may spark debate, and that’s normal—I do not claim to hold absolute truth. Art, in all its forms, remains deeply subjective and personal. What seems essential to me is fostering mutual respect among different artistic practices. As long as a form of expression contributes to enriching our shared creative heritage, why create divisions?
I find it regrettable to see divisions growing among artists under the guise of "good" or "bad" practices, driven by emotional reactions and concerns that, while legitimate, often seem unfounded. Art, in all its diversity, deserves better than these divides.
I hope my reflections resonate with you and help nuance your perception of AI-assisted creation.
Make art, not war!