"A.I" in Art? Yes or no?

Eric ·

I asked two experts their opinions on the use of LLM's in content creation.

In a couple of interviews that I conducted as part of the premiere episode of the new podcast I hope to launch this fall, I asked two experts their opinions on the use of LLM's in content creation. For this particular entry, I will reserve my personal thoughts and feelings on the subject except to voice my usual objection to the use of the term "A.I." when referring to the learning models currently available to the public. This is going to be a very loud and very messy debate for, probably, several years to come and, realistically, I don't see any reasonable resolution on the horizon in our lifetime. Neverthe less here are the opinions of two experts in the field who both wished to remain anonymous at this time. Do you agree or disagree? Please let us know in the comments or send us a message with your thoughts. Thank you!

#1: (University Researcher in Vancouver BC,)

Is it cheating? Depends entirely on what's being claimed. If someone types a prompt and calls themselves the sole creative genius behind the output, that's a stretch — the model did most of the aesthetic labor. But most serious artists using AI tools aren't doing that. They're iterating, editing, combining AI output with their own skill, using it the way people have used samplers, Photoshop, or synthesizers — tools that also got called "not real music/art" when they were new. The "cheating" framing usually assumes there's one legitimate path to making art (manual skill, full control), and that's a fairly recent and narrow definition historically.

Is it real art? I'd say the output can be art, but "AI-generated" doesn't automatically make something art any more than "made with a camera" does. What makes something art is closer to: does it carry intention, perspective, selection, meaning someone wanted to communicate? A person curating, prompting, editing, and arranging AI output toward an expressive end is doing real creative work, even if the brushstrokes aren't literally theirs. Where it gets less interesting is mass, undifferentiated content — but that critique applies to plenty of non-AI content too.

Will it end the industry? It's already reshaping it, not ending it. Stock illustration, background music, generic copywriting — those markets are under real pressure. But the stuff people actually pay attention to and remember tends to be tied to a distinct voice, a story behind the work, or a human they're following — and that's harder to automate away. I'd expect a split: a flood of cheap AI-assisted content at the bottom, and increasing premium on recognizable human perspective at the top, with a big contested middle where the debate you're describing keeps playing out.

AI is a powerful instrument, not an author, meaning its use isn't inherently cheating, but it fundamentally relocates where human craft, taste, and intent reside.

2: (Music Executive in Vancouver, BC)

Is It Cheating? It depends entirely on transparency and attribution. Claiming a raw text prompt or algorithmic render as hundreds of hours of manual brushwork or analog tracking is deceptive.

However, integrating algorithmic tools into a creative pipeline—for rapid prototyping, sound design, mood boards, or interactive media—is an evolution of tooling. When synthesizers and samplers appeared, traditionalists called them the death of musicianship; when photography emerged, painters declared visual art dead. The tool lowers the barrier to execution, but execution alone has never been what makes art resonate.

Is It "Real Art"? On its own, an LLM or diffusion model produces mathematical output based on statistical patterns. A model has no heartbeat, grief, triumph, or desire to communicate.

Art exists in human intention, curation, and context. When a human artist wrestles with a tool, discards ninety bad outputs, refines the prompt, splices elements together, and imbues the final piece with personal meaning, the art comes from those human decisions. The machine generates the raw material, but the human provides the soul.

Will It End the Industry? It will drastically restructure the commercial industry, but it cannot end human artistry.

Commercial disruption: Routine, deadline-driven work—like stock music, background textures, placeholder concept art, and commercial illustration—is facing heavy compression as companies seek faster, cheaper production.

The human premium: As high-polish synthetic content becomes cheap and infinite, the value shifts toward authentic human perspective, tangible physical craft, live performance, and provenance.

Audiences ultimately seek connection with another human being's lived experience. Technology can flood the world with content, but it cannot manufacture genuine human empathy.