By: Leif Bromme
Technology has never been predictable. A 1963 congressional report shows that
firsthand. After discussions about the rise of automation and technological growth, this
prediction was put forth:
“The theory is that, in the long run, mechanization will mean largely a shift from
blue-collar to white-collar jobs.”
To an extent, this prediction occurred. Factories grew more efficient as machines
grew more complex. The science-fiction vision of the future, however, complete with
robotic butlers and high-tech infrastructure, has yet to come to fruition. The world we are
warming to today feels like the opposite of the 1963 prediction.
The most recent technological boom, Artificial Intelligence (AI), has quickly seeped into
fields once thought of as unassailably human. With one command, Open AI programs such
as ChatGPT can generate an image that would’ve taken an artist or photographer hours to
create. Image generators can fine-tune everything from style and medium to color and
proportion.
This is often perceived as a new revolution of creativity. Now, anyone can access
and create art with ease. Should this practice be viewed as an expansion of art, or a
cheapening of it?
Before answering that question, it is important to define what art is. While the
definition of visual art is far from concrete, Thoughtco breaks it down into three categories:
mimesis, formalism and expression.
Mimesis, or representative art, is intended to portray a subject as realistically as
possible. Formalism, championed by 18th century art theorist Immanuel Kent, saw value in
art solely based on aesthetics like harmony, symmetry and form rather than intrinsic
meaning. Expression is another perspective, viewing art as a vehicle for the unique
perspective of its creator.
An argument can certainly be made that AI can create art of the first two kinds.
Image generation has reached incredible heights. Many results are nearly indistinguishable
from reality. If formalism is the priority, then AI is also quite capable. Image generators can
create satisfying and beautiful pieces, aligned with aesthetic standards.
There are applications for this type of content. AI is commonly used to develop
quick graphics for PowerPoints, concept art for books and visual aids for personal projects.
These uses are individual, practical and often make life more efficient.
When AI replaces human expression, however, the implications become
complicated and the line between types of art grows blurry. In the absence of an AI-generated image for a PowerPoint, a student would likely use a stock image – something
taken by a photographer or created by a graphic designer with artistic intention. If a parent
chose to make their child a storybook with AI, they may create a more technically excellent
product. In the long run, however, it would lack the spark of individualism that turns objects
into beloved treasures. Restaurant menus, textbook diagrams, birthday cards – using AI for
these tasks may not raise many ethical questions, but it does replace human art, which
has the potential to truly elevate the mundane.
Professor Brice Bowry of the History and Political Studies department offered a contrasting
perspective.
“I resist the idea that AI-assisted outputs cannot be creative or expressive,” said Bowry. “I
believe that if you leverage your existing expertise and act with intentionality, the output
can be incredibly expressive.”
According to Bowry, he utilized AI tools to generate the monogram used as his profile
picture on several digital platforms – a process that involved an extensive drafting phase
and brainstorming phase.
“The process took several hours,” said Bowry. “[It] involved researching reference imagery
for ideas, writing prompts, learning new terminology to increase prompt specificity, and
iterating between different AI tools. Most importantly, it required reflecting on what imagery
would best represent my self-concept.”
Bowry also explained how he used AI to generate slides for class using custom workflows
and agent skills.
“In some cases,” he said, “I actually spend more time making them than I did before
AI, but the results are ten times better than anything I could have achieved alone,
regardless of how much time I invested.”
Bowry raises an interesting point; responsible use of AI on an individual level, even in
explicitly “expressive” fields, can enhance your existing capabilities rather than replace
them. In commercial spaces, however, AI has grown at a rate that does not indicate
thoughtful preparation behind each work of art. According to The Week, over half the books
published in 2025 and sold on Amazon contained AI-generated text. While many of these
books were not mainstream, some were more prominent. Mia Ballard’s Shy Girl and Jerry
Falade’s Call Me, I’ll Hide the Body both faced highly publicized controversies around
suspected AI usage.
Artificial art has also permeated the music world. After years of AI artists flooding
playlists, Spotify announced this year that they had removed over 75 million artificial
tracks. Many of these books and songs masquerade as human-made, while others are
open about their source. These waves of AI-generated content do not exist in a vacuum.
They both pull from existing, uncredited human art and jeopardize the careers of artists
whom they compete with.
Professor Bowry’s experience with AI assistance shows us that artistic vision can
coexist with new technologies. If we aren’t careful, however, we may turn our own creativity
against ourselves. In the interest of efficiency, it is all too easy to generate content that
imitates human sources irresponsibly. Using AI to create a quick illustration for a
PowerPoint is no sin against art. Still, our accelerating usage of this tool raises serious
questions about what art is, where it should be implemented and how serious we are about
protecting its integrity.
