The AI artist epidemic: Does art still need emotion? 

The availability of artificially generated ‘art’ continues to grow. The tech industry insists that AI is here to stay. Should creators and audiences of art now surrender to the existence of the ‘AI artist’?  

While experimentation with generative technology has been ongoing since the 1950s, the ‘AI Art’ we know today is far more accessible due to the recent introduction of text-to-image models which allow users to easily provide a prompt for the A.I to interpret and visualise. With AI images now so easily made, it becomes important to consider how we define art, and whether we can give the same name to images produced by an algorithm.  

Artistic minds throughout history have defined art as intrinsically linked to the human experience. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato developed the concept of ‘mimesis’ and declared that art is an imitation of life. Frida Kahlo famously said: “I never paint dreams. I paint my own reality.” And Keith Haring suggested: “The reality of art begins in the eyes of the beholder and gains power through imagination, invention, and confrontation.” 

Generative AI models work from huge sets of existing data, merging art which already exists to form a ‘new’ product. It could therefore be argued that ‘AI art’ is just as much an ‘imitation of life’ as the works Plato interacted with. However, if art is to be a depiction of one’s own reality as Kahlo suggests, the ‘artistry’ of AI cannot be authentic. From extra fingers to floating heads, AI images have been constantly critiqued for their almost-comical inability to achieve realism. Additionally, Haring’s concept of art being necessarily informed by personal experience is not applicable to AI, which is incapable of human consciousness, so can only imitate the human experience. 

Here, the AI is using the reality of another artist rather than creating art based on its own, a blatant act of plagiarism

Most importantly, the success of generative AI relies on its ability to plagiarise. Earlier this year, a viral A.I trend enraptured TikTok. Users asked generative AI models to produce images in the style of ‘Studio Ghibli’, the popular Japanese animation studio. Here, the AI is using the reality of another artist rather than creating art based on its own, a blatant act of plagiarism. 

In response to the trend, comments made in 2016 by Hayao Miyazaki – one of Studio Ghibli’s founders – resurfaced online. The director expressed his disgust at AI-generated images he was shown and declared them “an insult to life itself”.  

Countless others, confronted by AI’s ability to mimic their work without consent, join Miyazaki in opposition to A.I. From actor Hugh Bonneville to author Kazuo Ishiguro, over 50,000 artists from across disciplines signed a statement in late 2024 against the “unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI”.  

The stance of the arts community is clear. AI does not belong. So why is it still so prevalent?  

Internet users continue to use AI models to create dull, emotionless and often nonsensical content due to an ongoing shift in public attitude towards artistic expression

Because AI art is far more palatable for the TikTok-addled mind. Internet users continue to use AI models to create dull, emotionless and often nonsensical content due to an ongoing shift in public attitude towards artistic expression. Despite the availability of engaging art made by human artists, AI content demands less attention and targets the speedy release of dopamine.  

In a conversation with ChatGPT, it declares: “When I make art, it’s more like weaving patterns of meaning I’ve learned from countless examples, rather than expressing an inner world.”  

The AI itself confesses a crucial lack of emotion, but now that the public are seeking out art to escape from human experience, it seems that emotion is becoming much less required in an artist. In a world where suffering, uncertainty and instability are fed to us constantly on social media, why would we want to engage with art that could potentially make us feel any emotion other than simple satisfaction?  

Perhaps this is the question upon which the artistry of AI depends. If we continue to seek art without the nuance of emotion, then AI content will continue to infiltrate every form of art. However, if we follow the wisdom of artistic legends, we must accept that lived human experience is art’s most vital ingredient. Only by embracing this multifaceted nature of art and rejecting the rise of simplicity can we ensure that AI can never truly be an artist.