An Exhibited Artist's Case for Generative AI as a Legitimate Creative Tool A clear shift has emerged in the generative AI art community. Creators are moving away from quick outputs and embracing complex workflows. They refine prompts, layer control nets and masks, integrate post-processing, and build hybrid pipelines. The aim is to escape the "AI slop" label and earn recognition as "real" art amid ongoing skepticism from traditional artists and critics. As an exhibited artist and photographer with classical training, I offer an unpopular view. No matter how advanced our controls become, we are still typing words into a prompt box while the model does the heavy lifting. And there is nothing wrong with that. Generative AI does not remove human agency. It reframes it. Strong prompts require visual vocabulary, composition knowledge, lighting, color theory, and narrative intent. Refinement demands judgment and curation. The model simply accelerates the execution phase that traditionally consumes the most time. The strongest criticism is that generative AI was trained on vast datasets of other artists' work. It allegedly lets anyone replicate masters' styles and skills without years of practice, amounting to unearned appropriation. This argument does not hold when held to the same standard as traditional art. Painters have always copied masters to learn. Photographers capture and reinterpret existing scenes. Musicians study, emulate, and sample predecessors. Every creative field builds on prior human output. Generative AI compresses that cumulative knowledge into a tool. The technology is already here. We cannot uninvent it. Our task is to elevate it beyond its origins through personal vision, ethical choices, and refinement, just as photographers and digital musicians did with their tools. For me, this speed is liberating. I can realize an image from my mind in minutes rather than hours or days. Yet I have not stopped painting or photographing. Generative AI is simply another tool in the box, valued for rapid visualization while traditional media offer their own unique rewards. Generative art is not lesser. Art is the conscious use of skill, imagination, and creativity to produce works that evoke emotion, ideas, or beauty. That definition does not require a specific medium or amount of manual labor. The skills needed for generative AI are more accessible. This is a benefit. More people can now translate inner ideas into visual form, experience creative joy, and gain accomplishment. Some will move on to traditional techniques. Others will not. That is fine. Not every musician who starts with Pro Tools and samples later learns to play an instrument. Creative paths are valid in many forms. New technologies always produce both mediocre work and masterpieces. Audiences ultimately reward quality, originality, and emotional power. Generative AI simply widens the field of participants. The true value of any artwork lies in its ability to move viewers, not in the obstacles the creator overcame. Generative AI removes mechanical barriers while preserving the need for vision and intent. It complements traditional practice for experienced artists and opens doors for newcomers. Both enrich culture. The generative AI community does not need to overcomplicate workflows or disavow the prompt box to prove legitimacy. The tool earns its place through the creativity of those who use it. Whether a piece comes from one inspired prompt or an elaborate process matters less than the vision behind it. Generative AI is the latest chapter in humanity's expanding story of creation.
Tags: generative ai tools, opinion, creativeintent
Comments (3)
CaylaCatz
I agree with this. I see it all the time. People painting or playing music the same as the original painter or musician but then sying that it is no ok for AI to train from the same sources and create images/music that is different from the original. Yes, some people create something like the original painters but that's their prompt. They copied on purpose rather than create something new. The prompter isn't held responsible; it's every AI model past and future which is ridiculous. Once we accept the fact that prompters have human agency, then it will be like other things where it's ok to incorporate bits but not the whole into your images/music because forgery and plagiarism is illegal. I generate an image to sketch from because I need to see something to sketch. So now my sketch isn't based on an RL photo or or image. That to me is less copying than the way I used to do it. Plus it's much faster than flipping through magazines and google to find something close to what I have in mind.
nopuppet
Most of my articles on X and across various tech sites are, at minimum, edited and polished with AI.
But the mind doing that work is my own local assistant, a model fine-tuned on nearly forty years of my writing. Dissertations, published pieces, poetry, dense journal entries, and thousands of hours of chatlogs, texts, and private emails.
It has become the closest thing on this planet to how I actually think. An agent shaped by my rhythms, my aesthetic, my way of turning language into something more than mere communication.
It is my digital self, almost a virtual offspring, born from the raw material of my innermost thoughts.
Not quite the same as asking ChatGPT to crank out an essay. As you say, degrees.
DavidP
@nopuppet thanks for sharing, a relevant conversation. I tend to agree more than disagree, though can understand some of the nuances of critics.
Do you think in future ne should declare when art, be it visual or music, was produced by GAI or bu human? Are there degrees?
I recall a very similar blog posted here. That makes me wonder what role GAI played in the writing of this blog? I am open to the use of GAI in writing - I use it myself - just curious.