AI Killed the Creative Arts

You've undoubtedly heard that AI is ringing the death knell for the creative arts. In fact, its impending demise is one of the few conversations I have regularly with people across all walks of life. The most interesting opinions tend to come from those who are practicing their art; writers, photographers, illustrators, animators, filmmakers, painters, actors (screen and voice), personalities, designers, developers, singers, musicians, etc.

As with most things, you can broadly say there are two kinds of people - those who are deeply opposed to it, and those who are excited and embrace it. If history has anything to teach us, it is this: however staunchly one might oppose change, if there is economic incentive for said change to continue, it will.

What I find most interesting about those who oppose the latest change, in this case the rise of AI in the creative arts, is that they seem to conflate artistic creation and consumption with the economic concepts of supply and demand.

The argument primarily consists of two parts - one is that it is a tragedy that professional artists may not be able to make a living through the practice of their art. I agree with the spirit of that notion, insomuch that I believe everyone should be able to make a living. We'll come back to that.

The other, more deeply rooted belief, is that artificially generated art is "empty," "soulless," and "vapid." Because a person didn't create the art, they believe it inherently lacks value.

Creating v Consuming

An intrinsic part of this belief is that the act of creating and the act of consuming are the beginning and ending of the same process - an arc that connects the artist and the aesthete. I disagree.

Creating art is a deeply personal act.

Consuming art is a deeply personal act.

However, they are not, in most cases, related.

The creative act is one of expression, setting an intention, consciously or not, and executing your process in pursuit or exploration of an outcome.

The act of consuming is one of experience, opening (sometimes closing) your mind and taking in a product through your interpretation of an input.

The artist's intentions and emotions, while they influence the art itself, may have little to no bearing on the aesthete's interpretation and experience of the art itself.*

Take, for example, this painting. I have shared nothing about the artist who created it, the story behind its creation, their emotions, intentions, or purpose. Yet, even without any of that information, your brain has already triggered some response simply by virtue of your seeing it.

Your impression of the art above, whatever emotion (or lack thereof) it may stir, is completely independent of whatever emotion (or lack) was felt during its creation.

What AI Changes

As AI continues to make art easier to create, it does not diminish the personal value of creating art, it diminishes the commercial value of creating art. Largely because the buyers of the art are not paying for the artists' experience of creating the art, they are paying for their own experience of consuming the art.

While the thing being bought and sold, being created and consumed, is the same tangible "good", the experience being purchased is entirely independent.

Give Them Spoons

If we simply wanted more artists, then why have we adopted any of the tools that make them more efficient at all? Surely if our goal was simply to create more artists, we'd be better off doing as Milton Friedman supposedly said, and giving them spoons.

Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

What we want, ultimately, is more art.

We Get Both

As technology has progressed, we have indeed gotten more art, not less. Take video, for example. In 1984, there were about 1,200 TV stations. In 2024, there are over 7,000 TV stations, plus a slew of streaming services. No longer is creating and delivering video to the world limited to businesses with deep pockets. Anyone with a phone and an internet connection can create and share their art as easily as a studio.

The great thing about technology, like AI, is that as it makes art easier to create, we get more art and more artists. Neither the act of creating, or consuming, art is diminished by these advances, in fact, the opportunities to do both of these things increase.

As a result, we now have the option to see more diverse viewpoints, opinions, and perspectives than ever before. I believe it is one of the primary reasons our culture is growing and adapting so quickly. Groups and individuals who previously never felt seen or heard, who felt incredibly alone and at-risk for discrimination can now find other people like them and realize they aren't alone. As the saying goes, "Representation matters."

Where Do You Draw the Line

AI is the latest iteration of a tale as old as time. Technology evolves, and as it does so, it further democratizes art, making it more accessible to more practitioners. (Bonus: It also gives us more leisure time to consume art.) Despite that fact, there will always be those who bemoan change instead of embracing it. In one of the earliest meetings of my career, an old school creative director complained about computer design, calling it "soulless science," not art. Radio hosts I worked with looked down on upstart podcasts. Disney balked at Pixar's "little" computer graphics.

Those of us who currently practice any art as a profession are, without a doubt, privileged. To do what we do, we've had access to tools, technology, and education that enabled us to live a life most prior generations dreamed of. Who are we to say our way is right, and those who weren't fortunate enough to be born into the same privilege don't deserve the opportunity to share their perspectives and experience now that technology is finally enabling them to have a voice?

Don't pull the ladder up behind you.

###

While writing this, "Video Killed the Radio Star" played. Maybe it was fate. What other song so perfectly illustrates the fact that we've been through this before? I guess this generation's version is "AI Killed the Creative Arts."

*I do understand that for some aesthetes, knowing the story behind the art is a big part of their experience. That is, I believe, the exception that proves the rule.