Appreciation of Literature and Film

Technically, AI can clearly generate art. However, I would not consider it to be real art. The purpose of art is to be an expression of something through the artist’s true intentions. Sure, AI can generate an image based on someone’s input, but that diminishes artistic integrity because all that requires is the artist to express what they want a piece to convey to AI, rather than creating it themselves. Incidentally, AI can be a valuable tool to help artists develop ideas. For instance, an AI source provides ideas for a piece of art given a prompt, without generating the art itself. AI can be a helpful outlet for artists when they lack inspiration elsewhere. 

Kirby Ferguson’s argument in his video essay Everything is a Remix (2023) is essentially that all art derives from elements that have come before it. Art copies art. An idea that supports the following statement: “Led Zeppelin made mistakes. But they were also doing what artists do: copying from others, transforming these ideas, and combining them with other ideas,” (Ferguson 10:59-11:09). The point of fact is that Ferguson explains that based on this logic stems the controversy of AI art.
AI generates its own art by combining elements from various images on the internet. Therefore, AI art is a remix, as Ferguson would call it, just as any other piece of art that has drawhn inspiration from something else. With this in mind, AI cannot generate true art. 

For one, the term “generate” suggests that it involves no composition or effort. AIs are simply gathering elements they can find to suit the provided prompt, with no real thought or understanding of the intentions behind what they are creating. It is not to say that the use of AI to generate art is unethical per se; I just would not consider it to be true art in comparison to art created by humans. Ferguson recalls “AIs have no comprehension of the essence of art…living,” (1:00:17-1:00:23). Furthermore, the art the AI is generating is nothing but a remix. There is no value to its context. There is no understanding of what the piece the AI itself created, or why it made the piece. Art is a human enterprise because composing art requires effort. It requires a means, intention, and, most importantly, it is a reflection of the artist. Even if the piece the artist creates is a ‘remix’ in the sense that they are drawing inspiration from other sources or artists, it is done so with a purpose. 

Objectively, if you were to look at a piece generated by AI, it would be hard to deny that it is art. However, the beauty of art is the fact that it is an expression of the artist themselves and their own life experiences. AI is only borrowing the ideas of these artists without providing any further intellectual value. AI can’t convey a genuine story or emotion because AI cannot experience them. Even if that art can evoke something within the viewer, the pretense of the art itself lacks what real, human artists thrive in, which is life. I do not think AI is a threat to art if it is not used decietfully. 

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

Lexi Santos

I disagree with Ferguson that AI art is human enterprise, because I believe that the work and effort to create is what makes art, art. But I do agree that the ideas created to remix and combine certain things are human. Human creativity is something unique and special that cannot be replaced by AI, but the real art that could be made from those ideas is being stolen by AI. I believe grouping AI with real art is harmful to artists and creativity. AI is taking over trends and the internet while many artists’ hard-work and talent is being ignored. I also feel that art is more than something pleasing to look at, it is the creation of ideas, self expression, and connection between people. AI cannot feel these things when creating images, like Ferguson says in Everything is a Remix, “computers can now create but they are not creative.” Though I can understand how some would agree with Ferguson, that the person who inputs into AI is creating art because of their intentions and original ideas, but I feel that the process of making the art is part of the art. The real art is the painters who put hours into their work perfecting each stroke, and the artists who take years studying anatomy to create realistic portraits and people. Overall, I believe that AI is not true art because it is not actually human made.

AI can generate images using human prompts, but it is not art. AI can make very realistic images and almost any drawing or painting you ask for, but AI looks a bit off to where many can immediately recognize it is AI. It has a robotic and unemotional look because human art has certain imperfections that AI hasn’t been able to replicate yet. As Kirby Ferguson said, “a machine can learn patterns, but it can’t grasp nuance the way people do.” Instead of using AI to create their art, people should use it as a tool to help make art instead of having AI generate it. One way AI can be helpful is with the process of making art. For example, if a person has an idea in their head but is struggling to put it on paper they could input their exact idea into AI and ask how they might get started and the next steps to get to the end result they want. Another way someone could use AI as a tool, is to send the AI an image of their art work and ask it if it feels complete, if it follows art principles, or if there is something that could be added to better convey a message. I think these are great ways to use AI, especially for beginners who need some help to get started. I also believe using AI in this way does not take away from humans creating art but instead is a helping hand to uplift people. 

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

In Everything is a Remix by Kirby Fewrguson, he talks about the rise of AI art and some of the fears people have with it, and some misunderstandings people may have, as well as the debates that surround it. This video shows the levels of what AI art can do, and Ferguson also talks about how creativity mainly comes from humans, and AI uses that creativity to create its own stuff, but it’s hard to decipher if that’s right or wrong. He states in the video, “Human-level artificial intelligence is impossible,” which sets the tone for what he then talks about, how AI can imitate creativity, but the human experience remains something that AI can’t fully produce on its own.

In the video, Ferguson also says that “Art has been getting cheaper and faster.” To me, this means that every major step in technology and photography to digital editing has changed how people make art and how much less effort it can now take to create something just as beautiful. With AI creating art now, it has challenged our expectations of what creating art should be like and look like.

While AI can generate art based on what humans prompt it, it doesn’t create the same way in the human sense. It lacks consciousness, lived experience, and intention. It’s just following a code, essentially. For example AI can produce an art piece in the style of a famous artist like Van gough but it can’t feel the emotions that inspired van gouges work or know the context in what shaped it meaning that it would be hard for AI to create something on its own and its only creativity is from humans because all the information it is given is from us. 

I think that the way AI is creating art is essentially the same way we create art, but the difference is all of its images are from humans, and our images and ideas don’t stem from AI; they come from our own personal experiences, but in a way, they also come from other humans, too, because just like in the video, everything is a remix. 

I think AI can become a really good tool for artists to use in ways of maybe experimenting with different colors for their artwork, that maybe AI came up with, which the artist didn’t know which color would look right. Or maybe drawing straighter lines AI could help with. But digital art is on the come up and digital technically means AI, so if you’re a digital artist, I think you kind of have to accept that AI can do the same thing. If you are a regular artist, like drawing with your own hands and on canvas, I believe it has way more of a future of staying out of AI hands because so far, AI doesn’t have hands yet.

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

Josie Depaol

In reflection of the question, I believe that the quote of art being an entirely human enterprise is valid. While AI is a tool and can enhance art to a certain extent, it lacks the humanity that must be expressed in art. AI cannot physically live; it is inhuman and will not experience life as we will. Even if AI became some kind of general intelligence, it still would not experience life as we have and will continue to do so. As the video quotes in part four, “AI lacks the expressiveness and the storytelling of real artists”. AI cannot be expressive, it lacks that trait and ability, it also cannot tell stories to the extent a human can. AI–though an intelligence–has no specific function of the brain. AI cannot be traumatized, it cannot feel fear, it cannot feel joy, and it cannot feel anger. These are direct human experiences. These experiences cannot be felt by an inhuman thing. Thus, how can an inhuman thing create art that will relay a human experience? The simple answer? It won’t.

It is interesting to note how AI cannot replicate the human hand–the very thing that we used to express ourselves prior to our understanding of speech and language. Hands were the first things we used to communicate, to express, AI has neither of these tools–hands, nor the ability to express. In a way, it is quite poetic.

As a creative individual, I am vehemently against AI. AI has no place in creative arts. Art is the creation of feeling, of soul, of experience. AI cannot do any of these nor does it have either of these. Art is created out of sacrifice, it takes time to create–time that an individual cannot get back once it is used. AI is a short-cut. It is a short-cut that steals the very money out of peoples pockets. It seals livelihoods, it steals joy. There is a reason creatives are so distraught about the rise of AI. It is not out of hate for the individual, it is not out of anger. It is out of the fact that AI steals everything that art represents. It steals humanity, it destroys creativity. AI takes this thing–this creativity that we can all express–and turns it into something soulless. It drives away every human-like aspect and replaces it with something that we cannot relate to.

AI is distinctly inhuman. There is no soul of it. It has no motivation. AI was simply created to make our lives easier, but there has never been a single thing about human life that has been. AI has no experience of our lives. We, as individuals can tell AI that this is the outcome of this, or that some experience is like this; but it will never understand–it cannot understand. It is like trying to make something blind see the world in a different view–AI has not seen the world in the first place, it cannot comprehend a new view without having seen the first one.

Upon thoroughly reflecting on and understanding the first question, I believe that art is a human enterprise to a certain extent. With the use of AI, artists can browse and explore ideas for their art, but this ultimately takes away the originality of the piece. I at least love art because of its originality and the message that the artist wants to portray. Usually, the artist goes through or witnesses something that strikes them as the inspiration to create the piece they have finalized and shown to the public. That means more to me than anything because then the viewer, if they have strong enough emotions toward that piece, can cause change and understanding for the artist. Artists, like many other humans, can utilize AI to generate ideas or concepts to further develop their creations. For example, a student can take pictures of their notes and ask an AI generator to create a study guide or a list of topics, thereby simplifying their notes. Instead of asking the generator to create a study guide, the artist could simply ask the generator for ideas to inspire their art. With that being said, I believe that this is when the artist again loses originality and creativity. The artist wasn’t inspired by something; they simply asked AI for a list of topics to create their art around. For example, I asked ChatGPT to create an art piece discussing a current societal issue, and it generated the image below. (It wouldn’t let me copy the exact picture into the blog, so I tried to find a similar one.)

This can easily be created by an artist and advertised across cities, but it lacks originality. The artist didn’t put any emotion or thought into it, except for instructing ChatGPT on what to create. As Kirdy states, “AI mostly lacks the expressiveness and the storytelling of real artists” (part 4, 2:57). Building on this, when it comes to creating moving pieces that evoke emotions and cause individuals to interpret their own message in the art, ChatGPT and AI are limited in this regard. They can’t create an emotional response in people and can’t cause change to occur because they lack humanity and don’t understand human feelings and responses to a message. Understanding that art has a great depth because it can trigger emotional responses, persuade others to change/accommodate the requirements needed to evoke change, and offer originality and creativity to both the artist and the supplies used in the final product. Those reasons are how AI fails to fall into the category of art, at least to me. AI also fails to consider the traditions and advancements in art through generations. Each culture has its own unique traditions and distinct views on art, as well as its own interpretation of what art looks like. So, having art suddenly become disregarded with the advancement of advanced technology is, in a way, disrespectful to all the artists from previous generations. The events that inspired them to create meaningful messages about, showcasing their creativity and originality, in hopes of creating something with a lasting impact, is also disrespecting them.

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

Lillian Tumminia

In the video Everything is a Remix, Kirby Ferguson explains a wide range of examples showing how artificial intelligence can now create art and sophisticated/realistic outputs. These can range from images to music and narrative structures like writing and movies. Despite these capabilities, he explains that “we are still the source of meaning”. By stating this, Ferguson is saying that although artificial intelligence is widely advanced, it lacks the capabilities that humans provide to art. Humans themselves created artificial intelligence, therefore it knows only what we teach it. Along with this it lacks emotion and lived experiences, art still remains “an essentially human enterprise”. Ferguson alludes to the question throughout his episode, if AI can produce works of art, does that make it an artist? Or just an advanced tool created by humans? 

The image I had AI create of a forest landscape is truly beautiful, but I would not consider this art. I think there is a big difference between AI creating art and actual art made by an artist. Artificial Intelligence is created to come up with perfect answers and anything that we ask it to, this is the opposite of what art is. Although art created by AI is technically still made by a human because we ourselves prompt it, it does not have the same effect. Art is made to be personal, emotional, and imperfect, which are all characteristics that artificial intelligence lacks. The art AI produces may be visually appealing and interesting, but it does not arise from lived experiences. Its creations do not tell a story until a human creator fills it with purpose and meaning. Thus, while AI can generate beautiful and compelling material, humans remain the creators of meaning. 

Even though I do not believe AI can be an artist, I do think it can be used as a tool for artists to grow creatively. Sometimes creators do not know how to approach a certain idea, whether that be artistically or for academia. Artificial Intelligence can prompt ideas on how to approach a project artistically, but the art would then be completed by the artist itself to bring meaning and life to the picture. This is very similar to photographers using filters on photographs, it is used to shape the image but not to create it. Framing AI as a helpful tool rather than an actual creator preserves the core of art. In this way, AI is used to further amplify art created by humans, which can expand the minds of artists and build on creativity. 

Overall, I believe Artificial Intelligence is best used as an extension of human creativity and not as a replacement. Machines are programmed to generate outputs when prompted, but it is the responsibility of artists to provide it with meaning. As long as this idea remains in this direction, art will always remain undeniably a human enterprise. In this view, AI does not threaten the humanity of art. The more we use tools, the more we recognize that art lies not in Artificial Intelligence’s capabilities but in the human choices that guide it.

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

Caroline Ayers

I do not believe that AI can truly create art. I feel that this opinion is correct because art is more than just what the final outcome is. Art is the time, thought, and effort put into whatever is being made. In order for art to be created, it has to be personally thought of. Humans can use their imaginations, memories, and natural inspiration to create something truly unique. When I think of using personal memory to create art, this is not something that AI can conjure. It is unable to use childhood memories, or memories of a favorite birthday. It instead takes what is already out there on the internet and uses that as inspiration. What it creates can be called art, but the process cannot. Another thing that makes human art so special is time. Humans are given limited time, and when we choose to spend that time creating something that we are inspired to, that is art in and of itself. Everyday, the impacts we make and the way we use our time can be considered art. Choosing how to spend time is special and meaningful, humans try not to spend time doing something that they do not enjoy, and they especially will not use their free time to create something they find worthless. AI does not share the same time clock that we do. Its purpose is to create and be everliving, ours is not. Eventually and unfortunately, our time runs out, so it makes art all the more special when we put our limited and given time into its creation. AI does not have the ability to go outdoors or spend time with loved ones. I believe that the greatest inspiration for art has been the great outdoors and time spent with loved ones. Whenever I write, I write about my friends and family. There is no greater muse. AI might have the ability to collect information online and “create” memories, but it has never fully experienced them. AI cannot have the full, heartfelt experience of having a best friend, or the first day of school, or a first heartbreak. These are feelings that only humans can truly have. This is proven among all of us. It is difficult to relate to breakup songs as a child, but once we have truly experienced a breakup, suddenly we are able to understand every single word. AI is not at fault for being unable to feel these things, but it should not be accredited in a way that makes it sound like it could ever fully and truly have the human experience. Without that experience for humans, how would they have created the art that AI uses as inspiration in the first place? If it were not for us humans, AI would have none of the information that it does. We are its muse, but for humans, we are each other’s muse. It is the most beautiful part of art. We are inspired and moved by one another. 

“AI is derivative by design and inventive by chance.”

I did not use generative AI to write this essay. 

Blog Post 3: Is AI the Friend or Enemy of Artistic Creation?

Sasha Leader

I agree with Kirby Ferguson when he says that human creativity comes from personal experience and emotions which are qualities that AI does not have. For example when Kirby Ferguson says “We are all influenced by the things we see, hear, and experience. The work that we create is inevitably a reflection of that influence.”. AI can definitely make good art that may even look better than what some people can make but Kirby Ferguson says that it’s the effort and emotions that goes into creating art that makes it good art. I agree that all the blood, sweat and tears that go into creating art makes it more meaningful than AI creating a photo in 30 seconds. In my opinion it is quite obvious what is made by AI and what is made by a human. Art made by a human has more emotion behind it especially when you know how long it took to make. Half of the time the AI image looks fake or tries to appear perfect when you can see flaws. I feel like the younger generation can tell when an image is AI versus a real image but as AI advances I think it will be hard for everyone to be able to tell what is real and what is AI.  I do not think that AI can generate art without human prompts. Kirby said that “Humans are the only creatures on Earth capable of creating new things. Machines are tools, not creators.” AI is still in its early stages and still makes mistakes like sometimes if it is a photo of a person they will have more than five fingers on one hand or three arms and that would be even with human prompts. The person would have to tell AI to fix that issue.  I do not think AI could generate art without a human telling it what to make and how to make it better, at least not now. Maybe as AI advances it will be able to do that in the future. I think that maybe AI could be used as a good way to brainstorm ideas but still I think humans can probably think of more creative ways than AI can but that is my opinion. Also AI would probably give ideas based on what other people have already created but as Kirby Ferguson said “Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination”. I just feel like people have been using their brains for making art and coming up with inspiration for thousands of years and I don’t think that they should rely on AI now that there are resources. I can understand that people want to use the new resources that they have now and I think that it would be best to use for brainstorming only.  In conclusion AI should be used as a tool to help artist but not as an artist alone because AI art and human art will never compare to each other

Sylvia Thompson

In Everything Is A Remix by Kirby Ferguson, he states that AI can create art but that it is a uniquely human enterprise. I believe that yes technically AI can create art but I don’t think AI is really creating art rather than mimicking art. Using images that humans have created and using them to produce images that feel familiar but are not really art. Here I asked AI to produce an image in the style of Edgar Degas (top left). This photo is technically art but it doesn’t capture the same feeling that Edgar Degas has in the picture below. AI art will never be the same as human made art, but it is getting pretty hard to distinguish between AI art and the real deal. But the problem is whether or not people will care. People will use AI to produce images because it is quick, accessible, and can even be free if using generative AI programs such as ChatGpt. I think that since this video essay was released, we have already seen a rapid growth in the abilities of AI and how prominent it is becoming. In the video Ferguson says “it still has weaknesses, like human anatomy, especially hands, and it mostly lacks the expressiveness and the storytelling of real artists”. But now as you can see from this AI generated image mimicking a Degas painting, there are no glaring features that make this stand out as AI, such as hands or feet being disformed. I believe that AI should not be a tool for artists, especially due to the fact that many artists work was taken to train AI. So yes, everything is a remix and it is human nature to be drawn to the familiar. But this is different. This isn’t people sampling music from other musicians to produce their own unique tracks, it’s computers generating images that are a compilation of human made art. I don’t find this particularly ethical or a positive improvement to the art world. Kirby Ferguson says “The fear and anxiety the art community feels is going to spread. Many of us will have to adapt. Any mind work that can get automated will get automated.”

I agree that we are going to have to adapt to this new world of AI and technological advances. It also might mean that how artists adapt to this is not in support of the advancement of AI in art, like using it as a tool rather than the creator, but we see artists resist it. I think it would be interesting to see if people revert to less technologically advanced forms of art in resistance of AI/digital art. Everything Is a Remix hits many of the concerns that visual artists have faced with the advancement of AI, but it doesn’t discuss how it is affecting music. It is estimated that approximately 50,000 AI songs are uploaded to Spotify daily. As of right now spotify does not have any labels that these songs are AI. This is opening some very interesting conversations on the ethics of this in the music scene now. As AI continues to grow things such as AI generated songs are becoming harder to detect, and if they are not labeled correctly then we as consumers can’t be informed and conscious. These songs are just mimicking the sounds and patterns of music to create generic familiar sounds that if you’re not paying much attention to it, you can easily be fooled into thinking it was human made. Overall, yes AI can generate art but as of right now it is not creative, it relies on human creativity to produce. I think what it ultimately comes down to is not about the artists themselves but the audience and consumers. We must be aware of what we interact with and how we choose to interact with it. AI can not compare to the culture and history of real human made art so we have to continue to remember that going forward in this technologically advanced future we are entering.

I did not use generative AI to write this essay.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/13/ai-music-spotify-billboard-chart