Is Rejecting AI Art Becoming a Conservative Position?

THE MINISTRY OF ARTS / VISUAL ART DEPT.

Century after century, new artistic media emerge that are initially rejected, denounced or met with resistance. In 1839, after Louis Daguerre invented the daguerreotype, the first photographic process that allowed people to capture highly detailed, permanent pictures, French painter Paul Delaroche declared: ‘From today, painting is dead!’ Likewise, Charles Baudelaire, a notable art critic of the time, called photography a ‘refuge of failed painters’ and a ‘mortal enemy’ of art. Silent films from the 19th century were seen as crude or gimmicky, the elite dismissed them as lowbrow, and theatre critics argued that they lacked the depth of stage drama. History is filled with conservatism against new media. It is therefore no surprise that, since 2015, when early experiments with Google’s DeepDream emerged, Generative AI art has faced severe criticism in the same way, with many labelling it as kitsch, and calling it mere ‘filter effects’.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST AI ART

The initial argument against the use of AI in artmaking stems from distrust in its ability to produce anything of artistic merit. It is fundamentally not considered a medium that is ‘enough’ in itself. This is because it depends on algorithms trained on existing human-made art, pulling from different sources to make its own. It is derivative, remixing patterns rather than expressing its own original intent. It is often criticized for enabling forgeries, deepfakes, and culturally insensitive content. It lacks emotional depth, artistic authenticity, and the personal, lived experiences that make art evocative and verisimilitudinous. In a 2025 article for Vulture, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic and AI-sceptic, Jerry Saltz, remarks distastefully: ‘I can say that 90 per cent of AI art is going to be shite, and I know that is going to be true before it even happens.’