AI - Artistic Integrity v Artificial Intelligence
- James Stewart
- Mar 1
- 13 min read
Updated: Mar 20
[This article was written without any input from AI]
On Saturday, 28 February 2026, I went to Collect as I do most years to see the best in international craft contemporary works, artworks in every sense of the word. This made me consider art today, craft today and the impact that AI (Artificial Intelligence) might have on artists today and into the future.
Art is defined by as:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. e.g. the art of the Renaissance
The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
also known as the 'visual arts'
And Craft is defined as 'an activity involving skill in making things by hand.'
[definitions from Oxford Languages on Google]
One of the first articles I wrote in 2020 was on the perennial 'Craft v Art' debate.
Then I wrote that craft has as its starting point 'function', then choices of materials, form and any surface decoration follow.
Art has no function as such, except the expression of a concept or idea; the function of art is to express the intention of the artist.
I concluded in the 2020 article that currently the lines have been blurred between art and craft. There is no lack in creativity in contemporary craft, as my visit to Collect demonstrated, and artists making a painting, print or sculpture need to have craft in order to complete the work.
Maybe craft is how something is made and art is in the work, function is no longer a relavent factor?
Now in the age of AI, and the evolution/acceptance of digital art, we need to reassess the question.
In researching this article I have combined my own thoughts and experience with recent articles on the subject of Art and AI.
The use of Artificial Intelligence
More and more now AI is being used at work, in writing contracts, making music and art and social media posts - for better of worse.
Those who use AI at work state that it is a time saving tool and talk of creating powerpoint presentations in seconds and being able to circulate meeting notes and actions to participants almost as soon as the meeting has ended.
They also say that the AI results do need human intervention to check the results before sending out. AI is still not quite able to replace the human mind, experience and emotion/empathy.
Automated tasks go back to early history with Daedalus and Hero of Alexandria designing machines to write text or play music. Jump forward to 1950 and Alan Turing's paper "Computer Machinery and Intelligence: focused on whether machines can mimic human behaviour convincingly. Shortly afterwards the academic discipline of artificial intelligence was founded in 1956 at a research workshop at Dartmouth College.
Since then artists have used AI to create artworks referred to as algorithmic art, computer art, digital art or new media art.
In 2018 an auctiuon sale of AI art was held at Christies in New York where the artwork Edmond de Belamy sold for $432,500, 45 times the estimate!
Clearly the technology has moved forward a huge amount in thelast ten years or so, and so the use of AI in the creative process will be debated for many years to come.
Eric Reinhart wrote in The Guardian in May 2025 in his article "The trouble with AI art isn’t just lack of originality. It’s something far bigger"
"It is not simply that AI lacks originality; after all, so too does most human art. The problem runs far deeper: the essence of art is lost in the process of its machinic invention and, with it, the very possibility of a democratic society is put under threat."
Reinhart continues:
"Art is a defining human endeavor, not just for those formally called “artists” but for everyone. It is not merely about arranging colors, forms, sounds or words into pleasing products. The essence of art inheres in its making: the belief that, in the act of creating art, one imbues an object with something ineffable from within one’s own being. This belief, in turn, allows for another person to project their own sense of themselves onto the work and, in doing so, to commune with the artist at a level words cannot access."
I find this view a little extreme and quite depressing if it turns out ot be true, I would rather be optimistic and see AI as sometihng that will bring forward a renaissance in human creativity.
With the introduction of photography in the late 1800's, artists and the wider world were concerned about devaluing the creative process, becuase it had become mechanical and soul-less.
In fact, the introduction of photography coincided with impressionism, post-impressionism, pointilism, Symbolism, Les Nabis and Art Nouveau - a highly experimental and creative period in the artworld that then heralded fauvism, expressionism, futurism and dada.
Prior to writing this article I asked the AI to write an article to answer the question 'Can AI truly replace rhe craftmanship in art?'. I read the article and it is really quite good, and so have published it on our website in full with no edits or redactions.
The concluding statements are:
"The skill, intention, and emotional connection artists bring to their work cannot be fully replaced by algorithms. Instead, AI and craftsmanship can coexist, each enriching the other."
The William Morris Effect
In March 2023 Krzysztof Pelc proposed in Wired Magazine that 'AI Will Make Human Art More Valuable' - this itself was a response to an article in the same magazine by Kevin Kelly stating that "AI can now make better art than most humans" (Wired November 2022).
But what is 'better'? Pelc proposes that "We have changed our collective tastes in response to technological progress in the past. We’ll now do it again, without even noticing that it’s happening. And if history is any indication, our tastes will evolve in a way that rigs the game in favor of human artists."
Here he is referring to the 'William Morris' effect, AI is not the end of human created art, but represents a shift in our perceptions to value the man-made over AI.
Willam Morris was the leader of the Arts and Crafts movement in the UK in the 1870's, which arose largely as a reaction to the mass production of household goods: tableware, furniture etc that could be made is massive numbers in factories across the country at the end of the Industrial Revolution.
The followers of the Arts and Crafts movement "denounced the new abundance. They decried the soulless homogeneity of the machine age. In response, they looked to the past, seeking inspiration in medieval patterns and natural forms. Their designs were all intricate leaf patterns, elegant ferns, and curving flower stems. It was a radical move for the time, and the 'medievalists', as they were called, were mocked at first. But they quickly found a receptive audience. Just as technology was bringing mass-produced goods within reach of the middle class, under the influence of Morris and his acolytes, elite tastes turned to block-printed floral wallpapers and furniture purposefully left unfinished, the better to hint at its handmade origins. By the end of the 19th century, Arts and Crafts interiors had become the dominant style in British middle-class homes."
Interestingly, Pelc goes on to quote 2009 research by University College London and University of Copenhagen: Modulation of Aesthetic Value by Semantic Context.
The researchers wanted to see how much our aesthetic tastes were dependent on context.
They showed a number of subjects abstract images and then told them variously that they were created by a human or a computer. The clear winners were the images said to be created by humans. People not only claimed to prefer the identical human made pictures, their brain's pleasure centres lit up more brightly.
This effect was illustrated perfectly in the Birthday episode of Absolutely Fabulous where Eddy and Saffron have this exchange:
Edina: Oh, sweetie, sweetie... Oooh, sweetie, darling... Darling, they're gorgeous. Where did you get them, sweetie? Hmm? Was it Harvey Nichols, darling?
Saffron: Yes.
Edina: Well, you should tell me. I can get a discount there, sweetie.
Saffron: I'm glad you like them.
Edina: Well, darling, they're hardly the ill-judged tat you normally give me. I mean, Lacroix, darling... They are Lacroix, aren't they, darling? They're not just something you put in the box, are they, sweetie?
Saffron: Do you like them or not?
Edina: I like them if they're Lacroix.
Saffron: Well they are.
Edina: Oh, good. I like them, darling.
Why does our perception of an object or artwork change or depend on who made it, I always say to people in the gallery that an artwork should always stand up on its own merits.
Yet this brings in the concept of provenance and what this can do to the value of art/objects.
The definition of provenance is 'the place of origin or earliest know history of something.
In terms of art this refers to the history of ownership, as well as the creator and any exhibitions that it may have been in. The purpose os recording provenance is primarily to authenticate the piece and so provide trust in any value polaced upon it. Other reasons to look at provenances is in relation to looted or stolen artworks.
In essence good provenance increases the value of an artwork.
This is antithetic to the Duchampian concept of found art or his 'Readymades', by simply declaring a mass produced object as art he was able to greatly increase the value of the piece in the eyes of viewers and collectors. See his Bottle Rack, Bicycle Wheel and of course Fountain.
The New York Times technology podcast Hard Fork interviewed Sam Altman in late 2023 about OpenAI, the tech company he co-founded. When interviewers asked if he expected there to be value in non-AI-assisted work in the future he replied:
"I expect... that if we look forward to the future ... things that we want to be cheap can get much cheaper, and things that we want to be expensive are going to be astronomically expensive... Real estate, handmade goods, art. And so there will be a huge premium on things like that. ...Even when machine-made products have been much better, there has always been a premium on handmade products. And I’d expect that to intensify."
Here he is not only acknowledging the 'William Morris' effect, he is saying that it will become stronger.
Artists Using AI
Refik Anadol used artificial intelligence, a machine learning-model, to interpret and transform more than 200 years of art at MoMA for Unsupervised, asking the question:What would a machine dream about after seeing the collection of The Museum of Modern Art? the results are a series of digital artworks that unfold in real time, continuously generating new and otherworldly forms that envelop viewers in a large-scale installation.
Craig Boehman says in his journal In Defence of AI Art: "As a photographer-turned-artist, I’m very much in favor of AI and I use it to create pieces that are typically conceptual or express ideas that I don’t have the time or resources to photograph myself."
Boehman uses AI more than as a tool, for him it is fundamental to his creative process. Furher, he sees no issue with authorship, he is the creator, although he accepts that to date there is no clear set of rules or definition of how this should be defined.
Elena Howard from Ceramic Review reported in Clay Meets Code (March/April 2026) that Contemporary ceramic artists are also increasingly integrating advanced technologies, bordering on AI, into their ceramic practices.
Howard writes "Nicolas Touron employs 3D clay printing, transforming digital designs into tangible sculptures. This approach blends the precision of digital technology with the hands-on aspects of traditional sculpting, allowing for the rapid prototyping of designs and the creation of unique, intricate pieces that push the boundaries of conventional ceramics."
This could be compared to works by conceptual artists, Sol Lewitt or Bridget Riley. In both cases the artwork creation is in the instructions on how to complete the work:
In 1968, LeWitt began to conceive sets of guidelines or simple diagrams for his two-dimensional works drawn directly on the wall. According to the principle of his work, LeWitt's wall drawings are usually executed by people other than the artist himself. So in theory the artworks could be recreated over and over again, and always be the same. However, as Sol Lewitt also observed in 1971 that "each person draws a line differently and each person understands words differently".
Bridget Riley produces her well known Op Art Geometric paintings through a meticulous studio process where she creates small, hand-painted studies using gouache, often on graph paper, which are then executed on large canvases by assistants in her London studio. The human hand here is from the studio assistants, as opposed to the artist herself.
The Ceramic Review article does raise the ethical question of whether the use of AI will bring about the loss of traditional skills and techniques.
Concluding on the ethical questions Elena Howard writes "While AI can enhance efficiency and precision, there is a growing concern about preserving the 'human touch' - the imperfections and unique qualities that makes each piece distictively human-made. The key lies in finding a balance, where AI is viewed not as a replacement but as an extension of the human artist."
AI in art, like mass production in the industrial revolution, cannot replace the 'artist's hand'.
As with document preparation mentioned above, the use of AI in art or craft may be quicker or more convenient than weaving by hand for example, but we still want and value the skills passed down - this is a connection to tradition and heritage.
In art we look for the work of the artist, their representation of the subject not an exact replica. This is why photography did not replace painting, and digital printmaking has not replaced original printmaking. See my article on What is an Original Print?.
Artistic integrity is based on uniqeness.
The Artsy AI Survey 2026
Artsy, 'The Worlds Largest Online Art Marketplace', published a survey on the use of AI in contemporary art. You can see the full article here.
They had responses from 300 gallery professionals, and concluded that although AI is now widely used for day-today administrative tasks, artists and gallerist are skeptical about its legitimacy as an artistic medium and therefore they think its long term impact on the art market will be minimal.
Galleries and artists are using AI for preactical tasks, such as writing, exhibition planning, communication and research - so currently a 'back office' tool rather than creative.
The art world's overall view on AI seems to be similar to the aftermath of the introduction of photography: it is a tool that will be used rather than completely upending it, at least in the foreseeable future.
As with all new technologies there is a small minority (less than 20%) who embrace it and uses it in all aspects of the creative process, remainder have a healthy skepticism.
Key findings:
Definition of AI Art: There is no clear industry answer to this question, without this debates about AI art's legitimacy and value are happening without a common vocabulary.
22% define AI art as “fully prompt-based” or generative works where the “primary composition” is AI-generated.
18% use a “medium-agnostic” definition, focusing on artistic intent rather than the tool used.
16% classify any work where AI “meaningfully shapes the outcome” as AI art.
Collectors Interest in AI art: AI barely registers with collectors and so far the commercial appetite is not there.
41% of galleries say AI “rarely comes up” with collectors.
16% report collectors “actively avoid” artworks that are created with the assistance of AI.
15% of galleries have seen “curiosity-driven interest,” where collectors ask questions but do not necessarily purchase AI art.
Are artists using AI: Adoption of AI by artists is still the exception not the rule, for thoise that do, the focus is practical and preparatory.
61% of galleries say none of their artists use AI in their practice.
19% report that 1–2 artists they work with use AI.
8% say 3 or more artists they work with incorporate AI tools into their practices.
Of the artists who do use AI, the most common applications include:
Rendering and visualization: 48%
AI-enhanced photography or image-making: 47%
Training models with personal datasets: 44%
Research and conceptual development: 39%
Beyond artmaking, gallery professionals report growing use of AI among artists for organizational tasks. While a majority (61%) said their artists either don’t use these tools, or they’re unsure, those who do pointed to the following use cases:
36% use it for writing or editing artists’ bios, statements, and CVs.
27% use AI for image editing and file management.
25% use it for administrative writing such as emails, invoices, and artwork captions.
21% use it for studio organisation and project planning.
What do artists think about AI: Artists are rightly skeptical about AI. AI models have been trained on existing artworks without any thought for copyright and artist permissions.
33% are critical of AI due to “ethical concerns,” such as data scraping.
31% are opposed to AI “entirely.”
14% are “enthusiastic adopters.”
Another 19% are described as “pragmatic users,” adopting AI tools selectively for efficiency or experimentation rather than as a central medium.
Using AI to recreate art
Fascinating clip from CBS in America where the reporters discuss the use of robots to carve marble recreations of Da Vinci original sculptures in Carrera, Italy.
Interestingly, the robot does 99% of the carving, humans are still needed for the final 1%.
The machine operator states that the art is in the programming of the AI - not sure I agree.
Verified Human
Verified human content, or content that can be proven to have been produced by a real person, is quickly evolving from a presumption to a desirable quality. We can no longer assume that the words we read, music we hear or art that we see has been created by a human. The use of AI now permeates everything we see, hear and write.
Verified Human is an organisation set up in 2023 to provide a global certification standard for human made creative work. It is not a detection tool, they 'certify people not pixels' - like Fairtrade is for coffee.
They do not fear progress, they are no luddites, they engage with it. They do not view AI as a challenge to be managed, but as an opportunity to champion equity, spotlight human contribution, and remind the world of the inherent value of every person.
Verified Human was founded by Micah Voraiskul, he is the author of 'Human Is The New Vinyl: Why Creativity Still Wins In The AI Revolution'.
After 25 years in Richmond, Virginia's creative community, Micah moved to Southeast Tennessee in 2022. His book (published August 2025) asks the central question: "What do we stand to lose in the age of machine-made everything?" It explores why people crave something that feels real in a world racing toward frictionless tech—just as vinyl made a surprising comeback—and examines how each wave of technology from the printing press to generative AI reshapes what we create, how we connect, and what we decide is worth keeping.
Conclusion
Like David Hockney's iPad drawings, digital artworks and giclee printmaking, which were decried at first, but later accepted: Technology including AI should be embraced, it is not going away BUT any use of AI needs to be reported in the provenance of the artwork or object produced. Then let the viewers/collectors decide.
At the risk of agreeing with the AI version of this article, any technology is a tool that will not replace the human touch or creativity.
The eye of the beholder is important too, perception of value through provenance cannot be ignored.
From my visit to Collect 2026 the number or red dots show that collectors agree that man made is what they are looking for.
Comments