15/09/2026
THE ARTIST BEHIND THE TOOL
Before anyone dismisses this as an opinion from someone who is simply “ignorant” about ART and TECHNOLOGY, let me introduce where I’m coming from.
I’m a technology professional, an AI workshop business owner, an LMS practitioner who conducts LMS generative AI workshops in universities, and a former artist who worked in the music industry as a vocalist and songwriter. I have few books certified by NBDB.
I work with technology professionally, but I also have experience on the creative side. So, this isn’t an argument between “artists” and “tech people.” This is a conversation about understanding the difference between a creative tool and the person who uses it.
Some fine artists keep saying that when we create content using AI, whether through ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools, the AI is the artist, not the person using it.
As someone working across both technology and creative fields, I think we need to separate the tool from the creator.
Look at these two images.
IMAGE 1 = I asked AI to create a simple mahogany table, put a red apple on it, and add three ants crawling on the apple.
These are ordinary subjects from the real world. A table is a table. An apple is an apple. An ant is an ant. There is no specific artist’s artwork being reproduced here.
But who decided on the table, apple, ants, composition, and concept?
The human did.
The AI is the tool that interprets the instructions and generates the visual result.
It’s no different in principle from other creative tools.
A camera doesn’t become the photographer.
A paintbrush doesn’t become the painter.
A synthesizer doesn’t automatically become the musician.
The tool participates in the creation. The human provides the intention.
Now look at IMAGE 2.
This time, I deliberately introduced recognizable One-Piece artwork and characters onto the apple.
That changes the discussion.
Now we’re talking about existing creative works and intellectual property created by other people. Questions about reproduction, licensing, attribution, copyright where applicable, and ethical use can enter the discussion. In fact, I even tell my students to respect the original works of others and avoid copyright issues.
And that distinction is important.
An ordinary real-world subject is not the same thing as deliberately incorporating a specific existing artwork or intellectual property.
That’s the point I’m trying to make.
We shouldn’t reduce the entire AI discussion to: “AI made it, therefore AI is the artist.”
The human still decides what to create, what to ask for, what to change, what to keep, what to reject, how to combine elements, and what message the work should communicate.
And when people say:
“AI content has no feeling, message, or meaning.”
I TOTALLY DISAGREE
Meaning doesn’t magically come from the tool. Meaning can come from the person behind the idea.
So what does my table, apple, and three ants represent? (read through)
The table is the foundation. It represents the human idea and creative direction.
The apple is the creative work that grows from that foundation.
And the three ants?
They’re a reminder that sometimes people become so focused on what tool was used that they forget to look at what the creator was trying to say.
You don’t have to like AI art.
You can question it.
You can criticize it.
You can debate its ethics.
That’s completely fair.
But saying that there is no human creativity, intention, or message simply because AI was involved in the process is an oversimplification.
AI does not automatically make someone an artist.
But neither does using AI automatically make someone NOT an artist.
The tool may be artificial intelligence. But the intention can still be human.
