AI and Art: Where Do We Draw the Line?
AI (Artificial Intelligence) seems to have found its way into almost every part of our lives, and the art world is no exception.
For artists, AI presents some interesting possibilities - it can help develop an idea, experiment with composition, change lighting, test colours or take a rough concept in a completely different direction. But it also raises some uncomfortable questions.
If an artist uses AI to help create an image and then paints that image, is it still entirely their work? How is that different from painting from a photograph? And at what point does AI stop being a tool and start doing too much of the creative process?
There doesn't appear to be a simple answer, and even among our own Creative Connections Whitsunday artists, opinions and approaches vary considerably.
A tool for ideas, but not necessarily for making art
CCW Vice President and artist Linda Forrester uses AI for writing and as a tool to explore and develop creative ideas. She sees value in its ability to quickly test possibilities, suggest different approaches and help visualise ideas, while recognising that it can also make it easy to rely too heavily on generated imagery.
Linda prefers experimentation to play an important part in her work, allowing ideas to develop through materials, process and unexpected outcomes. Coming from a more traditional approach to art making, she sees AI as another tool that can support that exploration rather than replace the artist’s own creative process and decision-making.
Artist Jamie Stickland takes a slightly different view. He believes AI is inevitably going to become a large part of what we do, but there is something fundamental about creating art that he doesn't believe technology can replace.
For Jamie, some of the best parts of creating happen when things don't go according to plan.
"I create better when I'm scared or uncertain of the final outcome," he says, describing the process of learning from mistakes and discovering new directions while working. It's that uncertainty, and the emotional response to it, that he believes AI cannot replace.
Perhaps that's an important distinction - making art isn't simply about producing the best possible image. Often it's the mistakes, changes of direction and decisions made along the way that make the finished work interesting.
Other artists are embracing it
Other artists are embracing it
Other local artists interviewed for this article are incorporating AI much more directly into their creative process.
One approach is to start with nothing more than an idea, describe it to an AI image generator and then gradually refine the result, changing colours, lighting and composition along the way. It can take many versions before arriving at an image that works.
Another option is to start with an original photograph and use AI to explore different possibilities. One CCW artist who works this way finds it gives her much more control than starting with a written prompt alone.
And AI certainly isn't perfect. Anyone who has experimented with image generation will probably recognise the frustration of asking AI to change one part of an image, only to discover it has also changed something else that was perfectly fine!
Then there are the more obvious mistakes, such as extra fingers, strange anatomy and objects that simply don't make sense, as our experiment below demonstrates.
One artist commented that AI can be a very useful tool, provided it doesn't "squash the artist's own personality in creativity."
That may be the real issue.
Australia's art prizes are wrestling with the same question
It's not only individual artists trying to work out where the boundaries should sit. Australian art competitions are having exactly the same conversation, and they're reaching very different conclusions.
The Brisbane Portrait Prize allows generative AI to be used as part of the creative process, including for composition and image generation, although an artwork cannot simply be wholly generated by AI. Artists must declare whether they have used AI and explain how it was used.
The Sunshine Coast National Art Prize took a different position in its published 2025 conditions, requiring entries to be the artist's "original, unaided work" and specifically excluding AI-generated artwork.
Meanwhile, the National Portrait Gallery's National Photographic Portrait Prize 2026 allows generative AI tools, but requires photographers to declare what tools they used and how they were used.
Three significant Australian prizes, that have different approaches to where AI fits.
So where should artists draw the line?
Perhaps there isn't one line.
Artists have always adopted new technology. Camera obscura of the 16oo, Photography, digital photography, Photoshop and digital art have all challenged ideas about what constitutes artistic skill.
AI feels different, though, because it can do more than simply manipulate an image - it can actually create the image itself.
There are also some big questions about copyright. AI learns from an enormous amount of existing material, including artists' work, often without their knowlege or permission. So it raises the question: if an artist's work has helped train AI, should they have a say in how it was used. Then there's the question of transparency. If AI has substantially influenced the composition or appearance of an artwork, should the viewer or an exhibition judge be told?
These aren't just theoretical questions, they're questions working artists, galleries and art competitions are having to answer now.
For our own artists, perhaps the most interesting question isn't simply "Do you use AI?"
It's "What do you use it for?"
Using AI to suggest an idea is very different from generating a finished image. Starting with your own photograph and experimenting with composition is different again. And taking an AI-generated concept into the studio and spending days or weeks interpreting it through paint introduces another layer of human judgement, skill and personality.
AI can produce an image in seconds. What it can't reproduce is the experience of standing in front of a canvas, making a decision, getting it wrong, changing direction and sometimes discovering something better than you originally intended.
As Jamie's comments suggest, that uncertainty may be one of the most important parts of creating art.
AI isn't going away, and artists will make their own decisions about whether to embrace it, avoid it or find somewhere comfortable in between.
For now, perhaps the most important thing is that we keep talking about it, remain transparent about how it's being used, and make sure the artist doesn't disappear from the art.
Comments