Artistry vs. The “AI Artist” Label: Where do we draw the line?

[Euryeth ” Omar Alami “]

Hey everyone,

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and research lately about how modern digital tools, AI, and traditional artistry intersect. As many of you know, my work as Euryeth blends an ancient, traditional soul with hyper-modern tools. But lately, I’ve noticed how quickly the industry has started attaching the label “AI Artist” to anyone who uses new technologies, sometimes reducing an entire artistic identity to the tools involved and overlooking the years of human training, painting, writing, experimentation, and raw studio work that existed long before these technologies.

That question led me to conduct a deeper research project on artistry, authorship, and labeling in the age of AI. I’ve just published the resulting deep-dive research article on the main site.

The research looks at several important questions. First, there is the legal reality: how different jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, and China, are approaching the question of human authorship versus automated generation. Second, there is the ongoing “soulless” debate surrounding AI-generated art and the question of where creative labor actually exists when artists work with generative systems. Is creativity only in the physical act of producing the final image or sound, or does it also exist in the concept, intention, direction, selection, rejection, curation, editing, refinement, and countless decisions that lead to the final work?

The research also examines transparency and the responsibility of independent creators. How can artists use modern tools to expand and scale their vision while still making their own authorship, identity, and creative contribution clear? And perhaps most importantly, should the technology used by an artist become the primary label attached to that artist?

👉 Read the Full Article Here

I wanted to open up the floor here in the Art section and hear your perspectives.

How do you feel about the phrase “AI Artist”? Do you think it accurately describes a particular artistic practice, or can it sometimes undermine the human artist behind the technology?

Where do you draw the line between a tool assisting an artist’s vision, like a camera, synthesizer, editing software, or digital painting program, and a system taking over so much of the creative decision-making that the question of authorship becomes fundamentally different?

And how should independent creators approach disclosure? Transparency is important, but how do we make sure that acknowledging the use of a technological tool does not automatically cause the artist’s actual human labor, history, skill, and creative vision to be devalued?

For me, the larger question is not simply whether AI belongs in art. Technology has always changed artistic practice. The deeper question is whether we are allowing the tool to become the identity of the artist.

So, let’s talk.

— Omar / Euryeth

[Author]

Posts