The Era of Convenient Art

Library

The Era of Convenient Art

When art and tech first merged, innovation simply meant software could help design artistic elements through specific programs; now, the art program makes the art. The world is divided on the repercussions of this. What does the emergence of Artificial Intelligence into the modern art scene mean for the legacy of art, and how are artists reacting to it? Many artists are pushing back on this advancement or “invasion” of technology in the artistic process. Although artists and architects have always allowed innovations like tools and technology to aid us in the creative process, how far is too far? To answer these questions and better understand the importance of this historical dilemma, let’s review some thoughts from tech companies, artists, and everyday art enthusiasts.

Tech Companies

Using Artificial Intelligence software (AI), engineers and tech companies have begun to create a revolutionary art movement called “convenient art”. As of 2025, this has become a powerful and accessible tool. With all power, some try to use it for good, and some try to use it for gain. For example, a company called SUNO AI attracted attention as a website that “makes high-quality music” and requires only “a melody in your head, lyrics you’ve written, or just a

... ponder the implications of whether removing humans from the artistic process removes the emotion needed to make inspiring art. For example, when viewing any historical artwork in our local gallery, we are often moved by art that reminds us of something real. Human hands and intentions crafted that art piece and in doing so, gave a piece of themselves. What will happen if art begins to lose all connection to what it means to be human?

feeling you want to hear”. This has begun to elicit a shift reaction from music labels like “Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group”, who are suing SUNO AI and other music generators for large-scale “copyright infringement”. AI software is created by providing a data set and equations, and then asking that equation to come up with something “unique” over and over again. The possibilities are not endless. These kinds of software companies, whose purpose is to create convenient art, have also unfortunately created uninspiring, unoriginal, and sometimes… blatantly plagiarized artworks.

On the other side of this argument, artists, art historians, and art enthusiasts are debating this new robot renaissance. One of the most viral clips on the internet lately is an AI-powered water laser robot carving Renaissance-style sculptures out of slabs of marble. This kind of AI technology is being pioneered by an engineering company called Monumental Labs. According to their website, their software “bridges the workshop traditions of fine arts with cutting-edge technology to make magnificent sculpture and stone architecture accessible at scale.” This company works on private commissions and assists architects, developers, and restoration campaigns. This type of AI may help restore architectural artistry on a grand scale, yet there will also be irreparable consequences if we continue to undervalue the importance of the human artist.

Artists

When a society undervalues the human artist, we shift in a direction that allows the artist to become corrupted. We allow legacy and industry to be corrupted. When artists and art enthusiasts speak out, they join the fight to save the sanctity of art. Founder of Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, has always spoken out against the use of technology in the creative process. He required every still of his movies to be hand-drawn, sharing that in his opinion, passion is what creates beautiful art. Miyazaki explained that AI “has no idea what pain is whatsoever” and felt like replacing human artists with technology was “an insult to life itself.” Already, he is feeling the repercussions of AI on his legacy. According to The Independent, using “a new version of ChatGPT, users can transform popular internet memes or personal photos into the distinct style of Ghibli”. Now that cheap replications of Miyazaki’s work are available at the press of a button, we have to raise “ethical concerns about artificial intelligence tools trained on copyrighted creative works and what that means for the future livelihoods of human artists”. At the 2025 Coachella, Brazilian DJ, Alok, shared a powerful message about the danger of merging AI and art, saying that “as artists, we have the responsibility to try to push culture forward through art. That’s why art has to be made by humans.” Through his “Keep Art Human” campaign, this artist and so many like him, are speaking out on the way AI is harming the legacy of art in general. Protecting the livelihoods of human artists is the only way to safeguard great art.

According to Rick Rubin, the Co-Founder at Dem James Records, “What makes [art] great is the personal, with all of its imperfections and all of its quirkiness, that’s what makes it great. How you see the world is different from how everyone else sees the world”. Because a machine does not have the same personal qualities that make humans unique, can the mass-produced or commissioned art that is created by robots be considered “great”? This question leads us to ponder the implications of whether removing humans from the artistic process removes the emotion needed to make inspiring art. For example, when viewing any historical artwork in our local gallery, we are often moved by art that reminds us of something real. Human hands and intentions crafted that art piece, and in doing so, gave a piece of themselves, What will happen if art begins to lose all connection to what it means to be human?

Art Enthusiasts

Furthermore, what do people think about AI merging with the art industry? On a recent New York Times post about an interview they had with OpenAI’s first artist-in-residence”, Alexander Reben, the MIT-trained technologist explains that through this experience provided “a closer view of how innovation happens within an A.I. company” and “why it’s important to push the edges and try new things”. He also admits that “there are concerns among artists that their work is being used to train A.I. systems without permission, payment or credit, or that A.I. could alter the very nature of creativity”, but in his opinion there is “enough room for different kinds of art, embracing A.I. as a collaborator on his own works.” The article’s comments, however, passionately disagree with his assessment. One commenter shares that “AI art proves the existence of the human soul by trying in vain to make art without one”, while another commenter points out that none of Alexander Reben’s artwork “sparks joy or any relevant emotion for that matter.” Going back to the viral post of Monumental Lab’s AI-powered water laser robot carving “stunning marble sculptures”, as one could begin to expect, the reactions on the video are not positive. One commenter saying what many of us have been thinking, “…this is a kinda cool application, but I would prefer the robots to be building construction materials or working in place of humans in dangerous environments. Not taking space that a human deserves.” Another comment comforts artists by explaining that “when the world is drowning in flawless, soulless, machine-made mediocrity, your flaws will become gold. your brushstrokes, your madness, your hours of struggle…priceless.”. Considering that every comment on these posts condemns the overuse of technology in professions that should not be automated or labels AI art as soulless, we can easily conclude that the masses feel that something is wrong with the direction of modern art. Yet, some are hopeful that this could be a temporary phase in the broader topic of art history, and that humanity will one day realize the cons of pushing AI art. However, if AI art prevails in the future art landscape despite the overwhelming criticism by artists and art enthusiasts, who are these art companies doing this all for?

Why Is This Important?

In a perfect world, art would continue to grow more accessible and independent. But we do not live in a perfect world. From the beginning, the art industry has been a tool of division. It distinguished the rich from the poor, the oppressor from the oppressed, and the educated from the uneducated. Ancient kingdoms, for instance, used generations of enslaved people to construct monumental architectural works–commissions ordered by rulers seeking to display their power. Today, we still travel from around the globe to marvel at structures like the Egyptian pyramids and the Roman Colosseum, often overlooking the brutal histories behind their creation.

Before the rise of secular society, only noble families and the Church were wealthy enough to commission grand artworks or architectural feats. Even then, art reflected the stark class divides: the upper class who purchased art and the laborers who created it. When we look at historical structures and ask, “Why does art not look like that anymore?”, we must understand that historically, “great” art required labor and toil. However, with the emergence of modern society came a shift. Art began evolving from a symbol of dominance into an independent form of expression, and we are undoubtedly better for it.

In some ways, this shift finally frees artists to create independently of patrons or institutions, but may eventually hinder the job markets in these creative fields. Although innovation has always been used to help support artistry, the independent artist must remain protected from endless technological advancements. Beyond the need for art to remain human, beyond the debate of what makes art great, or the argument that innovation is necessary, the legacy of the human artist must not be allowed to be corrupted by AI. This reality invites a few moral questions:

Can AI and robotics replicate the large-scale craftsmanship once achieved by generations of unpaid artisans?
Should we embrace technology that can mass-produce building materials, sculptures, and design elements that once demanded extraordinary human effort?
Could this technology allow us to revive the beauty of certain historical art periods without human exploitation?
And finally, where do we draw the line—when does technology in art go too far?