The statement made by Stephen Marche leaves quite the impression to us readers, as a unique take on a very controversial topic about originality. Many would argue AI writing and other forms of art are the end of all originality, whilst many believe it to be a new start to art expression altogether . Mr.Marche makes a point in their article to say that there won’t be any change to modern art due to AI, as it has already become repetitive and unoriginal. According to Mr.Marche, most of the new movies ranked highest in 2024 were sequels , and the number of Americans who consumed music released in the last 18 months had dropped by 3.7%. Except for all of this data, Mr.Marche had also done their own research on AI, writing a book simply by feeding prompts to different machines and finding that AI couldn’t keep up with his writing standard as easily as many claim. Marche also claims that AI should not be viewed as anything more than a tool, a tool that is not capable of its own creation, and for it to be a viable tool one must be capable of recognizing good writing.

When Stephen Marche stated “creative A.I. is going to change everything.” My interpretation is that creative A.I. will make it easier for people to “think” creatively. For individuals who struggle to generate ideas or be imaginative, A.I. will be a resource for everyone to use, helping to produce ideas they might not have considered. 

However ”it’s also going to change nothing” raises a question. Isn’t the whole point of being creative is authenticity and originality? If the world depends on A.I. to generate creative ideas, can we really call that being creative ? In the passage “the future of writing is a lot like hip-hop” by Stephen Marche he discusses how today’s music often relies on existing material, music is repurposed ideas, it is “not releases but of archives”. With A.I. evolving it is going to change nothing in the creative world especially since we as a society already lack creativity.

1. I believe that A.I.-generated art should be considered art. Art is subjective. Art can be anything. Art can be shown by words, images, dancing, singing or just your voice. We use and see A.I art on a daily basis, magazines, instagram post, billboards, ads and even fashion models. These are all forms of “art”. We use A.I to enhance or alter photos. A.I. is a part of us and the art world. If we can describe what we see and feel, A.I is able to generate it into visual art. it reflects your creativity but with just a little help with A.I.

2. I do understand the artists’ frustration and don’t think they’re exaggerating their concerns. A.I has Indeed impacted the job market and artists who are competing, like the artists in the article who participated in the fair and lost to A.I art. Having A.I has made it more accessible for everyone to create art with minimal time, and effort. It is as if there’s no authenticity towards the artwork which makes it lose its value. A.I does use outside imaging to create your idea, some may argue that it’s a form of plagiarism. A.I continues to evolve and will continue to make artists worry about the future of art.

The controversy surrounding Mr. Allen’s win at the Colorado state fair is not something that should be overlooked as he seems to have broken rules in many peoples eyes when he won an art competition using an AI generated image. Many people took to social media in response to Mr. Allen’s win when he posted his blue ribbon that was gracefully earned from the judges, who in fact were not informed that his work was AI generated. Upon learning this fact, the judges stated that they would’ve rewarded him with the win anyways,and thought the piece was masterful and deserved to be considered equivalent to the art created manually. However, despite the judges maintaining the decision and standing firmly on their beliefs, many people still took to social media to react and say that this was “the death of all Art”. Mr. Allen however, responds to them saying that he believes that humanity has lost the battle to the machines and therefore we should just embrace AI as a new form of art created digitally and not see it as cheating or bending the rules. My personal belief is that AI generated images should not be included in any fairs or art piece galleries of any form as it does not stay true to the validity of what art is; what I believe to be a human creation that captures the beauty of what the human mind is capable of imagining. Many would argue that if AI is to draw a painting worthy of success, it is necessary for a human’s input to be equally as creative to generate that. However, I believe that it’s not equivalent to the talent required to do hands-on work and therefore should not be on the same level and like many others believe, it can be the end of a true art form. The world has seen many changes to the ways we consume and create art, but none have created as much of a threat as AI producing new images simply from a few words that a person feeds it. I believe the artists who are scared that AI will be taking their jobs and stealing the creativity of the world from them have much to fear. As AI grows everyday and becomes more and more advanced, it’s not exactly easy to predict where its capabilities could end.

What does Stephen Marche mean when he asserts, “creative A.I. is going to change everything. It’s also going to change nothing”?