New tools, Same fear

Pro: See? This comic nails it. Every time a new medium emerges, people freak out and say, “That’s not art.” It happened with photography, it happened with digital painting, and now it’s happening with AI. History just keeps repeating itself.

Con: Yeah, but there’s a difference. Photography and digital painting still involve a human making creative choices. AI-generated art feels more like outsourcing the creativity. Is it really the same thing?

Pro: But isn’t that what people said about photography at first? That it was just mechanical reproduction, no soul, no artistry? And yet we now recognize incredible photographers as artists. The tool doesn’t define the art — the intent and vision do.

Con: Still, I worry about how easy it is to mass-produce stuff now. If anyone can press a button and generate 100 “paintings,” doesn’t that cheapen the idea of art? The time, skill, and struggle used to matter.

Pro: Maybe, but accessibility can also democratize creativity. Not everyone has years to master oil painting — why shouldn’t they be able to express ideas with the tools they have? Art has never been just about struggle. It’s about communication, emotion, impact.

Con: Fair, but we shouldn’t lose sight of craftsmanship either. There’s something deeply human about putting in the time to master a skill. I just hope we don’t trade that away for convenience.

Pro: I hear that. But just like painters didn’t vanish when photography came along, traditional art won’t disappear either. The new doesn’t erase the old — it just expands the possibilities.