The Death of Painting? It's time to talk about AI
- peter corr
- Feb 23, 2023
- 3 min read
Updated: Dec 20, 2025
For centuries, the death of painting has been proclaimed. Since the invention of printing during the Han dynasty (around 100 AD), artists have anxiously watched each new technological advancement. We've always felt threatened by machines' potential to undermine us, replacing our skills and expertise. When the printing press emerged, artists had valid concerns, but they eventually leveraged mechanical reproduction to replicate their work and reach a broader audience. However, with photography's arrival, it became clear to observers that reality's representation could be handed over to an optical device capable of achieving stunning precision and detail. From that point, artists had to develop new strategies to maintain long-term relevance and economic viability. Focusing on elements not easily captured by light-sensitive film and a lens was a brilliant move. The artistic focus shifted to inner thoughts and sensations, to imagery beyond the camera's impartial aperture, and to the psychological realm of sensations and feelings.

But is AI truly a revolutionary force? Are we at a pivotal moment in creativity where creating individual paintings can be outsourced to algorithms and a 3D printer? AI developers, particularly the marketing sector supporting this technology, would certainly aim to persuade you of this. You can purchase a custom-made AI painting of your preference right now, just like ordering a Big Mac with fries and a soft drink. The slogan is, 'taste a new kind of food for your imagination.' Artists assert the sanctity of human creativity and innovation, insisting on the impossibility of replicating the unique personal touch, original idea, or individual perception. However, I must disagree; I believe it will be quite simple to mimic the appearance and essence of any artwork or even create a piece in the style of an established artist. We won't be able to distinguish them. I think the issue lies elsewhere. In a world inundated with fakes and flawless imitations indistinguishable from the 'authentic,' various outcomes are conceivable.

I recall working as a stock photographer right when the cost of high-quality digital cameras became much more affordable. Suddenly, the 'barriers to entry' vanished, and the value of stock photography plummeted; it still hasn't recovered. The market value of existing and future stock images was undermined by an endless supply of cheap stock photos, often taken by 'hobbyists' with cameras. Soon after, the widespread availability of high-resolution mobile phone cameras led to further price declines. This illustrates the financial, economic, and social impact of technological progress, shows that artists are not exempt from these cycles of change. However, this isn't the whole story; there are still photographers creating outstanding work, and many are now using AI technology to enhance their creations. Whether they will withstand the wave of AI-generated imagery in the long term is another matter entirely.

In the near future, distinguishing an original artwork from a perfect replica might become impossible. However, we may not need to worry about it—machines will take care of that for us. One thing is certain: the art market will go to great lengths to protect investment value, and algorithms will be created to detect fakes and provide indisputable proof of authorship and provenance. It might be as straightforward as using a scanner or app on your phone, ready to deploy when the price of a piece outweighs the emotional connection. With significant efforts already dedicated to maintaining high prices and safeguarding investor interests, these advancements seem almost inevitable.



Comments