AI Art Trends For 2025: The Merging Of Humans And Machines

[milestogo]

As artificial intelligence exponentially advances, the resulting shockwave has hit creatives either like a gut punch or a herald of undreamed possibilities. Many scramble to keep up with the stampede of developments, the rapid-fire transformation of industries, and the improbable output of AI image generators. Perhaps only an AI assistant could order it all. What will AI-generated art look like in 2025? Clues based on technological advancements, what was trending in 2024, and the public’s appetite for AI offer a glimpse into what humans may be looking at on their screens, billboards, and in public spaces in 2025.

Platforms and apps will increasingly feature workflows to create high-quality art, even for those without much training. Just as ChatGPT and Grammarly have revolutionized writing (although AI-checkers can spot copy-and-paste jobs), art-based AI systems will enable the masses to become creators. Expect to see social media platforms integrate AI tools, enabling users to create personalized visuals and posts.

“People will be able to create deeply personal works with models trained on an artist’s photography, writing, or other creative inputs,” said Cansu Peker, founder of the Digital Arts Blog. An example: Sweden-based artist Lela Amparo merges her photographs with machine-imagined worlds. The otherworldly landscapes “feel both alien and intimately personal,” Peker said in an email.

Amparo takes a multidisciplinary approach, producing ambient music that she blends with art to create immersive installations, another trend that is expected to grow in 2025. “I love the feeling of establishing a scene that looks familiar, such as an arctic tundra, and then placing an object like a portal in the middle of it,” she said in an interview with Peker.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rdaniel-foster/2024/12/23/ai-art-trends-for-2025-the-merging-of-humans-and-machines/

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R

[highplainsdem]

2. AI art is not real art. It's AI slop, and if it bears any resemblance at all to real art, it's because of the

millions of stolen images used to train the AI.

workflows to create high-quality art, even for those without much training

The humans using AI image generators don't need training because they're not creating. The AI is, but mindlessly, because of those stolen images.

“People will be able to create deeply personal works with models trained on an artist’s photography, writing, or other creative inputs,” said Cansu Peker, founder of the Digital Arts Blog. An example: Sweden-based artist Lela Amparo merges her photographs with machine-imagined worlds. The otherworldly landscapes “feel both alien and intimately personal,” Peker said in an email.

That's sheer nonsense. Even AI "fine-tuned" to try to copy an individual style is trained first on the work of thousands, maybe milions of people whose intellectual property was stolen.

There's nothing "deeply personal" about AI generated from what's fine-tuned, either, because while what the AI vomits out in seconds might bear a superficial resemblance to someone's style, the human using that AI has little or no control over what's generated. All they can do is choose from what's offered, like online shoppers.

AI art is an atrocity. Almost all real artists hate it, but wannabes like it for the pretense that they're creative.

It's a complete lie that AI has democratized art. That's BS from AI peddlers.

See this thread from a real artist - here's the Threadreader page: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1868544745238393073.html

Or better yet, click on the top tweet and read the entire discussion, all the replies, on Twitter.

Link to tweet

[keithbvadu2]

3. Merging... as in the Terminator?

[keithbvadu2]

4. AI art can be original

[highplainsdem]

5. It is not art. Generative AI is a completely unethical tool, and people who use it are showing disrespect to

the real creators whose work was stolen.

[highplainsdem]

6. From Brian Merchant, about the BS argument that AI democratizes art:

https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/ai-is-not-democratizing-creativity

This is because if you spend more than 45 seconds thinking about it, rather than allowing it to glitch past at 2x speed on a business podcast, it becomes so patently ridiculous that it is almost offensive. I know it is offensive to many artists, especially since it’s deployed in service of achieving *precisely the opposite aim* that it purports to. AI will not democratize creativity, it will let corporations squeeze creative labor, capitalize on the works that creatives have already made, and send any profits upstream, to Silicon Valley tech companies where power and influence will concentrate in an ever-smaller number of hands. The artists, of course, get 0 opportunities for meaningful consent or input into any of the above events. Please tell me with a straight face how this can be described as a democratic process.

The other thing that really irks artists and creatives is that making art is already a fundamentally democratic process. Anyone can do it! (Hence the pick up a pencil meme.) It just takes time, effort, training, dedication, a development of craft. AI advocates have tried to argue that AI helps disabled people create art—but the already plenty vibrant disabled artist community shut that down extremely quickly. No, it’s making a living practicing art that is the tricky part, the already deeply precarious part—and it’s that part to which the AI companies are taking a battering ram.

It’s true that, as Murati points out, not everyone has the right industry contacts, but how does AI change the equation there? Besides, that is, making matters worse? With AI giving rise to a flood of samey-looking AI output, if anything, industry connections only matter more; the science fiction magazine Clarkesworld had to close its submissions, as its editors no longer had time to wade through reams of mediocre ChatGPT output, and turned to working only with writers they recognized or already had relationships with. As far as I’ve seen, no one who’s arguing that AI is a harbinger for a new democratized paradigm of creativity has offered an explanation of how the current gatekeepers might be done away with, what that might mean for a society with a functioning creative economy, or how the industries that creatives rely on to pay rent will in any way be made more equitable by its arrival.

Of course they haven’t. To the big AI companies, none of that enters into the equation. The democratization pitch is aimed not at aspiring artists, but at tech enthusiasts who may or may not feel that largely abstracted gatekeepers have been unkind to them or derided their cultural contributions, who feel satisfaction at seeing slick-looking images produced from their prompting and eagerly share and promote the results, and industries who read the ‘democratize’ lingo as code for ‘cheap’, and would like to automate the production of images, text, or video.

[Blue_Tires]

7. AI is cancer 👎

[Unladen Swallow]

9. Agreed!

And so it trans-humanism. I don't want a chip in my head! I hate my cell phone as it is.

[slightlv]

8. What I find ironic is that the statement

that AI is "democratizing art" (and I, too, had using the word "democratize" in this way), are the same one who go around screaming that there are no "participation trophies." IOW, if you're not good enough to win first place, you're just wasting everyone's time. I see AI art in that way... if you don't already have a creative streak in you somewhere, using AI isn't going to automatically give you one. You're participating in a forgery of other artist's work where they get no credit whatsoever for being a creative model.