The omnipresence of artificial intelligence is sparking an interesting debate about purely human capacities and the possibility of technology replacing them. What about creativity? Is it possible for AI to replace talent, understood as a virtue that makes a person stand out in a particular field?

According to a Goldman Sachs study, AI could automate up to 26% of tasks in the arts and design sectors. Along the same lines, a McKinsey report concludes that 30% of working hours could be automated.

If Artemisia Gentileschi or Pablo Picasso had used AI tools to develop their legacy, what would their historical relevance be?

Arantza Lauzirika is an artist, a Doctor in Art and Audiovisual Media, Associate Professor, and researcher in the Art and Technology section at EHU. She is witnessing firsthand the impact this technology is having on artistic production.

She’s clear about it.

“Artificial intelligence is just another tool,” she asserts with conviction in a conversation with BizkaiaTech Magazine. “It can be useful and help in creative processes, just as has happened before with other tools that, at the time, were either demonized or overvalued,” she explains. The expert believes that it will go through what she calls hallucination phases: “that initial moment when everyone wants to use it for everything, as if it were the universal solution. Over time, everything finds its place, and the tool is integrated into the normal workflow.”

What are the specific aspects where AI is proving beneficial in the art sector? “It can streamline mechanical tasks that often, in autonomous and precarious work, fall entirely on the artist,” she explains. For example, in the case of an independent animation production where one single person does absolutely everything, AI could take care of mechanical processes or repetitive tasks. “In the industry, where every person has a defined role, this is less relevant, but in independent production, it can make a huge difference and greatly lighten these processes.”

The debate on artificial intelligence in art cannot be separated from the fears it has sparked, and she knows this well. “With photography and with all preceding technologies, something similar happened,” she recalls. In the past, a photographer was both an artist and a technician. With the popularization of the photographic technique, the fear arose that anyone could take away their livelihood.

For Lauzirika, “mastering technique is not the same as creating.” That is, you can take photographs by letting yourself be carried away by what the camera gives you, without control or criteria, and that does not equate to creation. “Working with a tool from technical knowledge is very different from doing so from creative knowledge,” she argues.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE MARKET AND THE COMMODIFICATION OF ART

Her analysis broadens when we address the role of the market. “The market seeks profit, and there are intermediaries who live off the work of the artist. When their profits are at risk, problems arise,” she explains.

This happened when artists began to upload their work to websites: it was perceived as a threat to gallery owners and dealers, who defended their role as essential. “History repeats itself constantly, although in increasingly shorter cycles.”

Throughout her career, she has always defended open knowledge and free licenses, but with nuances. One must distinguish between open knowledge for individuals and open knowledge for companies to exploit. “A free license, such as Creative Commons, is positive if the author decides that their work can be used with attribution and for non-commercial purposes. But when a social network imposes that everything you upload becomes its property, that’s another story.”

She also recalls that since the 1980s, any creation automatically has copyright without the need for registration. In her view, “free licenses help to make use more flexible among individuals, but the problem arises when large platforms or companies use this content for profit without consent.” But this is not new either. “Tools like Photoshop or animation programs already created intermediate steps that the creator did not do manually. The difference now lies in the current scale and in the type of use, often to produce banal or viral content. I suppose that, once the fever of jokes passes, everything will return to its place, as has happened with other fads.”

THE IMPORTANCE OF INVESTING IN EDUCATION IN CULTURE

And what about talent? Is technology influencing the detection of innate talent?

For Lauzirika, talent is also a word that has been distorted and commodified, just like others such as entrepreneurship. “I don’t believe in innate talent; it’s a matter of education and work.” Many factors play a decisive role, such as cultural and educational context. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) recognizes that arts education contributes to the development of essential skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, although it suggests that the magnitude of this impact varies depending on the context and is not always measured in exact figures.

Meanwhile, according to the PISA 2022 report —an international study that measures the performance and skills of 15-year-old students—, 78% of students on average across the OECD reached at least the basic level of creative thinking, an indicator that, experts agree, reinforces the importance of integrating the arts into education. These experiences not only enrich cultural expression but also strengthen key cognitive skills needed to function in society.

“A society that invests in the education of its young people in art and culture during school years —visiting exhibitions, reading, learning to appreciate, using creative processes as learning methodologies, practicing them, etc.— is generating an audience and a breeding ground where the consumption of culture and appreciation of art in all its forms is naturalized. If this is not encouraged, there is no foundation for anything to emerge.”

And she is not only referring to people dedicated to the art sector. It is something transversal and with enormous transformative power. Being creative is useful not only in art. These skills are useful in any field, not exclusively in the artistic one. So, there is a risk that cannot be ignored. “If the education system eliminates education in these competencies (or worse, replaces them with economics classes), we are forming people who only aspire to fame and money with minimal effort, something that current technology facilitates excessively.”

Her final reflection feels like both a warning and a proposal: artificial intelligence, like any tool, is neither good nor bad in itself. What matters is how, for what purpose, and with what knowledge it is used. “In the end, creation is still a human act. And no machine can replace that. Anyone can generate an image, only the trained and/or educated eye knows how to give it meaning and value.”