The International Journal of New Media, Technology, and the Arts

ISSN: 2326-9987 (Print), ISSN: 2327-1787 (Online)

Volume 18, Issue 1-2, 2023
https://doi.org/10.18848/2326-9987/CGP/v18i01/17-31

A Matter of Perspective: A Case Study in the Use of

AI-Generative Art in the Drawing Classroom

James Hutson, Lindenwood University, USA

Bryan Robertson, Yavapai College, USA
Received: 01/19/2023; Accepted: 05/29/2023; Published: 08/04/2023

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Abstract: With so many Artificial Intelligence (AI) art generating options now, the death of the artist has
been touted on many articles. With Midjourney, DALL-E 2, Craiyon (formerly DALLE-mini), and others, the
ability for seemingly anyone to create “art” or designs is at hand, but is this actually going to upend and
make art and design degrees obsolete? The proposed study investigates the use of generated digital
images from natural language descriptions for use in a traditional studio class. Through an investigation of
the strengths and limitations of the new approach to generating content in the creative visual arts, our
hypothesis is that such tools will provide new iterative and inspirational models for artists to improve their
creative workflow. While text prompts can now generate an unlimited number of AI art, the principles
behind art and design will remain necessary. As such, this study proposes a case study in the use of AI-
generative art for a traditional studio drawing class. Students were prompted to use the Craiyon art
generator to gather inspirational imagery for linear perspective studies regarding interior and exterior
spaces. Results of the study indicate that while students found that embedding AI into their creative process
positively impacted their final works by providing inspiration for new compositional solutions, the
corrections required with regards to perspectival inaccuracies ensured the final version required human
interventions and corrections. The study provides a model for other art and design departments seeking to
integrate AI into the curriculum through a pragmatic use case and example assignment.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, AI Art Generator, Artificial Intelligence, Studio Art, Creative Process, Creativity, Drawing

Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) art generators have received increased attention with the increased
creative potential demonstrated with the latest generation of such tools. At an ever-increasing
pace, both the abilities of AI tools and the alarm in the field of art have accelerated. Concerns
over copyright and ethical misuse of AI technology and laments over the “Death of the Artist”
have been heard (Ansari 2022; Murphy 2022). The controversy caused by the maturation of
AI and its new creative potential has led traditional arts practitioners to protest and call for a
ban on AI art (Sherry 2022). At the same time, such practical recommendations of how to
harness AI for the purposes of creativity have been touted and lamented almost exclusively in
the domains of internet blogs, online forums, and e-magazines like Forbes, Inc., and Wired.
The scholarly community has been instead focused on the theoretical and aesthetic
implications of the disruption caused by this emerging technology. For instance, Ajani (2022,
253) noted the two competing definitions for “art” in her study of the role of human
authorship in AI-generated content: “art as an expression of technique, art as a display of
sentiment.” In other words, art may be viewed and appreciated for its technical characteristics

17
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

or the ability to capture the human experience and elicit emotions. Inherent to the historical
framing of art is the assumption that has persisted since the Renaissance and survived the last
redefinition of art in the twentieth century—art can either be appreciated for the technical
prowess of the agent that created it (e.g., an artist, photographer, cinematographer, etc.) or
for the novel way sentimentality is affected via a work (Rosenberg 1983; Mulholland 2022).
Scholars continue to debate the role that AI should play in the creative process and valuation
in the artworld (Zhang and Lu 2021; Wellner 2022). Regardless of the field’s acceptance or
rejection of AI in a redefinition of art and the creative process, the disruption caused in the
workflow of practicing artists and designers is already being felt (Slotte Dufva 2023). The abilities

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

of AI art generators to offer new, innovative solutions to compositional design, color palette
choice, subject matter, and sundry formal elements is being noted by artists themselves (Compton
2022). Such use cases have yet to make their way to higher education and the instruction of studio
art in the classroom. As such, this study proposes a case study in the use of AI-generative art tools
within the context of a traditional studio art classroom. Students in an introductory drawing
course were prompted to use the Craiyon art generator to gather inspirational imagery for linear
perspective studies regarding interior and exterior spaces. Results of the study indicate that while
students found that embedding AI into their creative process positively impacted their final works
by providing inspiration for new compositional solutions, the corrections required with regards
to perspectival inaccuracies ensured the final version required human interventions and
corrections. The study provides a model for other art and design departments seeking to integrate
AI into the curriculum through a pragmatic use case and example assignment.

Literature Review

Previous discussions of AI art have focused on the theoretical and aesthetic framing and have
yet to address the practical application of the new technology in the classroom. For instance,
in a study begun in 2019, Ahmed (2020) framed discussions of AI in terms of a design-based
praxis emerging from the domain of arts and humanities. Adoption of AI as a design instead
of for a design has been seen through ephemeral interactive and immersive media
installations, as well as their permanent “physicalizations” as in media museums. In his 2020
review of interactive and immersive media installations, Ahmed (2020) argued that AI should
be seen as more than just a product or a traditional image for design. Ahmed (2020)
emphasized the importance of making “immaterial humanistic characteristics” such as
emotions, experiences, senses, and memories tangible and concrete. Instead, the interactions
humans have with AI-generated art embody AI as a design itself. The considerations raised,
however, do not address the notion of creativity, which has received more attention as of late.
The question of whether AI-generated art should be considered “art” at all often revolves
around questions of artistic creativity and autonomy. There have been innumerable
descriptions throughout history for “creativity.” For the purposes of this discussion, the
model devised by Csikszentmihályi (1988) should be considered and includes the following
three interrelated elements: an accepted domain of knowledge that is agreed upon, an agent

18
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

who produces something novel by altering a component of the domain, and experts in the
field that judge whether the novel production should be accepted into that domain or field.
Additionally, Jennings (2010) has since identified three criteria for an “agent” to qualify in a
system that may be considered volitional and features creative autonomy. These criteria
include autonomous evaluation where a system is able to evaluate the acceptance of its
creation without outside opinion, autonomous change where a system initiates and then
guides variations on a standard without being explicitly directed, and non-randomness where
the evaluations of a system are not purely random. Furthermore, Jennings (2010) applies the
preceding criteria to AI art and “creativity.” Applying these criteria to AI means that

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

progress[ing]from a capable apprentice to a creator in its own right, an AI system
must be able to both independently apply and independently change the standards
it uses. This ideal will be called ‘creative autonomy,’ and represents the system’s
freedom to pursue a course independent of its programmer’s or operator’s
intentions. (Jennings 2010, 491)

Ajani (2022, 258) notes that given these criteria, the artist/author is not the lone provocateur in
the creative process since creativity does not exist independently; instead, the author notes,
“creativity depends on individual capacity, acquisition of information and judgment by experts.”
In other words, creativity must be externally validated, and this frees the notion of “autonomy”
being applied to AI art. Humans with expertise in a given domain (art and/or design) must “judge”
whether the product may be considered “creative,” and the product cannot inherently be so.
The autonomous aspect of AI art has been further explored, and new criteria for judging
this new genre have been proposed. Cheng (2022) also recently investigated whether AI can be
creative and sought to define a new category of art genre for AI art. Citing the 2018 sale of the
AI Portrait of Edmond de Belamy at Christie’s, the author notes the controversy of whether the
work was created by a machine or human creativity. Other ethical questions were raised,
including the standard manner in which art is assessed as a form of communication between
different individuals. New approaches are required, argues Cheng (2022), that provide other
strategies other than historical approaches to artwork. The schema theory is called upon to help
frame the discussion as a critical empirical framework to better understand the audience
attitude toward art based on their artistic identity. Hong and Curran (2019, 58) define schema
as “any active processing data structure that organizes memory and guides perception,
performance, and thought.” In such a framework, schemata would include an understanding
of the concepts of art, the perceptions of the audience viewing (judging the work as creative or
not), the method of viewing artwork, and more. Opposing the judging requirements set out by
Jennings (2010) and Ajani (2022), Cheng (2022) argues that AI art should have different criteria
outside of the historical framing of an artistic work. The reasons cited are the new opportunities
provided by AI technologies to explore new creative processes, reframing the psychological
process of art in humans as re-embodied through computational abstraction processes, and,
perhaps most importantly for this study, creating new forms of art itself.

19
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Methodology
The mixed-methods study included data from surveys collected from students, instructor
feedback, and artifacts (AI-generative content and final drawings). The sample was collected
from a private, four-year, liberal arts institution in the suburban ring of St. Louis, Missouri.
Participants included twenty-five students from the College of Arts and Humanities and
Science, Health, and Technology enrolled in Drawing I, an introductory studio art course
with instruction in varied wet and dry media. The course learning objectives included
attending to problems in rendering objects, perspective, space, light, and composition. The
course was offered online, which presupposed a baseline knowledge of hardware and

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

software use to participate in the class. The purpose of the project was to assess pedagogical
best practices for the use of AI art generators through student perceptions, performance, and
feedback coupled with instructor feedback and observations.
The study involved one assignment in a studio art drawing course at the end of the Fall
2022 term. After reviewing different AI software and assignment alignment in the Drawing I
class, researchers found that the interior and exterior spaces in linear perspective assignments
were best aligned with the parameters of the study and research question. Determining the
mediating activities of students in response to the AI-generative content’s inability to accurately
portray linear perspective was the focus of the initial study. Students were prompted to use AI
in collecting inspirational imagery for their assignment on interior and exterior spaces and to
utilize the results in their final drawings. Students were then surveyed on their existing
expectations regarding AI-generative art prior to the assignment and surveyed again after
completing the assignment in order to glean further insight from the data collected.
This project utilized a mixed-methods approach to gather data, including qualitative
(open-ended comments) and quantitative (thematic) results from an online survey. The
survey instrument focused on the different methods for the use of AI art generators in
traditional studio art courses in order to inform the pedagogical considerations of future use
of the emerging technology. The survey was conducted in Fall of 2022. Data collected
afterward gauged student demographics, feedback on the experience of using AI for image
gathering and inspirational purposes, student preference for use cases of integrating AI-
generative content in their artmaking processes, and how the technology would best be
utilized in the future. Students were then asked an open-ended question regarding their
experience and what they felt AI was pedagogically best suited to accomplish. Students were
contacted either through the university course management system or were emailed with
links to online surveys. The survey was available for approximately one week at the outset of
the eight-week term and one week at the end. All data was collected using Qualtrics to ensure
privacy and anonymity of responses. These results were sorted based on demographics (such
as gender identity, major, age, etc.), and data were exported from the survey system.
Descriptive statistics were calculated and used for comparisons between groups. The final
artifacts that students produced were evaluated along with the results of the surveys to glean
more information on learning outcomes and more extensive feedback on the experiences.

20
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

Results

Of the twenty-five student respondents, 48% of participants were sophomores, 24% juniors, 16%
seniors, and 8% first year; 84% were between 18–24 years of age; 56% identified as female, 40%
male, and 4% non-binary; 84% identified as White, 12% Black or African American, 4% Hispanic
or Latino, and 4% Asian. Only 12% identified as first-generation college students. Additionally,
60% of participants were commuter students and 40% residential, and 40% of participants
reported that they primarily take classes online, 20% face-to-face, and 40% hybrid. Most students
were taking the class as a degree requirement as part of their major. Demographics reflect
traditional face-to-face demographics at institutions nationwide; however, the first-generation

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

percentage of students was low for all majors at the institution and indicates that those with
parents who at least have a bachelor’s degree are more open to non-vocational or applied majors
(Wright, Roscigno, and Quadlin 2021; Kosunen et al. 2021).

Pre-assignment Survey Results

With regards to comfort level and use of technology, 64% claimed to be somewhat or
extremely comfortable with technology in general, which aligns with the use of technology
among the majority of students between 18–24 years of age (Culp-Roche et al. 2020;
Hollandsworth 2022). When queried on whether students had used an AI-generative tool in
their artmaking process, 84% claimed that they had not, 12% stated that they had, and 4%
said they were unsure. Next, participants were asked how they felt about the use of AI in the
creation of art in general; 40% were neutral, 36% were somewhat positive, 12% extremely
negative, and 4% extremely positive.
Students were then asked to rank in order from most to least the ways in which they felt
AI art generators would be helpful in their artmaking processes (Figure 1). The following
were the results:

1. Suggest creative solutions (30.43%)

2. Provide a scientific approach to artmaking (30.43%)
3. Help in organizing existing ideas (17.39%)
4. Understanding how to leverage emerging technologies in art (13.04%)
5. Assist in creating new ideas (4.35%)
6. Better understand AI in general (4.35%)

21
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Figure 1: Student Rankings of the Perceived Usefulness of AI Art Generators in Their Artmaking Process Pre-assignment

Students were then asked if they would want to use an AI tool in their artmaking process,
and 56% responded as maybe, 24% stated that they would, and 20% stated they would not. The
last question was a free response essay and asked respondents to expand on how they feel these
tools could be helpful or not. Preconceptions about AI were more evident in the pre-assignment
survey. For instance, concerning the ethical use of AI and copyright, one student wrote that
they would be open to using the tool “so long as I don’t have to assess ethics I would feel
comfortable experimenting.” Another proclaimed that “art should be organic and should come
from the human brain—seems like the opposite of creativity.” On the other hand, most students
expressed an openness and willingness to use emerging technologies in their own processes,
though limiting the role played to formative and iterative functionality. Most reiterated that
they were “open to try it” as the experience might “open my mind to new ideas,” but when
being specific about how the tool might be used, students relegated it to “just the basics.”

Post-assignment Survey Results

When using prompts in both DALL-E 2 and Craiyon, the results reveal the current limitations
of AI with regards to traditional linear perspective techniques but also show inspiring and
innovative solutions to other compositional considerations. Following the assignment, students
were surveyed on their experiences. Participants were asked if they liked having the AI generator
exercises as part of the artmaking process in the class. In total, 62.50% responded affirmative,
12.50% unsure, and 25% negative. Next, students were asked if AI art generated applications
improved their final work. Reflecting the responses in the previous survey question, 58.33%
stated that the AI did improve their final work with the rest tied at 20.83% for maybe and no.
The next question was a free response essay asking students to elaborate on their previous
response to the usefulness of the tool in their process. Those that agreed the AI tool was helpful
noted the inspirational quality of the experience. Many students noted how the tool offered

22
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

“suggestions and ideas” and helped them “think of ideas for my drawing.” The iterative nature of
the process was relayed as students noted how the AI provided “a shape to base my idea off of”
and to “get rough outlines.” The benefits in assisting with compositional decisions was also noted
as one student stated, “It allowed me to have a greater understanding of where to place certain
objects within a room.” The sentiment was summed up by one student who noted how the tool
“helped realize what I was imagining immediately/streamlined process.” In all, the formative
processes of students were most often cited as being influenced by the use of AI.
Students were then asked if using the AI tool would be something they would consider
to help improve their art in the future. Interestingly, some students who claimed that it

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

helped them create a better final work for their project stated that they would not want to
use it in the future; 50% stated they would, 29.17% maybe, and 20.83% no. Next, students
were asked if their perception of the potential for AI art generators had changed over the
course of the term after using them in their own work. First, participants were asked if upon
first hearing about AI art generating applications if they thought they had the potential to
create on par with humans. Responses were nearly equally distributed with 37.50% claiming
that they were unsure, 33.33% yes, and 29.17% no. A similar distribution followed when
participants were asked if after using the tools in class whether or not AI applications could
create art on par with humans. In total, 37.50% stated that they did, and the same percentage
selected maybe, while 25% stated they did not.
Students were then asked to re-rank the same ways in which AI may be used to improve
their artmaking process (Figure 2). The distribution was much more even across the different
categories:

1. Help in organizing existing ideas (23.81%)

2. Assist in creating new ideas (19.05%)
3. Better understanding of AI in general (14.29%)
4. Assist in understanding linear perspective (14.29%)
5. Suggest creative solutions (9.52%)
6. Provide a scientific approach to artmaking (9.52%)
7. Understanding how to leverage emerging technologies in art (9.52%)

23
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Figure 2: Student Rankings of the Perceived Usefulness of AI Art Generators in Their Artmaking Process Post-assignment

Participants were then asked if they felt that AI art tools should be considered
comparable to Adobe Photoshop and other digital imaging tools. In total, 41.67% stated they
did not, 33.33% stated they did, and 25% stated they were unsure. Next, students were asked
if they felt students should be able to use AI art tools to assist in ideation and formative steps
in the artmaking process. Regarding this, 75% stated that AI should be allowed, and 12.50%
equally distributed for negative and unsure. A similar response was noted when participants
were asked if they felt students should be able to use AI art tools to complete and submit final
works for classes; 50% stated that they should, and 25% equally selected negative and unsure.
Returning to the question of the ethical use of AI, students were then asked if the use of the
AI tools provided insight into social issues and trends, and 50% of the participants selected
maybe, 29.17% stating that it did, and 20.83% stated that it did not.
The final question in the survey asked for additional insights into the experience and
perceived usefulness of AI art generators for art and design classes. Almost all responses were
positive and indicated a general sense of surprise in working with the technology compared to
previous misconceptions. As one student noted, “Not what I expected it to be.” The user-friendly
nature of the tool was also a highlight. A student noted that they were “surprised at how intuitive
the image making worked with my keywords.” Most students noted how the tool allowed them
to build on formative ideas and that AI supported problem solving for new creative solutions. For
instance, one student noted “I thought the AI was fun to play around with and create a base of
the start of an idea.” Another noted that “The generators make it easier to bring abstract ideas
closer to an actual finished product.” One respondent did note their disapproval, stating that: “AI
art tools use other artists’ work without their consent and don’t require any process from the
individual generating the art other than using a search query.” However, overall, students were
supportive of the integration of the new technology in their traditional artmaking process. A final
student response summarizes the general sentiment of the cohort: “It gave me a lot of inspiration

24
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

as for what I should include within my drawing as well as allowing me to understand the design
of numerous kinds of furniture items.” The statement reflects the process most students took in
generating multiple images from the AI tool to synthesize into a final drawing to be discussed.

Instructor Observations and Artifacts

In consideration of qualitative feedback from the instructor and the artifacts submitted by
students, the results from the survey are reinforced in that the inspirational and iterative
characteristics of AI are demonstrable. The instructor noted that the class seemed as though
they had not considered using AI for their own artmaking process and that the integration of

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

the tool was novel to them. As such, the use of the tool was unprecedented in the department
and student processes could have been multivariant. It should also be noted that because the
class was introductory, the assessment of whether AI could create on par with humans must
be considered given the level of experience students had. Despite the technical limitations, as
noted, students agreed that the “inspirational” qualities of the tool were beneficial to their
artmaking processes and modified or improved their own workflow.
The instructions given to students had them investigate whether AI could, in fact,
properly render linear perspective. As most noted, AI was unable to effectively converge
orthogonal lines on a vanishing point and often also included typical photographic
distortions of parallel lines as in a fish-eye lens, as seen in Figure 3.1. Because of the
distortions, participants in the study altered the results from prompts to “correct” perspectival
renderings, as with the student example in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1: AI Generated Image of a Potting Shed (2022)

25
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Figure 3.2: Student Artwork Based on AI Potting Shed Image, 2022
Source: Autumn Handly, Student, Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, MO, USA

Moreover, the relative crudeness of the AI generated drawings was a limiting factor for
first-year students. In previous iterations of the assignment, students would generate more
sophisticated and fully rendered works of art without the aid of AI. However, more creative
and interesting items found their way into the rooms as a result of the use of the new tool.
Some of the objects that were generated include a wave master punching bag, ceiling lamp,
wall shrine, cobblestone flooring, floor mat, Christmas lights, a pirate flag, a Japanese
window, and an assortment of unrefined or awkwardly generated chairs and beds. While
some students (such as seen in Figure 3.2) based their final drawing on a single AI-generative
example, most used the tool to generate many iterations that were used to synthesize into a
final drawing. For instance, the student who used prompts to generate the three AI examples
in Figure 4.1 sought to be inspired by different elements of individual pieces of domestic
furniture instead of a full interior space. The three disparate elements were combined in an
interior space rendered by the student themselves in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1: AI Generated Images of Domestic Furnishings

26
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Figure 4.2: Student Artwork Based on AI Domestic Furnishings Image, 2022
Source: Rebekah Kirchhofer, Student, Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, MO, USA

Other students took advantage of the iterative capabilities of the tool and generated many
more samples to draw from. Seen in Figure 5.1, one student generated twelve examples of
various domestic interior spaces, such as a clock, bookshelf, chairs, and more. The student
selectively included elements from these in their final work (Figure 5.2). The clock became a
central feature, and the unique chair can also be seen. The working process adopted by students
and insight into future use of AI in traditional studio art courses is relayed with one student
response: “I used artificial intelligence to create a dining table with a palm growing in the
middle, with a tv on the back.” The text-based prompts opened new ways for visual arts students
to find connections between language and visual elements in their art. As in these examples,
students can quickly find creative solutions to anything that comes to mind and see if the
examples provided by the AI tool are valuable to incorporate into their final project.

27
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Figure 5.1: AI Generated Images of Domestic Interior Geometric Shapes (2022)

Figure 4.2: Student Artwork Based on AI Domestic Interior Geometric Shapes, 2022
Source: Rachel Anderson, Student, Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, MO, USA

28
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

Conclusion

The potential future impact of AI-generative tools on traditional art and design curriculum is
profound. As the study confirms, the use of AI-generative tools did not necessarily result in the
production of well-rendered final drawings in an introductory drawing class but did provide
new inspirational models for students and improve their creative workflow. Therefore, while
the inspirational and iterative potential of new emerging technologies like AI art generators
should be integrated into fundamental design courses and initial phases of the artmaking
process, students will still need to continue developing their technical skills to correctly render
their ideas with aesthetic success. In addition to restructuring the curriculum to integrate these

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

new tools, the role of the artists in the creative process needs to be reevaluated. As such, future
research should focus on an art and design curriculum modified to focus less on technical
construction and instead on the conceptual framework of creativity. For instance, a class needs
to be created on the proper use of text prompts for AI generated art to better understand and
predict the outcome as desired for different ideation processes. The ability to manipulate the
algorithm will be the future purview of artists as it has been for computer scientists.

Informed Consent

The author has obtained informed consent from all participants.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, Danyal. 2020. “Senses, Experiences, Emotions, Memories: Artificial Intelligence as a

Design Instead of for a Design in Contemporary Japan.” Intelligent Buildings
International 14 (2):133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2020.1764327.
Ajani, Gianmaria. 2022. “Human Authorship and Art Created by Artificial Intelligence—
Where Do We Stand?” In Digital Ethics: The Issue of Images, edited by Thomas Dreier
and Tiziana Andina, 253–270. London: Bloomsbury.
Ansari, Tasmia. 2022. “How AI Transformed the Art World in 2022.” Analytics India Magazine
(AIM), October 30, 2022. https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-ai-transformed-the-art-
world-in-2022/.
Cheng, Mingyong. 2022. “The Creativity of Artificial Intelligence in Art.” In Proceedings of the
2021 Summit of the International Society for the Study of Information, vol. 81., 110.
https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022081110.
Compton, Nick. 2022. “Generative Art: The Creatives Powering the AI Art Boom.”
Wallpaper, December 12, 2022. https://www.wallpaper.com/art/generative-art.

29
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ARTS

Csikszentmihályi, Mihály. 1988. “Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of

Creativity.” The Nature of Creativity—Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, edited
by Robert Sternberg, 325–339. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culp-Roche, Amanda, Debra Hampton, Angie Hensley, Jessica Wilson, Amanda Thaxton-
Wiggins, Jo Ann Otts, Sharon Fruh, and Debra K. Moser. 2020. “Generational
Differences in Faculty and Student Comfort with Technology Use.” SAGE Open
Nursing 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2377960820941394.
Hollandsworth, Matthew David. 2022. “The Effect of Generation Z Entering the Security
Profession: A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study.” PhD diss., Northcentral University.
Hong, Joo-Wha, and Nathaniel Ming Curran. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence, Artists, and Art:

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

Attitudes toward Artwork Produced by Humans vs. Artificial Intelligence.” ACM
Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) 15
(2s): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326337.
Jennings, Kyle E. 2010. “Developing Creativity: Artificial Barriers in Artificial Intelligence.”
Minds and Machines 20:489–501 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9206-y.
Kosunen, Sonja, Nina Haltia, Juhani Saari, Suvi Jokila, and Esa Halmkrona. 2021. “Private
Supplementary Tutoring and Socio-Economic Differences in Access to Higher
Education.” Higher Education Policy 34 (4): 949–968.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00177-y.
Mulholland, Neil. 2022. “Definitions of Art and the Art World.” In Exploring Visual Culture, edited
by Matthew Rampley, 18-33. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Murphy, Brendan Paul. 2022. “Is Lensa AI Stealing from Human Art? An Expert Explains the
Controversy.” Science Alert, December 15, 2022. https://www-sciencealert-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.sciencealert.com/is-lensa-ai-stealing-from-
human-art-an-expert-explains-the-controversy/amp.
Rosenberg, Harold. 1983. The De-Definition of Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sherry, Ben. 2022. “3 Limits to Artificial Intelligence’s Creativity (and How to Solve Them):
Here’s What You Need to Know about Harnessing A.I. Technology to be More
Creative.” Inc., December 16, 2022. https://www.inc.com/ben-sherry/3-limits-to-
artificial-intelligences-creativity-and-how-to-solve-them.html.
Slotte Dufva, Tomi. 2023. “Entanglements in AI Art.” In Global Media Arts Education, 181–
196. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wellner, Galit. 2022. “Digital Imagination, Fantasy, AI Art.” Foundations of Science 27 (4):
1445–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09747-0.
Wright, Ashley L., Vincent J. Roscigno, and Natasha Quadlin. 2021. “First-Generation
Students, College Majors and Gendered Pathways.” Sociological Quarterly 64 (1): 67–
90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2021.1989991.
Zhang, Caiming, and Yang Lu. 2021. “Study on Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art
and Future Prospects.” Journal of Industrial Information Integration 23:100224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100224.

30
 HUTSON AND ROBERTSON: A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

James Hutson: Department Head of Art History and Visual Culture, College of Arts
and Humanities, Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, Missouri, USA
Corresponding Author’s Email: jhutson@lindenwood.edu

Bryan Robertson: Associate Professor of 2D Visual Arts, Yavapai College, Prescott,

Arizona, USA
Email: brobertson@lindenwood.edu

Downloaded by Imma Riera on Sun Aug 06 2023 at 03:39:49 AM CDT

31