Xania Monet, a completely AI-generated musical artist, has amassed 37 million streams on Spotify, with her hit song “How Was I Supposed To Know?” peaking at number 30 on the Billboard Adult R&B Airplay chart.

This recent, but steadily growing, encroachment by generative AI into artistic spaces has been mirrored across many different genres and mediums of art, raising concerns about what constitutes “real” art and whether or not legal protections should be instituted to safeguard these spaces that are seen by some as strictly human. Elizabeth Hewitt, LASA’s art teacher, believes that AI art is not real art.

“[Art is] something that makes humans question in a way controlled by the artist,” Hewitt said. 

The resoluteness of her “No” isn’t shared by all artists, however. Some, such as Bryce Dallas, a Dallas-based tattoo artist, believe generative AI can be used tastefully.

“I don’t think [AI] has no applicational ability in art,” Dallas said.“I think people have used it in artistic ways, and I even like some of the stuff that people make when they’re really pushing the boundaries of imagination and expression.”

While the use of AI in art is highly controversial, artists around the world have called for legislation to be put in place to make AI-generated art more easily distinguishable from human-made art. These laws would work to balance transparency with innovation, according to Frontiers, aligning with beliefs shared by both Dallas and Hewitt.

“[Some people] are using it negatively,” Dallas said. “People are making stuff that you can’t distinguish from reality, and they’re using it for propaganda.”

While legislation restricting AI is still being deliberated over, very little has been put into place, especially in the U.S. This has led many artists like Hewitt to view AI’s restriction as a futile endeavor.

“It’s … getting harder for people to know what’s real and what’s not real,” Hewitt said. “But you can’t restrict it. It’s not enforceable, and it’s just not possible.”