Introduction
In the past decade, AI-generated painting has emerged as an unavoidable topic in contemporary art discourse. With platforms such as DALL·E, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion entering the public sphere, AI-generated images are no longer just cold technical experiments; they are increasingly being presented as “artworks” in galleries, auction houses, and even academic journals. At the same time, debates over whether AI painting possesses originality, or whether it deserves copyright protection, continue to intensify. This is not merely a technical issue, but rather a dual challenge involving both aesthetics and law. The legitimacy of AI painting must be examined through both philosophical and legal frameworks.
The Philosophical Question of Originality
Philosophically, originality has long been regarded as the core of artistic value. Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Judgment, argued that genius is defined by its ability to create rules that cannot be taught. This implies that originality is inseparable from the artistic subject: it is not only a matter of skill, but also an expression shaped by personal experience, emotion, and spirit.
AI, however, operates differently. Its creative process depends on training data and algorithmic logic. What appears as “originality” is actually the recombination and transformation of existing materials, lacking intentionality. In philosophy, intentionality refers to the subject’s ability to consciously express meaning. As Martin Heidegger put it, art is the process by which truth comes into being. Yet AI, operating through statistical probabilities, has no intent to reveal truth; it only generates images that may align with human aesthetics. Originality requires subjectivity, which AI fundamentally lacks.
AI and Human Creativity: A Complex Relationship
But if we consider AI as a tool, the issue becomes more complicated. When photography first emerged in the 19th century, it was also questioned as to whether it could be considered art. Photography was initially seen as mechanical reproduction rather than creation. However, thanks to figures like Alfred Stieglitz, photography eventually secured a place within the art system. Will AI painting undergo a similar trajectory?
To address this, we must compare concrete works. Consider the oil painting “Aleph—When Love Grows” (200×200cm, 2020, by artist PHILO, see Artphiloso.com). This large-scale canvas embodies both a poetic reconstruction of the body and nature, and a metaphysical meditation on emotion and existence.
Artwork Analysis: From Visual Details to Philosophical Metaphors
The painting adopts an overhead perspective: a figure, shown from the back, sits curled with arms raised upward, surrounded by shell-like folds, petals, and watery textures forming a vortex-like concentric structure. The body merges with the world—both embraced by nature and positioned as its center. The overhead composition establishes a structural equivalence between body and cosmos, intensifying the sense of generative centrality.
Large areas of cold blues and greens contrast with warm flesh tones. The cool tones create depth, while the warmer passages highlight bodily warmth. In the lower left, a sudden red shape interrupts harmony, resembling a fissure, wound, or scar—introducing an “event.” This interplay shifts the painting from lyrical to psychologically complex. Color becomes a field of tension between body and world.
The paint surface reveals visible accumulations: hard and soft edges alternate between shell-like and aqueous forms, while the skin is rendered more delicately. Broad brushstrokes, glazing, and scraping leave material traces. These are not mere stylistic effects—they embody the irreversibility of time. While AI can mimic brushwork, it lacks this temporal depth. Hand painting compresses time into matter, making it part of style itself.
The concentric folds resemble both floral crowns and protective shells, suggesting growth and shelter. The figure’s back appears vulnerable yet self-contained, creating tension with the environment. The title “Aleph” recalls Jorge Luis Borges’ notion of seeing “all things in a single point”: the back becomes a cosmic center, the folds and waters extending infinitely outward. The body here functions as both personal experience and universal metaphor.
By depicting the back rather than the face, the artist shields the subject from being consumed as identity. The viewer engages with posture rather than facial expression, transforming observation into empathetic recognition. The back view is simultaneously a form of privacy and an ethical gesture. It establishes boundaries, turning vision into respect rather than possession.
At 200×200cm, the work demands full bodily engagement from the viewer. One must step back, approach, and move across the canvas to perceive its multiple layers. This kind of viewing depends on the physical presence of the painting, in stark contrast to the one-time display of AI images on a screen. The physical scale generates an irreplaceable sense of presence.
The Essential Difference Between AI and Original Art
From this comparison, the differences between AI-generated works and original art are not merely about “human vs. machine.” They involve at least six dimensions:
The essence of original art lies in the subject’s engagement with matter and time; the essence of AI painting lies in reproducing and approximating data distributions.
The Legal Dilemma of Copyright
Legally, the tension is equally stark. According to the Berne Convention and most national copyright laws, protection is granted only to works created by humans.
As a result: if a work is created entirely by AI, it is unlikely to be protected; but if humans play a decisive role in directing, selecting, or editing, some jurisdictions may grant copyright. At present, AI painting occupies a global legal gray zone.
The Art Market and Value Judgment
In the art market, originality and rarity define value. AI paintings, being infinitely replicable and rapidly produced, lack uniqueness. By contrast, a work like PHILO’s “Aleph—When Love Grows” is more than an image; it embodies labor, materiality, and temporal depth, which give it scarcity.
AI painting, however, often circulates within NFT platforms and digital art marketplaces. Its value is volatile, relying on hype and technological novelty rather than sustained cultural accumulation. The art market consistently privileges works tied to lived experience and cultural depth.
Ethics and Cultural Implications
The ethics of AI painting cannot be ignored. Training datasets often scrape massive numbers of artworks; without permission, this amounts to style appropriation. Many artists have publicly protested on social media, demanding that AI models obtain consent before using their works.
This issue is not just legal—it affects the sustainability of the cultural ecosystem. If original artists’ labor is devalued, the art industry risks destabilization. Future regulation must set clear boundaries: for instance, through data traceability systems ensuring transparency and fair compensation when AI models use copyrighted materials. The ethical risks of AI highlight the necessity of evolving institutions alongside technology.
Where Philosophy and Law Converge
The absence of subjectivity in philosophy and the absence of authorship in law converge on the same conclusion: AI cannot fully replace original art, but it can serve as a new tool for creativity. The future likely points toward human–AI co-creation, where artists use AI to generate conceptual images, later transforming them into deeper works through painting, sculpture, or other media. This path leverages AI’s technical strengths while preserving the irreplaceable value of human creativity. AI painting is not a substitute, but a potential partner for original art.
Conclusion
So, can AI painting be considered original art? The answer is complex. Philosophically, AI lacks subjectivity, and thus cannot meet the essential requirements of originality. Legally, AI paintings remain in a copyright gray zone. Practically, however, AI is becoming a valuable tool in artistic workflows. Compared with PHILO’s “Aleph—When Love Grows”, AI works resemble extensions of possibility rather than final expressions. True originality still demands human experience, risk, and spirit. AI challenges the definition of art, but also compels us to rethink what art truly is.
About Artphiloso
Hi, I’m Philo, a Chinese artist passionate about blending traditional Asian art with contemporary expressions. Through Artphiloso, my artist website, I share my journey and creations—from figurative painting and figure painting to floral oil painting and painting on landscape. You'll also find ideas for home decorating with paint and more.
FAQ
What is AI painting?
AI painting refers to images generated by artificial intelligence models (e.g., deep learning algorithms) such as MidJourney or DALL·E.
Does AI painting have copyright?
In most countries, purely AI-generated works are not protected, as copyright requires a human author. If humans play a decisive role in directing or editing, some regions may recognize their rights.
Is AI painting considered original?
Philosophically, originality requires subjectivity and intentionality. Since AI lacks these, its works cannot be equated with human originality. However, they may inspire new creative directions.
Will AI replace human artists?
AI is more likely to serve as a tool than a replacement. It expands creative methods but cannot substitute for the depth of human experience and cultural context.
What is the future of AI painting?
The future likely lies in co-creation, where AI provides conceptual visuals and human artists transform them into meaningful works, similar to hybrid practices in digital art studios.