AI and the vanishing hand: AI art vs human art

PATIENCE MUSA

 

A painting is displayed in a gallery.

The brushwork is delicate, the composition moving.

Viewers are drawn in—until they find out it was generated by artificial intelligence. Suddenly, their awe fades, replaced by skepticism. The question today isn’t just what we consider art, but who we believe the artist really is.

As artificial intelligence continues its rapid evolution, the creative industries find themselves caught in a strange dance: admiration, resistance, curiosity, and concern. AI art is no longer novelty—it’s flooding social media feeds, entering competitions, and even hanging in museums. But who’s winning in this emerging rivalry—human artists or the algorithms?

Around the world, reactions are mixed. “AI art isn’t art… it’s lazy,” posted one disgruntled artist on Reddit, echoing a sentiment widely shared across online forums  . Others take a more reflective view. In a 2024 Salzburg Global program, Nigerian artist Malik Afegbua described his use of AI as “co-creation,” saying, “I look at AI as a tool… I work with it to speed up my workflow or create more variations… I don’t let it dictate the final result”  .

Indeed, the debate has intensified around issues of ethics and consent. Critics say generative AI models often train on human artists’ work without authorization—essentially “labour theft”—and pose real threats to creative professions  . A 2024 survey of 459 artists found overwhelming concern: creators demand transparency in training-data use, fair compensation, and rightful ownership—all amid anxiety that their art could be used to replace them  .

But not all artists see AI as a threat. Senegalese artist Linda Dounia Rebeiz—who works with her own GAN-trained datasets—warns against generic AI tools like DALL·E or Midjourney. “With DALL‑E, it seems impossible to get around the bias… it wasn’t working,” she said, describing how she creates distinct botanical and architectural datasets to ensure authenticity  . She argues for more culturally grounded AI art design and is curating Black artists working in AI toward that goal  .

The African context adds unique complexity. When AI, trained primarily on Western images, begins generating “African” art, questions arise: whose Africa is being portrayed—and who gets to tell these stories? Unequal access to technology risks relegating African creators to mere consumers, rather than innovators, in the AI art space.

Experts note a glimmer of hope. Afegbua’s viral “Elder Series,” which used AI to depict seniors in runway fashion, was praised by WHO and CNN for challenging ageism, demonstrating how AI can open new creative narratives rooted in culture and social justice  .

Globally, legal battles are intensifying. In the U.S., artists like Kelly McKernan have sued Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, arguing every AI-generated image is “an infringing, derivative work” because training datasets included their work without consent  .

In Africa, including Zimbabwe, the conversation around AI and art faces a crucial challenge: unequal access to reliable internet and advanced technology. While AI tools flourish in well-connected parts of the world, many African artists contend with slow connections, expensive data, and limited hardware. This digital divide risks sidelining local creators from fully participating in the AI art revolution. Angela Wamola, Head of Sub-Saharan Africa at GSMA, cautions, “AI will not work in isolation or out of a cloud. AI will work with the technology that is available on the continent. And so, when we start seeing the digital divide that already exists, the question is: Will AI drive further digital inclusion, or at the moment, does AI look more like an emerging risk to widening the digital divide?” The consequence is stark: delayed adoption of AI tools may limit the industry’s growth, innovation, and global competitiveness, potentially widening the gap between African artists and their international peers. For Zimbabwe’s arts sector, this means urgent investment in digital infrastructure and education is critical—not just to catch up but to ensure African stories and aesthetics thrive in the evolving AI era.

So who’s winning—art or algorithm? Perhaps the better question is how we negotiate the evolving role of AI. Algorithms can generate at scale, but they lack the consciousness, context, and cultural depth that come with human experience. The challenge now is to build an ecosystem where AI assists rather than replaces, elevates rather than diminishes, and respects rather than appropriates.

If AI can help democratize creation, diversify narratives, and empower artists—especially in Africa—then it can become a powerful collaborator. But if it continues to exploit human labour, reproduce stereotypes, or sideline creative communities, the future of art becomes murky.

We’re not in a duel. We’re in a negotiation—and the future belongs to those who choose to wield AI with integrity, cultural awareness, and human intention.

 

Related