Talk:AI art

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2026. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AI art article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts

Computer graphics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artificial Intelligence Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests:
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup:
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit:
- Computing
Expand:
- Computer science
Infobox:
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain:
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo:
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs:
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced:
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related:
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

European history (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history

Robotics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.

Discussions

Not moved, 28 February 2024, to Artificial intelligence image generation, see discussion.
Moved, 11 February 2026, from Artificial intelligence visual art to AI art, see discussion.

Replace all instances where artificial image generation is referred to as art.

Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Hello, I am of the opinion that this article should be revised so that every mention of artificially generated art, should be amended to read "artificially generated imagery". Other phrases such as "images", "image generation", and ""art"" can be used. And that where the word "artist" is referenced referring to someone who prompts an artificial intelligence model to create imagery, the word "artist" should be replaced with "prompter", as these people do not have a significant enough involvement in the creative process to earn the title of artist. I believe this is necessary as artificially generated pictures are not a form of art, and due to Wikipedia's goal of maintaining accuracy I believe that it is imperative that the article be changed to support this. I'm not going to bother justifying why artificially created "art" is not art, as that is not the point of this talk page. I simply believe that the term "art" used in this page is misleading to the readers. 144.6.121.250 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

no, for two main reasons

we're not meant to assume intent with any of those words. the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that
what we are meant to do is compile what sources say. the sources call it art, the article calls it art
what you mentioned two threads up is effectively using wikipedia as a source, and what you mentioned here would be original research, which are... not optimal play

this isn't to say that i agree or disagree with your points about what the piss puddles are or aren't, i actually agree with most of them, just that the way wikipedia works is geared towards not taking any given editor's personal opinion into account in mainspace unless it can be backed up with a source

as is, sources already exist calling it "art", so regardless of whether or not it's to be taken literally, that's the name that stuck, and it's unlikely that future sources with conflicting names will come in droves large and consistent enough to actually get the article renamed, instead of just having a section added about whether or not it should be referred to as "art"

what do you mean those weren't two? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

So do you think it's worth adding perhaps a section that mentions all this? Perhaps labelled controversy or something? 58.178.132.192 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

if sources are found, a section like this can and probably will be added. such is the nature of wikipedia~

...or in more pessimistic terms, "maybe not with what we currently have" consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 23:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok I'll just gather sources then. Considering there is plenty. 58.178.131.30 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

About the "the sources call it art, the article calls it art" section. The fact one calls it art does not make it art, because sources can be biased and as such, wrong. That is why one cannot exactly boil it down to "the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that", for calling it "art" is factually wrong. Analytic philosophy exists for a reason, the meaning of the words used are meant to be universally understood, agreed upon, and most importantly factual. It is inherently inaccurate to call it art, and if it is not corrected from "art" to "image generation", it misleads readers. While "There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art" (from the Wiki page for art), however the article states "Artificial intelligence visual art, or AI art, is visual artwork" but when you check visual artwork's Wiki to which the link redirects, it clearly states "Current usage of the term "visual arts" includes fine art as well as applied or decorative arts and crafts" and excludes generative art. Therefore, I would like to formally request to either edit or rewrite the article regarding AI "art", or "visual arts". I believe for the sake of clarity it is of utmost importance to add some clarity to the AI art page, regardless whether or not someone agrees with my views or not, solely for the sake of clarifying said viewpoints brought up in my comment. Okasawa Michio (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at WP:V and WP:NOR. You won't get anywhere on Wikipedia saying that the sources could be wrong so we should rewrite the article based on your personal opinion. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:NOTSOURCE my understanding is that we're not able to reference other wikipedia articles to determine policy. On whether 'philosophy says...' its completely arbitrary to use one form of reasoning over another. We use sources; See WP:PSTS. And to say 'sources are biased' is just a fact. That doesn't mean they're wrong, even if some positivist philosophy has taught you that its possible to purge bias. In this case you seem to be saying, O. M., that we should ignore what the authority says and rely on what we collectively think. That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOTADEMOCRACY --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Artful Dodger is indeed full of art but not the kind concerned with aesthetics. I'd say AI art is roughly equivalent. Arlo James Barnes (pro-∪nion) 01:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Split proposal

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article talks about two things at once that are intertwined but not the same; that is, the generation of images with AI, and the use of AI for art. Plus, the term "AI art" is contentious; art is often understood as the expression of human emotion, and as such there is debate whether AI-generated works can be called "art". That's why I think this article should be split in two; "AI image" for the technology used in image production, and "Artificial intelligence and art", for the use of such technology in art. DaniPine3 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

OPPOSE This split already exists. "The use of AI for art" is the topic of this article, AI art. "The generation of images with AI" is basically the topic of the article Text-to-image model, which is linked to in the first paragraph of this article. If there is any part of this article that is not about "Ai art" and is instead about the general "generation of images with AI" then that could likely be merged into Text-to-image model or just removed. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Asparagusstar: The problem is, the redirect Artificial intelligence image generation still exists, which is definitely not the same as AI art, as DaniPine3 pointed out. It should direct to text-to image.Wuerzele (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This proposal is to split this "AI art" article into two new articles. As I said, those two articles already exist, so the proposal really just amounts to changing the names of these articles. If you agree with the proposal here that "Artificial intelligence and art" is a better article title then "AI art" and you agree that "AI image" is a better title than "Text-to-image model," then maybe just put a bold "support" in front of your comment. I have added a bold "oppose" in front of mine. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q&A suggestion

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't we add a QnA for the people who start complaining on talk about the page using the term art? ~2026-46339-19 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 24 August 2026 and 9 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Squirrelnddl (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Squirrelnddl (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 22 October 2026

Latest comment: 15 days ago16 comments13 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move. Besides the overwhelming opposition to moving, I note that the original reason for requesting a move (a perceived non-neutral title) is somewhat of a misapplication of neutrality - the title "AI art" is not an endorsement of the contested belief that AI images are "truly" art, but a reflection of the phrase most people know it by. Also partially a snow close. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 17:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

AI art → Machine Learning image generation – Many consider AI images not to be art, and so I would not consider this title to be sufficiently neutral CWikiedits1 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. AI art is the common name for this topic, see WP:COMMONNAME. Maintaining a commonly used, clear, and simple article title easily outweights an unsupported claim that it is not 'sufficiently neutral'. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose. "AI art" is the common name, and the claims that AI-generated images are not art is a fringe POV. O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as proposed. No justification for "learning" to be uppercase has been provided. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose under WP:COMMONNAME. There may be scope for a rename to AI image generation, though - when that was first suggested in February 2024 the article was primarily written in the context of art and artists, but that was before wider adoption of AI for the generation of other types of images (memes, website prototyping, "slop" restaurant posters, etc) which the article now covers as well. Belbury (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong Oppose This article is about "AI art" -- the notable use of AI by notable artists, notable art museum exhibitions, etc. It is on a more specific topic of "art" rather than just "images," and on a more broad topic of any and all "AI" processes used in art history, not just the smaller subset of AI that is "machine learning." Anyone interested in editing an article on "Machine Learning image generation" can just edit Text-to-image model where the lead sentence describes "machine learning model which ... produces an image." If any editors have added off-topic content to this article about random restaurant posters or memes, that should be removed as part of the normal process of cleaning up low-competence off-topic editing. Asparagusstar (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have moved many paragraphs that were about the general topic of text-to-image models to the article Text-to-image model. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
And I have reverted these mass removals of longstanding, largely well-referenced content.

It is evident from your comment above that you want this article to reflect your personal definition of the term "AI art" and think that the various reliable sources that you removed use the term "art" wrongly, e.g. , ("art generated by artificial intelligence"/ "AI-crafted visual art"), ("Midjourney, The Generative Art AI That Rivals DALL-E") etc.

However, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles should reflect reliable sources rather than editors' personal opinions.

There may be other, more valid rationales for moving some material between these two articles, or for covering overlapping topics with more detail in one than the other (cf. WP:SUMMARY). I'd also support removing content without reliable sources, and (like in any art article) examples of works or artists whose important for the genre is not substantiated by independent RS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, these are the not my personal definitions. "AI" is a broader term than "text-to-image model," "art" is a broader term than "images," and sources on "AI art" cover a much wider range than this article currently does. WP:NPOV requires this article to reflect reliable sources rather than be so heavily focused on some editors' personal interests in just one specific type of AI and one specific type of art. The recent state of this article, like having a laundry list of text-to-image product announcements and text-to-image how-to guides, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to text-to-image models, that is better off covered in the Text-to-image model article. This is sort of like if we had a sculpture article that was 95% dedicated to just recent products and how-to-guides for just the potter's wheel. We would move that info to the more specific article. Regards, Asparagusstar (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. As noted above there seem to be two different topics, and accordingly the appropriate solution is two articles - one on AI-generated images in general, and this one, on 'AI Art'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
oppose. too many words to avoid using a common name, especially when it avoids using the key term "artificial intelligence" consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support calling it AI generated images seems a more neutral way to describe these images. CycoMa2 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Besides the various issues that others noted above already, the proposal also overlooks that (like the term and article art) this article isn't currently limited to images. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes AI snow is indistinquishable from real snow. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact the AI art is indeed a form of art given that it's human input filtered through a tool with no free will of its own. One must not actually like art to acknowledge it is art, and with a banana taped to a wall and an unmodified urinal having been acknowledged as true artistic works, saying that an AI-created image somehow isn't is purely down to matters of personal opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.