Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, 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.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Women in Red This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes. 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts Visual arts portal 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. 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Artificial Intelligence 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. 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 Technology portal 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. 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. 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 Low‑importance Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Artificial intelligence image generation. The result of the discussion was not moved.

I disagree that it is exactly art

The point of these AI pictures is to create an imitation of a real subject. It's not real art because it doesn't have a basis in reality, the same way that an AI image of a photo isn't a real photo. I think that the article title should be "AI-created media" or something like that. 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:2D (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about artificial intelligence visual art. The article says, for example, "the Whitney Museum of American Art exhibited AI art from throughout Cohen's career." We are not going to decide "the curatorial staffs of prominent art museums really have no idea what art is, we are instead going to go with the personal opinions about art expressed by Wikipedia editor 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:2D" This is an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources, not a Wikipedia editor's personal opinions about art. If there is anything in this article that is not about art, then, yes, it is off topic and can be moved to another article, like maybe Text-to-image model or AI slop or elsewhere. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Automatons?

This article seems highly fallacious. How is it going to assert that automatons carried creativity and intelligence? It is a complete misrepresentation of fact. ~2026-52160-3 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2026

It has been proposed in this section that Artificial intelligence visual art be renamed and moved to AI artAI art. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Artificial intelligence visual art → AI artAI art – More common name. None of the sources say "Artificial Intelligence visual art" in their titles.

Note that Dictionary.com lists AI as an adjective but not Artificial Intelligence. Seeing the latter used as an adjective in this article title gives the impression of an out-of-touch style guide. – MW_(t•c) 08:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. use full name. avoid to create additional, possible confusion using acronym when the current title is clear already. Cfls (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per nom + WP:CONCISE. The acronym "AI" primarily refers to artificial intelligence and as noted by nom, "AI" is used as adjective. My reading of guidelines (WP:ACROTITLE and MOS:ACROTITLE) doesn't preclude AI art as title (though AI for Artificial intelligence wouldn't be appropriate). I can't imagine this creating confusion.

I this proposal has a potential issue of scope (WP:PRECISION). Removing "visual" from the title may blur the lines between this article and, e.g., Music and artificial intelligence. I would prefer "AI visual art" over "Artificial intelligence visual art" per nom. We may need a broad-concept article titled something like Art and artificial intelligence that covers all types of art and AI, but that's a separate conversation.

Also noting a related discussion at WP:CFD started by the proposer [1] Wracking ^talk! 07:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose using the acronym in the title per MOS:ACROTITLE, "our strong preference for natural disambiguation. Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes." I support removing "visual" from the title per WP:COMMONNAME. Using "visual art" is overly pedantic because worrying someone might come to this article expecting it to be about music is like worrying people will come to an art museum expecting it to be full of music. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there anything AI art would be ambiguous with? – MW_(t•c) 12:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - "AI art" is the more common name and it used frequently on social media. Guz13 (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computer graphics, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Visual arts have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashelham (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ashelham (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]