Does AI enhance creativity, or does it threaten it?

Many people (especially those who work in creative fields) are currently concerned about the rapid development of AI. You, on the other hand, are actively working with it. Why? And to what extent do you feel that AI might present an even greater challenge to you as an artist?

This concern is entirely justified. We are faced with fundamental, largely unresolved questions: Who is the creator? Who bears responsibility? How do we prevent misuse? There is a lack of clear guidelines—and that is precisely what makes the situation so explosive. AI is deeply impacting artistic, moral, and political structures. At the same time, we are witnessing a global race for technological supremacy, while European policymakers often react rather than shape the future. In many areas, we do not yet fully understand the consequences of our own actions.

That is precisely why I believe it is crucial to actively engage with AI. It is not a passing fad, but a structural turning point. Those who shy away from it cede interpretive authority to others—and with it, the shaping of our future. I work with AI deliberately to understand its mechanisms, explore its possibilities, and reveal its limitations. My goal is a self-determined approach, not blind conformity.

I also share this knowledge in my workshops. Especially when it comes to AI image generators, there’s a persistent misconception that all you have to do is press a button to automatically get relevant art. That’s simply not true. Good results come from precise prompting, experience, iterative processes, and deliberate artistic decisions. This requires a certain level of technical understanding—and for many, that’s where the real challenge lies.

We live in a world that is increasingly shaped by technology. Where knowledge is lacking, mystification quickly takes hold. That is why a basic understanding of technology will become a core cultural skill in the future—not as a substitute, but certainly on par with traditional skills like reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Many ideas arise from serendipitous detours, chance encounters, and the like. AI, on the other hand, draws from the black box of the algorithm. How do you reconcile these two? Would you attribute creative potential to AI?

I consider the idea that AI is creative to be a projection. AI is not a thinking or willing entity—it is a machine. What it produces is based on statistics, not on creative intent.

The actual image ideas still come from humans. What’s new is simply the act of translation: we have to express our ideas in language so precisely that the machine can process them. In this sense, AI is not a counterpart, but a tool—albeit a very complex one.

Things get interesting when this tool doesn’t work the way we expect it to. Misunderstandings in the prompt, surprising results—it is precisely these disruptions that create the moments we like to describe as “coincidences” or “happy accidents.” But even that is not a creative act on the part of the machine, but rather an effect of how it functions.

We tend to attribute human characteristics to AI. This obscures what really matters: creativity does not arise from the algorithm, but from human selection, evaluation, and contextualization. Those who attribute creativity to AI are oversimplifying things—and at the same time underestimating their own responsibility in the artistic process.

Are there also moments in your creative work when you find AI to be restrictive, distorting, manipulative, or similar? What are some examples of these?

AI is not neutral. Its results are always shaped by the data it was trained on—and by the perspectives of those who develop it.

I’ve experienced this very concretely in my own work. For my 2022 video piece “Homunculus,” I used AI-generated portraits from a website that generated a random face every time the page loaded, without any user influence. My goal was to depict diversity: in gender, age, and cultural background. Instead, I kept getting very similar faces: strikingly often female, middle-aged, light-skinned. At some point, I started keeping tally sheets—and my impression was confirmed. This is no coincidence, but a structural problem.

In moments like these, AI is not only limiting, but actively distorts the reality it purports to depict.

Added to this is an aesthetic tendency toward uniformity. Many AI-generated images fall within the visual norm—they are technically impressive, but often also surprisingly bland and interchangeable. As an artist, one must consciously work against this uniformity.

It becomes particularly manipulative when these images are circulated. Deepfakes are no longer a marginal phenomenon, but a powerful tool—for disinformation, political staging, and targeted deception. What is new is not so much the manipulation itself as its quality: images and videos are so convincing today that trust in visual media as a whole is eroding.

At the same time, countermeasures are already emerging. The first tools capable of detecting deepfakes are now available. The crucial question will be whether we become faster at uncovering deception than new forms of deception emerge.

In what ways do you think our understanding of creativity will change in the future as a result of AI?

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally transforming art—not so much as a style, but as a tool and a space for thought. It lowers technical barriers and enables more people to work visually and bring their ideas to life. At the same time, it raises questions about authorship, originality, and artistic responsibility.

However, many people overestimate AI because they underestimate the physical and experiential dimensions of human creativity. AI can accelerate, combine, and imitate—but it remains functionally limited. It lacks the diversity of human intelligence: no physicality, no emotional or social intuition, no imagination or motivation. Wrestling with materials, sensory experience, or the physical realization of an idea—a machine cannot fully accomplish any of this, neither today nor tomorrow.

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally transforming art—not so much as a style, but as a tool and a space for thought. It lowers technical barriers and enables more people to work visually and bring their ideas to life. At the same time, it raises questions about authorship, originality, and artistic responsibility.

However, many people overestimate AI because they underestimate the physical and experiential dimensions of human creativity. AI can accelerate, combine, and imitate—but it remains functionally limited. It lacks the diversity of human intelligence: no physicality, no emotional or social intuition, no imagination or motivation. Wrestling with materials, sensory experience, or the physical realization of an idea—a machine cannot fully accomplish any of this, neither today nor tomorrow.