AI in Music and Art

Research Findings: AI in Art

This research project examined public and creator perceptions of artificial intelligence in creative fields, with a focus on whether AI threatens the value of human art or contributes to its evolution. The findings are based on an exploratory survey of 58 respondents, segmented into creators and consumers, and collected over a two-week period through personal networks and online communities.

Awareness and Familiarity

The results indicate a high level of awareness of AI-generated art and music across both audiences. Most respondents reported having encountered AI-generated creative content and expressed at least moderate familiarity with AI tools used in creative contexts. This suggests that AI is no longer a fringe concept in the arts but a widely recognized presence.

Overall Sentiment Toward AI

Despite this familiarity, sentiment toward AI remains mixed and generally cautious. Consumers expressed slightly stronger negative perceptions than creators, reflecting concerns about authenticity, emotional depth, and the potential dilution of artistic meaning. While AI is accepted as technically impressive, it is not universally embraced as creatively equivalent to human work.

Perceived Artistic Status of AI

A strong majority of respondents do not consider AI to be an artist. Across both creators and consumers, AI is viewed as a system or tool rather than an autonomous creative entity. This distinction highlights the continued importance placed on human intention, experience, and emotional expression in defining what constitutes art.

Value and Willingness to Pay

Participants consistently assigned greater value to human-created work than to content generated entirely by AI. Most respondents indicated they would not pay for AI-generated art or music, reinforcing the idea that economic value in creative work remains closely tied to human authorship and originality.

AI as a Tool vs. Competition

Among creators, AI is perceived as both a useful production tool and a source of competitive pressure. While some creators see opportunities to enhance efficiency and experimentation, there is also concern that AI could be misused as a substitute for human labor rather than as a complement to it.

Transparency and Disclosure

One of the strongest areas of consensus was the importance of disclosure. Both creators and consumers believe it is essential for artists to clearly communicate whether AI was used in the creative process. Transparency is viewed as critical to maintaining trust, integrity, and informed evaluation of creative work.

Key Conclusion

The findings suggest that AI simultaneously elevates and threatens human art. While it expands creative possibilities and production capabilities, it also raises ethical, economic, and cultural concerns. Overall, respondents continue to prioritize human creativity as the core source of artistic value, with AI best positioned as a disclosed, supporting tool rather than a replacement for human artists

Methods

This research project employed an exploratory survey design to examine perceptions of artificial intelligence in creative fields. Data was collected over a two-week period using an online questionnaire distributed through personal networks and online creative communities. A total of 58 valid responses were included in the final dataset

Respondents were segmented into two primary groups:

• Creators (individuals who actively produce creative work such as music, visual art, or other artistic outputs)

• Consumers (individuals who primarily engage with or purchase creative content)
  
  

The survey included a combination of multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions assessing:

• Awareness of AI-generated creative content

• Familiarity with AI creative tools

• Attitudes toward AI’s role in art and music

• Perceived value of AI-generated versus human-created work

• Willingness to pay for AI-generated content

• Views on disclosure and transparency when AI is used
  
  

Open-ended questions were also included to capture qualitative insights, allowing respondents to express nuanced opinions, concerns, and ethical considerations surrounding AI in creative work.

The study was designed to identify emerging patterns and sentiment, rather than to test causal relationships or generate statistically generalizable conclusions.

Limitations

While the findings offer meaningful insight into current attitudes toward AI in art, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results:

• Sample Size
  The study is based on a modest sample of 58 respondents. While sufficient for exploratory analysis, the results should not be interpreted as representative of the broader population.
  
  

• Sampling Method
  Participants were recruited through personal networks and online communities, which may introduce selection bias. Respondents may be more engaged with or opinionated about AI and creative technology than the general public.
  
  

• Self-Reported Data
  All responses reflect self-reported perceptions and beliefs, which may be influenced by personal bias, recent media exposure, or individual experiences with AI tools.
  
  

• Rapidly Evolving Technology
  Public understanding and usage of AI in creative fields are changing quickly. Attitudes captured in this study represent a snapshot in time and may evolve as AI tools, regulations, and cultural norms continue to develop.
  
  

Despite these limitations, the research provides valuable early insight into how both creators and consumers currently perceive AI’s role in art, highlighting areas of tension, consensus, and opportunity for future study.