Should Generative AI Be Introduced to Art Education?

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia is facing fierce opposition from students over a course titled 'Generative AI for Artists' scheduled to begin in September.

The course teaches how to create images, text, sound, video, and 3D works using AI, while also addressing ethical aspects of AI use such as copyright, data usage, and energy consumption. Fewer than 20 students have enrolled so far.

Robyn Chessel (22), a fourth-year student double-majoring in art and secondary education, initiated a petition demanding the course's cancellation and has gathered approximately 500 signatures. Chessel stated, "Not only art students but even people with no art background whatsoever are very concerned about AI."

Petition signatories argued that "generative AI cannot create anything new; it only corrupts and ruins what already exists," calling it "a plagiarism machine and a tool that steals the soul from art."

Why Students Are Rejecting AI

Students' concerns stem from the very nature of how generative AI operates. Most AI models are trained on vast datasets collected without the consent of artists and writers, violating the rights of original creators in the process.

Additionally, AI can be misused to generate misinformation, propaganda, and pornographic content, and there are environmental concerns about the enormous amounts of electricity and water consumed in server operations.

Chessel, who works in drawing, textiles, and video, believes her work has likely already been used for AI training after being posted on social media. However, what she fears most is the phenomenon of 'AI slop.' She worries about a situation where mass-produced, low-quality AI-generated content floods the internet, preventing genuine artworks from receiving attention.

The University's Position: Education for Critical Thinking

Associate Professor Oliver Bown, who teaches the course, is an expert who has researched generative art for over 20 years. While he largely agrees with students' concerns, he argues that canceling the course would be wrong.

"We are a university. We should encourage free thinking and open discussion, so it's not right to shut down a course simply because it deals with generative AI. However, the basic perspective of the petition—that AI has serious negative impacts on the cultural and creative industries, particularly on artists—is entirely valid."

Associate Professor Bown emphasizes that the technology itself can be used ethically. For example, he suggests that students could train AI using only their own work, noting that AI's problems stem from commercial motivations.

A UNSW spokesperson stated that "this course aligns with the university's environmental sustainability plan and AI ethical use guidelines, providing students with tools to understand and question the role of generative AI in the arts."

The Dilemma of Art Education

This controversy reveals fundamental questions facing art education. Should new technologies be included in curricula so students can engage with them critically, or should technologies that undermine the essence of art be excluded?

Students' opposition is not simply a rejection of technology. It contains the desperation of feeling their identity and livelihood as artists are threatened. They fear a vicious cycle where posting work on social media immediately turns it into AI training data without consent, and that AI, trained on their work, then takes away artists' jobs.

Conversely, the university argues that rather than unconditionally rejecting AI, students need to develop the ability to deeply understand its operating principles and ethical issues and use it critically.

The fact that fewer than 20 students have enrolled reflects students' resistance. Attention will focus on how the petition campaign unfolds before the September semester begins and how the university addresses students' concerns.

[AI Analysis] Where Is the Future of Art Education Heading?

This incident is likely a precursor to issues that art education institutions worldwide will soon face. Generative AI has already penetrated various creative fields including commercial design, illustration, and music production, and ignoring it is not realistic.

Art education may diverge in two directions in the future. One is a 'pure art' track emphasizing traditional techniques and human creativity, and the other is a 'hybrid art' track utilizing various tools including AI.

What's important is that students' concerns are not simply fear of technology but legitimate ethical questions. As long as AI companies don't resolve copyright issues, conflicts in art education settings will continue.

While introducing AI education, universities must establish concrete measures to protect students' work from being used as training data without permission. Without combining technology education with ethical protection, such opposition will only intensify.