We are living in an era where we can’t seem to escape the topic of Artificial Intelligence. For artists, this conversation usually revolves around image generation, but there is another fascinating application emerging: using AI to analyze, describe, and critique our own artwork.
When you submit a painting or a photograph to an AI tool, it can offer feedback on color, technique, balance, and composition. But this new capability raises some philosophical questions. If the AI prefers one style over another, did you “impress” the machine? Does its excitement tell you something about the marketability of your work? And if it seems overwhelmingly positive, can you trust it?
Here is a guide on how to navigate the waters of AI feedback without losing your creative soul.
Understanding the “Cold Machine”
First and foremost, it is helpful to remember what is happening behind the screen. As we interact with ones and zeros, the machine is processing inferences about your artwork based on millions—sometimes billions—of data points. It analyzes your image and provides a logical response based on very tight parameters.
When an AI gives you feedback, you aren’t getting a sentient opinion. You are getting a complex pattern-matching exercise. However, the way these tools are programmed matters. The goal of a good AI tool for artists isn’t to act like a harsh reality TV judge—telling you your work is garbage and to get off the stage. That kind of criticism is rarely helpful.
Instead, the ideal AI feedback functions as a constructive critique. It should look at what is working, identify what is interesting or engaging, and then suggest areas for potential improvement. It should encourage you to feel excited about the potential of your work, rather than discouraged by its flaws.
The Captain of the Ship
The most common question artists ask is: “If the AI likes one style better than another, should I focus my efforts there?”
The answer is simple: You must remain the captain of your own ship.
You should always be the director of your work. You must hue to what feels right to you, taking AI input only as a single variable in your decision-making process.
If a human mentor or gallery owner told you they preferred one style over another, you would take that as a data point, but you wouldn’t let it override your artistic direction. The same applies to Artificial Intelligence. In fact, you should be even more skeptical of the machine.
Take what is being said and see if it aligns with something you are already thinking. Does it resonate? Does it introduce an interesting thought about your composition that you hadn’t considered? If yes, use it. If the feedback suggests a direction that feels inauthentic to you, discard it. Do not let an algorithm take over the direction of your work.
Marketability vs. Creativity
AI is often trained on vast datasets of what is popular or “generally accepted.” Therefore, when an AI critiques your work, it often includes “marketability” as an input.
For example, if you paint a visceral scene of a car crash, an AI might suggest that the work would have broader appeal if it were less graphic. From a data standpoint, the AI is correct; graphic violence has a smaller buying audience than a serene landscape.
However, does that mean you should change the painting? Not necessarily. If your artistic intent is to convey the horror of the crash, then “marketability” is secondary. The AI can tell you what might sell broadly, but only you can decide what you want to say.
The Challenge of Abstraction
One area where AI feedback is still finding its footing is abstract art. Abstraction is subjective and challenging even for human viewers to interpret, so it is naturally difficult for a machine.
Sometimes, an AI might look at an abstract piece and hallucinate “two trees” where there are none. However, many abstract artists are finding that AI is surprisingly good at interpreting the emotion or intention behind the work. You might feed in a completely abstract piece, and the AI will return a description about texture and composition that aligns perfectly with your internal state when you created it.
If the AI misses the mark on your abstract work, don’t worry. It is a subjective field. But when it hits the mark, it can be a powerful tool for helping you articulate your vision to others.
Why I Believe in This Technology
Ultimately, the value of AI feedback depends heavily on how you use it. I believe the true power of this technology lies in its ability to act as a partner—one that helps you articulate your ideas and amplify your expressive ability, rather than replacing your creativity.
I see so much value in this concept that we actually launched our own AI tool for artists, Theobot. I wanted to create a platform where the AI acts less like a cold calculator and more like a supportive studio assistant, helping to craft titles, write descriptions, and offer constructive insights based on the same logic I use when reviewing portfolios.
Whether you use our tool or another, the goal remains the same: use the technology to handle the administrative and analytical heavy lifting, so you can save your energy for the canvas.
The Final Word
AI feedback is a tool, not a rulebook. It can offer wonder, awe, and a new perspective on your work. It can help you become a more introspective viewer of your own art. But it should never replace your intuition. Listen to the feedback, weigh it against your goals, and then grab the wheel and steer your ship exactly where you want it to go.