Generative artificial intelligence can create sophisticated images and music without the years of practice traditionally needed to produce them. But a new paper by Prof. Amit Zoran of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem argues that this capability does not make human creativity obsolete. Instead, it puts renewed attention on the value of learning, discovery and personal change through art.
Published in the journal AI & Society under the title “More than we can make: Generative AI, artistic forms, and artistic becoming,” the paper shifts attention from whether machine-generated objects count as art to what creative activity does for people. Zoran argues that its significance includes the experiences of artists, the responses of audiences and the ways cultures develop.
Zoran leads the Hybrid Design Lab at the university’s Rachel and Selim Benin School of Computer Science and Engineering. His work connects computational technologies, including AI, robotics and 3D printing, with traditional crafts, gastronomy, design and consciousness. That focus informs his examination of the relationship between making something and being changed by the experience.
The paper describes a “decoupling thesis”: AI separates the ability to produce accomplished artistic work from the personal development previously associated with acquiring that ability. A person can generate a detailed illustration without studying drawing, or create music without learning an instrument. Traditionally, those skills developed alongside distinctive ways of observing, expressing emotion and understanding the world.
For Zoran, that separation requires a reassessment of creativity’s value. He argues that creative activity is moving toward experimentation, interpretation and collaboration with technology. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, he emphasized that the consequences for an artist or a culture matter more than technical complexity alone. The finished work is therefore only part of the picture.
One project discussed in the paper places a tree at the center of an interactive artistic experience. Smell and taste are combined with visual projections, recorded sounds and AI-generated music. The example illustrates how technology can support a different encounter with nature, extending its role beyond the production of additional digital material.
The paper also questions the criteria used to assess AI tools. Speed, realism and the quality of generated material are common measures, but Zoran proposes considering whether systems encourage curiosity, exploration and fresh perspectives. For artists, time saved through AI could provide room for experimentation and richer experiences. Educational and cultural institutions could likewise give greater weight to the process of creating.
Zoran nevertheless points to what can be lost when technical work is bypassed, including experience and authenticity. He links effort with maturity while acknowledging that AI-generated art may elicit emotions similar to those prompted by entirely human-made work. His argument leaves room for AI in artistic practice while placing learning, engagement and transformation at the center of creativity’s continuing human value.
