I may get pushback for saying this, but banning, avoiding or resisting artificial intelligence will not save art education.
I say that as someone who works every day in an art-focused institution and who deeply respects the artists, faculty and students who are uneasy, skeptical or outright resistant to AI. Even at my current institution, Columbia College Chicago, the hesitance is clear. In hallways, faculty meetings and classrooms, AI is often spoken about with suspicion, frustration and, at times, anger. Much of that reaction is warranted, but leadership sometimes requires saying the uncomfortable thing out loud: AI is already here and refusing to engage with it does not protect artists, students or institutions. It simply removes us from the conversation now when our voices matter most.
The False Choice Between Ethics and Engagement
The national debate about AI in art and design education has hardened into a false binary. On one side are sweeping claims that generative AI will democratize creativity and make traditional training obsolete. On the other are calls for outright bans, framed as the only ethical response to systems trained on artists’ work without consent. Neither position reflects the reality facing art colleges or the responsibility we carry.
The resistance many artists and faculty feel toward generative AI is not reactionary. Concerns about unlicensed training data, authorship, style appropriation and labor displacement are real and deeply personal. For creative communities that have long struggled for fair compensation and recognition, AI can feel like yet another extraction layered on top of an already fragile ecosystem.
But bans alone are not leadership. They do not stop students from using AI outside the classroom. They do not prepare graduates for industries that are already integrating these tools. And they do not resolve the ethical questions at the heart of this moment. In practice, silence and prohibition often produce confusion, inconsistency and inequity.
This notion matters because arts education has never been simply about aesthetics or self-expression. For many first-generation, low-income and historically underrepresented students, art, design, theater and media programs are the very reason they enter higher education at all. Studio spaces, rehearsal rooms, galleries and critique sessions are where students find voice, belonging and confidence, often for the first time.
When art colleges disengage from the AI conversation, the consequences are not evenly distributed. Students with access to paid tools, informal networks or industry mentors will adapt regardless of institutional guidance. Others will be left navigating unclear expectations and shifting norms on their own. In that sense, AI governance is not just a pedagogical issue; it is an equity issue.
What Leadership Looks Like Beyond Bans and Buzzwords
Art colleges are uniquely positioned to lead precisely because of how they teach. Studio pedagogy has always emphasized process over product, intention over speed and critique over automation. Students are asked to document their thinking, articulate authorship and situate their work within cultural, historical and ethical contexts. These traditions are not obstacles to engaging AI responsibly; they are the foundation for doing so well.
The more productive question, then, is not whether AI belongs in art education but under what conditions, with what disclosures and in service of which values.
Moving forward requires clarity rather than absolutism. There are spaces where AI use should be limited. Foundational skill development, certain forms of assessment and portfolio-defining work require boundaries to preserve learning integrity and authentic evaluation. These limits are not anti-technology; they are pro-learning.
There are also spaces where AI can function as an assistive tool, supporting ideation, iteration, accessibility and efficiency when its use is transparent and intentional. Allowing students to explore these tools openly, rather than covertly, creates opportunities to teach judgment rather than shortcuts.
Finally, there are spaces where AI itself becomes a medium of inquiry. Students should be able to examine how these systems are trained, whose labor they rely on, what biases they encode and what responsibilities accompany their use. Art colleges are well suited to frame AI not as magic but as a system shaped by human decisions, incentives and power. This layered approach avoids the trap of both hype and fear. It acknowledges that tools change while values endure.
When AI Governance Becomes an Equity Issue
The greater risk for art colleges is not that AI will undermine creativity but that disengagement will undermine relevance. If institutions decline to lead, technology companies will define creative norms. Employers will set expectations without ethical guardrails. Students will learn informally, unevenly and without the critical frameworks higher education exists to provide.
At a time when many art and humanities programs are already under pressure, from budget constraints, enrollment shifts and public skepticism, ceding this ground is especially dangerous. The argument for arts education has always rested on more than job preparation. It is about cultivating critical thinkers, cultural contributors and engaged citizens. That mission does not disappear in an AI-saturated world. It becomes more urgent.
Art colleges do not need to become AI evangelists, nor should they abandon their commitment to craft, originality and human expression, but they must claim their role as standard setters, defining ethical use, authorship norms, disclosure practices and creative accountability in a rapidly changing landscape.
I understand the discomfort. I share much of it. But leadership means resisting the comfort of denial and the ease of absolutes. Going beyond bans and buzzwords is not compromised. It is responsibility, and it is exactly what this moment demands. This isn’t an AI debate. It’s an equity debate about who gets to belong in creative higher ed and who gets left behind.
You Might Also Like
