[Bread-Baking Typewriter] In the Age of AI Clicks, It Is Ultimately Humans Who Make the Difference

Yoojin Jung's "Is It Okay to Pursue Art in the Age of AI?"

Contemplating the Value of Art and the Path Forward in an AI-Driven Era

Image of ChatGPT creation.

“Is it okay to pursue art in the age of AI?” The book by educator and exhibition curator Yoojin Jung, Associate Director of International Admissions at Otis College of Art and Design, poses a weighty question right from the title. In an era where a single click can create an image and Hayao Miyazaki’s lifelong artistic style can be replicated in under a minute, the value of art and the role of human creators is being fundamentally shaken.

To answer the question, which was first raised by a parent, the author reflected on her own life and work, analyzing her experiences and interviewing several creators. Through this, she concludes that AI is not something to avoid, but rather an indispensable tool to harness, and that it is not our jobs themselves that will disappear, but the nature of our tasks that will change. The artists she interviewed commonly agreed: ultimate control remains with humans, and our role is shifting from making to choosing.

The author introduces the concept of “grain”—a metaphor for personal pattern or texture—to highlight the importance of originality. Recounting her own life—from graduating high school in South Africa, returning to Korea, and then attending graduate school in the United States—she explains that always living on the borderlines, feeling like she belonged nowhere, has shaped who she is. That “grain,” she argues, is a uniquely human trait that AI cannot replicate, and if that personal texture is infused into our work, art will retain its value even in the age of AI.

During college, I was not a particularly ambitious student. Above all, I found my major classes dull. Since I wasn’t eligible for any scholarships, merely attending electives felt guilty, so I wandered into classes from other departments: film, Korean literature, creative writing, English, philosophy, and so on. Sometimes I was kicked out for being an outsider, other times I stood out in class—but I experienced new depths distinct from general electives. Those experiences shaped my current habit of obsessively seeking out information with curiosity about everything. While this might seem like a useless trait, it ultimately helped form my personal “grain.” Perhaps, finally, my twenties are proving somewhat useful. Reading this book gave me courage.

However, reality can be much harsher. Most discussions about changes in the age of AI focus on the perspective of the creator, such as writers, but there are two other key players: investors and consumers.

For investors or employers, who hold decision-making power, cost is a major factor. Presented with mass-produced content that is “good enough” at lower cost and content with true human originality that requires greater investment, it is difficult to opt for the latter. Also, the very characteristics of AI as a tool can interfere with achieving the best possible work. When using AI directly, reaching 80% to 90% completion happens quickly, but perfecting the remaining 10% to 20% often requires much more time and effort than expected—and the costs of AI usage at this stage are considerable. From the investor’s point of view, it may seem wise not to bother with that last 10% to 20%.

Now, consider the consumer’s viewpoint. For now, audiences may reject AI-generated content amid today’s glut of AI art. But what if AI continues to advance? If AI output reaches 80% or 90% of what a truly original work delivers—so that the difference between an original and a mass-produced piece is not 100 to 50, but 100 to 80 or even 100 to 90—will consumers still be willing to pay for that difference?

This is why the book’s sense of crisis resonates even more deeply. When AI tools quickly churn out results, decision-makers may start to feel that such outputs are “good enough.” The difference between “decent” and “excellent” becomes less visible, and the motivation to push for something better could disappear. Ironically, although AI promised the potential to create higher-quality, denser work, reality might work in reverse. As one creative director at an ad agency said, “One day, the higher-ups just told me, ‘This is good enough.’ I think that’s the greatest danger with AI: it lowers our standards.”

If, as hoped, society truly values originality and people willingly invest in and consume works that accentuate that trait, there’d be no cause for concern. The book again affirms that “grain,” or uniqueness, is the direction in which we must move. Yet, the word “but” remains. Hope that we can still pursue art in the AI era coexists with the fear that “good enough” could become the new standard. That is the world we live in today.

Is it Okay to Pursue Art in the AI Era? | Written by Yoojin Jung | Bookie | 288 pages | KRW 20,000

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.