On Authorship in the Age of Generated Imagery

The problem with AI generated imagery is not quality. It is authorship.

These systems are capable of producing images that appear finished, resolved, and commercially viable. What they cannot produce is intention. The output is never the work itself, only an approximation of a vision filtered through probability rather than taste.

The conversation around the impact of AI generated imagery on creative workflows tends to fixate on speed. Faster ideation. Faster production. Faster iteration. What is rarely addressed is what happens to authority when the act of making is replaced by the act of selecting.

Prompting does not eliminate labor. It reshapes it. Hours are spent negotiating marginal improvements instead of refining a point of view. Direction becomes compromise. Vision becomes statistical average.

These limitations become most visible when people enter the frame. AI can reproduce the structure of a face, but not presence. Expression becomes generic. Specificity disappears. The work looks complete but feels hollow.

This becomes dangerous when AI generated imagery is pushed into high stakes environments. Campaigns that define identity, culture, or legacy cannot afford approximation. Efficiency in these contexts is often a polite substitute for creative abdication.

AI has value in early exploration. It can help externalize an idea, align a team, or test a direction. But discovery is not production. Execution still requires judgment, friction, and taste.

AI can assist thinking. It cannot replace the work.