Arts 2026, 15(2), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/arts15020033 - 4 Feb 2026
Abstract
AI-generated content—spanning text, imagery, and music—is becoming increasingly commonplace. As the newest generation of song-producing AI systems garner attention, serious questions emerge regarding the role and place of music producers, particularly in the area of non-artistic, or “utility music”. While it might seem
[...] Read more.
AI-generated content—spanning text, imagery, and music—is becoming increasingly commonplace. As the newest generation of song-producing AI systems garner attention, serious questions emerge regarding the role and place of music producers, particularly in the area of non-artistic, or “utility music”. While it might seem that human skills and creativity are unlikely to be replaced entirely by generative AI in domains such as art music or live performance, recent developments in the field suggest that human efforts in creation of advertisement or background music are already being challenged by generative AI systems. However, there is a number of alternative, more balanced forms of human–machine co-creativity. It is in this regard that I am posing a question: can commercial generative AI systems really be classified as tools in the strict sense of the term? In this paper, I am attempting to answer this question by introducing the “Control–Convenience Spectrum”—a concept I believe applies to all human creative processes that utilize tools. It bears some similarities to earlier ideas in complexity theory or flow psychology—particularly, it proposes that the extremes of this spectrum are unlikely to produce compelling aesthetical outcomes or satisfying creative practice. I argue that prompt-driven commercial generative AI systems occupy one of the far ends of the spectrum, thus failing to meet the criteria for a creative expression tool.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sound, Space, and Creativity in Performing Arts)
►
Show Figures
Figure 1
