AI: A Fixture in Art School Curriculums

Despite significant apprehension from some students and faculty, educational institutions are increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into their curricula for aspiring creative professionals.

The burgeoning field of generative AI casts a shadow of concern over the future prospects of emerging creatives, particularly those entering competitive postgraduate job markets. This technology, virtually non-existent during earlier eras of higher education, now presents a formidable challenge to career paths in creative industries.

This anxiety is acutely felt by college students. Earlier this year, a minor protest at CalArts saw thesis posters soliciting AI artists reportedly defaced with anti-AI messages, and flyers expressing similar sentiments disseminated across campus. In a more dramatic act of defiance, a film student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reportedly protested an allegedly AI-generated display piece by physically consuming it.

Currently, generative AI tools can assist with or even fully complete nearly any creative task imaginable, with the technology's capabilities advancing rapidly in just a few years. Text-to-image models like Midjourney and Google’s Nano Banana generate diverse visual styles from brief descriptions. Music generators such as Suno and Udio enable users to create AI songs that mimic popular human artists, which are then uploaded to streaming platforms. Furthermore, AI video models including Veo 3, Bytedance’s Seedance, and OpenAI’s now-defunct Sora have alarmed actors, animators, and VFX artists, leaving many to wonder which creative processes will be impacted next.

Concurrently, overzealous AI proponents and opportunists on social media frequently make extravagant claims about automating design and media without requiring professional skills, often coinciding with the release of new models, all while significant copyright issues persist. In contrast, major AI developers like Adobe, OpenAI, and Google maintain that their tools are designed to augment creative work rather than to replace human talent or diminish demand for it.

The prevailing message to creators is unequivocal: embrace AI or risk obsolescence. This directive is even emanating from the very art schools dedicated to cultivating creative skills. Institutions such as the Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt), California Institute of the Arts (CalArts), London’s Royal College of Art (RCA), and many other creative-focused higher education establishments are now encouraging students across various disciplines to explore the evolving landscape of generative AI.

Robin Wander, communications lead at CalArts, informed The Verge, “At CalArts, we aim to incorporate critical engagement with generative AI into our courses and programming to ensure our students can play an active role in shaping future technologies instead of simply reacting to them.”

This integration does not imply that AI tool guides are supplanting established curricula, nor that students are mandated to use the technology in all their projects. Rather, they are expected to grasp how to effectively utilize AI, including understanding its technical limitations and its ethical and legal ramifications. Many institutions have recently introduced AI usage policies for both students and faculty, conveying a consistent message: proactive learning and understanding of these emerging technologies is preferable to being displaced by them due to inaction.

While these institutions grapple with the ethical dimensions of AI, they also acknowledge the pervasive threat posed by its expansion and growing influence across creative sectors.

A statement from the Pratt Institute articulates this dual perspective: “We recognize the complicated landscape of AI tools, many of which mine and share/sell user data, are trained on biased datasets, and have significant impacts on the environment. At the same time, we also recognize that fluency with AI tools is a growing competency sought by employers and an area of professional development across many industries.”

CalArts adopts a similar strategy. According to Wander, the institution endeavors to equip its students with the latest tools and provide opportunities “to work directly” with organizations like Adobe and Google that are developing these technologies, while simultaneously fostering “critical discourse on the cultural, creative, ethical, and environmental implications of using AI.”

For art educators, the primary objective is to ensure that creative professionals remain indispensable to their industries, either by mastering AI tools or by continually innovating beyond them. Ry Fryar, an assistant professor of art at York College of Pennsylvania, pursues this goal by teaching students to use AI tools as complements to their existing creative processes, rather than as replacements. Often, this involves employing AI for ideation—visualizing concepts and designs during planning stages, but not for generating final products.

“The focus is on creativity itself, because without that, the results are common, therefore dull and fundamentally inexpert,” Fryar stated to The Observer. “We work with students on how to guide AI tools at a professional level, stay aligned with developing good practices, and understand current copyright law, ethics, and other standards for responsible AI use.”

Some courses mandate more direct engagement with AI tools, such as those offered by the Chanel Center for Artists and Technology—a new CalArts initiative that highlights artificial intelligence and machine learning as core areas. At Arizona State University (ASU), a course titled “The Agentic Self,” to be led by musician will.i.am (William Adams) in Spring 2026, will instruct students at the Games, Arts, Media, and Engineering school on how to construct their own agentic AI system designed to function as “a digital extension of their creative identity, curiosity, and goals.”

Will.i.am posits that this course “represents a solution to AI replacing human jobs.” ASU indicates that this collaboration will build upon the musician’s Focus Your Ideas (FYI) AI tool, a creative ecosystem that facilitates project sharing among collaborators, generates text and images, and offers design advice via its chatbot.

ASU President Michael Crow affirmed in the announcement, “We are always looking for ways to innovate how we teach to better prepare our students to meet the moment. Our graduates must be ready for the powerful shift in jobs toward AI.”

Nevertheless, some students and educators have reacted unfavorably to the inclusion of generative AI tools in creative courses, mirroring the widespread negative sentiments expressed by professionals within the industry. Concerns revolve around the ethical methods used to train generative AI models—frequently involving the scraping of protected works without creators’ consent or compensation—and the potential for automated design work to reduce job opportunities as companies seek to cut staffing costs.

It is improbable that many students, driven by a passion for skilled creative crafts and bearing substantial educational expenses, are enthusiastic about becoming merely overqualified prompt engineers. A study conducted by the Ringling College of Art and Design in late 2023 revealed that 70 percent of its students felt “somewhat” or “extremely” negative toward AI, with most explicitly stating their opposition to its inclusion in the curriculum.

Despite this resistance, creative institutions are forging ahead. Wander asserts that schools bear a responsibility to enable students to directly explore and critically evaluate these tools, given that technology will always be an integral part of the creative industries.

Wander explained, “This is the best way to equip creative communities with the skills and knowledge to influence how these tools evolve or and how they are used in creative work. As with any emerging technology, there are a range of perspectives among students and faculty about AI in the creative industries. Some are deeply skeptical. Some are early adopters.”