Creativity is widely understood as a distinct human characteristic, yet the advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping creative ecosystems, presenting both opportunities and challenges. Despite these advancements, comprehensive insights into how social groups, especially stakeholders, perceive and experience AI-generated art remain inadequate. Through semi-structured interviews with 23 artistic practitioners in China across visual art domains such as painting, design, and filmmaking, this study identifies themes related to practitioners’ perceptions of the creative process (mechanism and time), created works (aesthetic and quality), and creating actors (role and ownership) from a human-AI comparative view. Contextualized perceptions shaped by variations across art domains are also revealed. As human-AI collaboration in artistic creation gains prominence, this study also illustrates how artistic practitioners negotiate their agency with machine agency through dual routes: the affective route and the action route. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse of artificial creativity, enrich the socio-technical understandings of AI-generated visual art and shed light on the agency dynamics between human and AI within the context of artistic creation.
BownOMcCormackJ (2009, September) Creative agency: a clearer goal for artificial life in the arts. In European conference on artificial life. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 254–261.
2.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
3.
Celis BuenoCChowPSPopowiczA (2025) Not “what”, but “where is creativity?”: towards a relational-materialist approach to generative AI. AI & Society40: 339–351.
4.
CetinicESheJ (2022) Understanding and creating art with AI: Review and outlook. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications18(2): 1–22.
5.
ChaYJBaekSAhnG, et al. (2020) Compensating for the loss of human distinctiveness: the use of social creativity under human–machine comparisons. Computers in Human Behavior103: 80–90.
6.
ChangMDrugaSFiannacaAJ, et al. (2023) The prompt artists. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 75–87.
7.
Ch’ngE (ed) (2019) Art by computing machinery: is machine art acceptable in the artworld?ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications15(2s): 1–17.
8.
ClowneyD (2011) Definitions of art and fine art’s historical origins. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism69(3): 309–320.
9.
CoeckelberghM (2017) Can machines create art?Philosophy & Technology30(3): 285–303.
10.
ColtonSWigginsGA (2012) Computational creativity: the final frontier? In: ECAI, 2012. IOS Press, pp. 21–26.
11.
DeVitoMAGergleDBirnholtzJ (2017) “Algorithms ruin everything” # RIPTwitter, folk theories, and resistance to algorithmic change in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 3163–3174.
12.
Di LodovicoCTorrielliFDi CaroL, et al. (2025) How do people develop folk theories of generative AI text-to-image models? A qualitative study on how people strive to explain and make sense of GenAI. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction193: 1–25.
13.
GarciaMB (2024) The paradox of artificial creativity: challenges and opportunities of generative AI artistry. Creativity Research Journal5: 1–14.
14.
GranuloAFuchsCPuntoniS (2019) Psychological reactions to human versus robotic job replacement. Nature Human Behaviour3(10): 1062–1069.
15.
HarrisDXRousellD (2022) Posthuman creativities: pluralist ecologies and the question of how. Qualitative Inquiry28(5): 427–434.
HongJWCurranNM (2019) Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications15(2): 1–16.
18.
HongJWPengQWilliamsD (2021) Are you ready for artificial mozart and skrillex? An experiment testing expectancy violation theory and AI music. New Media & Society23(7): 1920–1935.
19.
HortonJCBWhiteMWIyengarSS (2023) Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity. Scientific Reports13(1): 19001.
20.
HuangYLvSTsengKK, et al. (2023) Recent advances in artificial intelligence for video production system. Enterprise Information Systems17(11): 2246188.
21.
JiaHWuMJungE, et al. (2012) Balancing human agency and object agency: an end-user interview study of the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing, Pittsburgh, PA, 5–8 September 2012, pp. 1185–1188.
22.
JudgeMFernandoJWPaladinoA, et al. (2020) Folk theories of artifact creation: how intuitions about human labor influence the value of artifacts. Personality and Social Psychology Review24(3): 195–211.
23.
KangHLouC (2022) AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human–AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27(5): zmac014.
24.
LeeHK (2022) Rethinking creativity: creative industries, AI and everyday creativity. Media, Culture & Society44(3): 601–612.
25.
LiuB (2021) AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human–AI interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26(6): 384–402.
LiuYZhangKLiY, et al. (2024) Sora: a review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177.
28.
LoivarantaTHautalaJLundmanR (2025) Spectrum of creative agencies in AI-based art: analysis of art reviews. Digital Creativity36: 223–237.
29.
MagniFParkJChaoMM (2024) Humans as creativity gatekeepers: are we biased against AI creativity?Journal of Business and Psychology39(3): 643–656.
30.
McCormackJBownODorinA, et al. (2014) Ten questions concerning generative computer art. Leonardo47(2): 135–141.
31.
MesserU (2025) How do people react to political bias in generative artificial intelligence (AI)?Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans3: 100108.
32.
MessingschlagerTVAppelM (2025) Mind ascribed to AI and the appreciation of AI-generated art. New Media & Society27(3): 1673–1692.
33.
MikalonytėESKneerM (2022) Can artificial intelligence make art? Folk intuitions as to whether AI-driven robots can be viewed as artists and produce art. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI)11(4): 1–19.
34.
MilletKBuehlerFDuG, et al. (2023) Defending humankind: anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art. Computers in Human Behavior143: 107707.
35.
MolinaMDSundarSS (2024) Does distrust in humans predict greater trust in AI? Role of individual differences in user responses to content moderation. New Media & Society26(6): 3638–3656.
36.
MoruzziC (2020) Artificial creativity and general intelligence. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts12(3): 84–99.
37.
NassCILombardMHenriksenL, et al. (1995) Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour & Information Technology14(4): 229–238.
38.
NordströmPLundmanRHautalaJ (2023) Evolving coagency between artists and AI in the spatial cocreative process of artmaking. Annals of the Association of American Geographers113(9): 2203–2218.
39.
PanWLiuDMengJ, et al. (2024) Human–AI communication in initial encounters: how AI agency affects trust, liking, and chat quality evaluation. New Media & Society27: 5822–5847.
40.
RappADi LodovicoCTorrielliF, et al. (2025) How do people experience the images created by generative artificial intelligence? An exploration of people’s perceptions, appraisals, and emotions related to a Gen-AI text-to-image model and its creations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies193: 103375.
41.
RombachRBlattmannALorenzD, et al. (2022) High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, New Orleans, LA, 18–24 June 2022, pp. 10684–10695.
RuncoMA (2025) Updating the standard definition of creativity to account for the artificial creativity of AI. Creativity Research Journal37(1): 1–5.
44.
RuncoMAJaegerGJ (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal24(1): 92–96.
45.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68–78.
46.
SartoriLBoccaG (2023) Minding the gap (s): public perceptions of AI and socio-technical imaginaries. AI & Society38(2): 443–458.
47.
ShelbyRSrinivasanRBurgdorfK, et al. (2024) Creative ML assemblages: the interactive politics of people, processes, and products. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8(CSCW1): 1–30.
48.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 74–88.
49.
ToffBNielsenRK (2018) “I just google it”: folk theories of distributed discovery. Journal of Communication68(3): 636–657.
50.
WingströmRHautalaJLundmanR (2024) Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal36(2): 177–193.
51.
YoungAS (2015) Commercial art to graphic design: the rise and decline of commercial art in Australia. Journal of Design History28(3): 219–234.
52.
YuanxiaL (2025) Gender differences in creative workers’ general attitudes toward artificial intelligence painting tools. AI & SOCIETY3: 1–15.
