I’ve been reflecting on this Facebook post and the images shared in it. On the left is the original work by an artist—striking, textured, emotive. On the right is an AI-generated version, created with the specific prompt to make her eyes open while keeping everything else—tone, color, composition, even the frozen eyebrows—as similar as possible.
It reminds me of when a commercial jingle is created to mimic the style of a famous artist or song. It’s obvious where the inspiration came from, but is that mimicry theft, homage, or something else entirely?
This is where it gets murky. In music, we’ve accepted sampling, remixing, and collage as legitimate forms of art. And often, something wholly new emerges from the pieces. But here, I’m torn. The new image isn’t riffing or transforming the original in a meaningful way—it seems to replicate it closely, only changing the eyes.
Is that still art?
Maybe. Perhaps we need to acknowledge that we live in a remix culture. An artist today might be more like a DJ or collage artist—layering, tweaking, reimagining. Maybe this image is a sample, a visual loop reinterpreted. Still, it feels like the line is thin between influence and imitation.
I’m feeling both positive and uneasy about this. There’s real nuance in how we respond—especially when it’s our own work being sampled. Where do you draw the line between inspiration and appropriation? And how will our definitions of art evolve as this kind of AI-powered remixing becomes more common?
