Graphic design can be tough. The introduction of artificial intelligence made it easier for many — but one of the biggest questions now is whether AI becomes a tool that supports designers or a replacement for some of the work they have traditionally done.
WATCH FULL VIDEO HERE:
Local graphic designer and muralist Tana Murray has a perspective shaped by years of professional creative work. MTN News sat down with her at one of her Great Falls murals to hear an artist's take on AI in the creative industry.
"I'm totally okay with people, you know, using the resources that are available to them. However, I do think AI has a negative impact on the design industry," Murray said.
Proponents of AI design tools like Google and Meta argue they democratize creativity — giving small businesses and individuals without a design background the ability to create polished visuals quickly and for free. Murray's concern, however, is not just about competition. It is about craft.
"When you're working with a professional designer, they know things about white space and how that impacts the design. We know things about the rule of thirds, color theory — all of those things," she said.
Supporters of AI tools counter that they are simply the latest in a long line of technologies that have changed creative industries — from desktop publishing in the 1980s to stock photography in the 2000s. Each shift was met with resistance, and each ultimately changed the industry without eliminating human creativity.
Murray acknowledges the accessibility argument but says something is lost when the human element disappears from the creative process.
"I think Bob Ross, what does he say, like, there are no mistakes, just happy little accidents. And I think that that's really true when it comes to art. And even just something as simple as a poster, just having that human element, I think, really goes a long way," she said.
Murray also raises concerns about how AI image generators are trained — arguing that AI systems scrape artist portfolios, social media accounts, and websites without consent to build the datasets that power their tools. She describes it as an indirect form of theft from artists.
That concern is now being tested in court. In the active case of Andersen v. Stability AI, artists filed suit alleging their work was used without consent to train AI models. The legal question of whether that practice constitutes copyright infringement has not yet been resolved.
For now, Murray says she sees a creative renaissance on the horizon — pointing to growing trends toward 90s aesthetics, scrapbooking, film photography, and handmade art as evidence that people are already moving back toward physical, human-made creativity.
"AI art doesn't have a soul," she said. "The imperfections in artwork are what make it unique."
