AI Art & Drum Machines: parallels

 

The Algorithmic Auteur and The Legacy of the LinnDrum: A Definitive Report on AI Art, Its Historical Precedents, and Strategic Imperatives

Executive Summary: The Algorithmic Auteur and The Legacy of the LinnDrum

The ongoing discourse surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) in the art world—its legitimacy, its impact on human creativity, and its evolving market dynamics—represents a modern parallel to the technological paradigm shift that redefined the music industry in the 1980s. At that time, technologies such as the drum machine and the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) were met with skepticism, yet they ultimately democratized music production and catalyzed the emergence of entirely new genres. By examining the initial resistance, eventual integration, and lasting lessons from that period, this report establishes a crucial framework for modern artists. The analysis concludes that the advent of AI art is not a harbinger of creative decline but rather a pivotal moment of redefinition for authenticity, authorship, and economic value. The contemporary artistic landscape is characterized by a significant generational shift, with new collectors showing a higher propensity to purchase AI-generated works, a trend underpinned by a preference for digital accessibility and a focus on the creative journey. In response to these shifts, this report proposes a strategic framework of four actionable stances for artists: embracing the role of the Auteur of the Algorithm, affirming the value of the Purist of the Handcrafted, navigating the future as a Hybrid Collaborator, and upholding creative integrity as an Ethical Advocate. These strategic positions are not mutually exclusive but represent a comprehensive guide for professional adaptation in an era of co-existence between human and artificial creativity.

Section 1: The Canvas Transformed: Deconstructing the Modern Artistic Landscape

1.1. The Creative Process: From Human Intent to Algorithmic Output

The essence of art has historically been tied to the creative process, a journey that has undergone successive transformations with each new medium. In its purest form, analog art is defined by the primacy of the handcrafted. The creative process is slow, deliberate, and deeply personal. Every brushstroke, chisel mark, or camera exposure is imbued with the artist's personality, emotions, and imperfections. The value of an analog work is inextricably linked to the physical object itself and the visible human labor that produced it. This manual, often messy, process is resistant to the homogenizing tendencies of digital automation and offers a sense of authenticity that is highly valued by traditional collectors.1

The advent of digital art represented the first major technological shift, moving the medium from the physical to the virtual. However, the core of the creative process remained fundamentally human-led. The artist still commands the tool—be it a digital tablet, mouse, or software program—to express an internal vision. While technology like Adobe Sensei and other AI-powered software programs can function as "workflow enhancing assistants" to automate tasks like color enhancement or background creation, the artist retains the locus of creative control.3 The technology serves to enhance efficiency and production, allowing the artist to focus on the conceptual and strategic aspects of their work, but it does not challenge the artist's singular role as the primary creative force.

AI art introduces a paradigm shift in the creative process. The primary act of creation is no longer a physical or digital rendering but a conceptual one, expressed through a "prompt" or instruction given to an algorithm.4 The artist's role evolves from a manual laborer to a director or "prompt engineer" of a generative machine. The typical workflow involves specifying a desired style, providing context and background information, and defining the format of the output, then refining the results through iterative prompting and post-processing.5 A key distinction is that AI can function as a "generator" of a complete work, not merely a supplementary tool. It can produce aesthetically pleasing, intricate pieces in seconds, challenging the long-held notion that creative work must be a slow and arduous process.3

The evolution of the creative process reveals a profound shift in the locus of creative intent. In analog art, intent resides in the artist's hand, directly shaping the physical medium. In digital art, the intent is in the artist's mind, channeled and executed through a digital tool. However, in AI art, the intent is expressed in the prompt, but the creative execution is performed by the machine, which pulls from vast archives of existing images to produce a new piece.3 This raises a fundamental question: Is the "artist" the one with the original intent (the prompter), or the one who executes the creative act (the machine)? The current legal framework in the United States suggests that neither is the sole author unless the human's contribution is deemed sufficiently transformative. This indicates that the very definition of "creative input" is shifting away from manual skill and toward conceptual direction, challenging traditional notions of mastery and craftsmanship.8

1.2. Authenticity, Authorship, and the Question of "Art"

The rise of AI-generated content has reignited a centuries-old philosophical debate about the nature of art itself. Critics argue that an algorithm, which operates solely on programmed code and pattern recognition, cannot possess the emotional depth or lived experience that are fundamental to human art.2 They contend that AI art lacks "soul" because it cannot experience joy, frustration, or the satisfaction of creation. As an art form, it is fundamentally derivative, pulling from millions of data sources to produce a visually appealing image without any personal insight, cultural context, or individual struggle.2 This absence of human connection can make AI-generated works feel impersonal and lacking in the emotional resonance that viewers often seek in art.2

However, proponents of AI art counter that its value lies in its ability to reflect and engage with contemporary society's integration of technology.9 They point to projects like Ai-Da and Botto, which are considered creative because their work is "new, surprising, and of cultural value," fulfilling a criterion for creativity set by Professor Margaret Boden.9 These creations can inspire and move audiences, regardless of their origin, and they serve as an artifact of our complex digital and physical world. Furthermore, the argument that AI art is unoriginal because it mimics existing styles is challenged by the observation that human art itself is an "evolution of existing styles".9 The question is not whether AI art is imitative, but whether imitation alone disqualifies it as art.

There is a fascinating divergence between the perceived and intrinsic value of AI-generated art. A scientific study on human perception and preference for unlabelled AI art found that participants showed a significant preference for the aesthetic qualities of AI-generated artworks over human-made works.11 This suggests that, on a purely visual and aesthetic level, AI-generated content can be highly appealing. However, other surveys and market data indicate that a large majority of collectors still view AI-generated art as "less important than human creativity".11 This apparent contradiction suggests that the public's critique of AI art is not based on its visual merit but on its philosophical and ethical origins. The market is not driven by the intrinsic beauty of the art alone but by a narrative that questions its authenticity and the process behind its creation. The visual appeal of the art is high, but its perceived value, based on its non-human origin, remains a significant point of contention.

1.3. Commercial and Cultural Dynamics: A Shifting Market and Evolving Perceptions

The commercial landscape for AI art is on a steep upward trajectory, with a projected growth from an estimated $3.2 billion in 2024 to over $40 billion by 2033.13 This remarkable growth is being fueled by a new generation of collectors. While only 2% of seasoned art collectors have purchased AI-generated works, 28% of art enthusiasts and new buyers have already acquired such pieces, and over half are considering doing so.12 This demographic shift is largely driven by millennials and Gen Zers, who are digital-natives and are comfortable with online transactions and technology-centric art forms.15 The appeal of digital art, which can be displayed on a single screen or kept in a digital wallet, also removes the barrier of physical space, making it a highly attractive option for new entrants to the art market.15

Landmark sales, such as the Edmond de Belamy piece, which sold for $432,500 at Christie's in 2018, and a record-setting NFT that fetched over $1 million, signal a growing commercial acceptance of this new medium.13 However, this nascent market is also volatile, with concerns that it could be the "next bubble" following the collapse of the NFT market.14

The influence of AI extends beyond the creation of art to the very mechanism of its collection and valuation. AI is rapidly becoming a "secret weapon" for collectors, providing real-time data on artist momentum, historical sales performance, and value estimation.16 Platforms leverage machine learning to provide data-driven insights, allowing new collectors to gain clarity without relying solely on the traditional gatekeepers of the art world, such as gallerists and curators. This shift fundamentally changes the power structures of the art market, making it less opaque and more accessible to a broader, more diverse audience.16 For new collectors, the speed and confidence that AI provides are invaluable, helping them navigate a market where hesitation can mean missing out on an acquisition.16

1.4. Ethical and Legal Quandaries: The Unfinished Framework

The rapid proliferation of AI art has outpaced the legal and ethical frameworks required to govern it, creating a number of significant challenges.

The Copyright Conundrum: In the United States, copyright law is clear: it requires "human authorship" and "human creative input".8 As a result, works generated entirely from a text prompt cannot be copyrighted. This creates a precarious legal situation for users of AI art, as they cannot claim ownership of their creations. Furthermore, they may still be liable for copyright infringement if the AI's output contains copyrighted material from its training data, even if it was inadvertently reproduced.19 The core legal argument against copyrighting AI outputs is rooted in the Constitution's Intellectual Property Clause, which grants rights to "Authors" and their "Writings," a term U.S. courts have consistently interpreted as referring only to human beings.8

Bias and Accountability: A significant ethical concern is the potential for AI systems to perpetuate harmful societal biases. AI models are trained on vast datasets of images, texts, and other content, which can contain historical and cultural biases. When a user generates an image, the AI may unknowingly reproduce these stereotypes, leading to outputs that perpetuate racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.20 The National Art Education Association (NAEA) has highlighted the need for a "critical review" of all AI-generated content to ensure that harmful narratives are not perpetuated. The question of accountability—who is responsible for a biased output, the user, the company that developed the algorithm, or the algorithm itself—remains largely unresolved.21

Livelihoods and Economic Displacement: AI art presents a direct economic challenge to the livelihoods of professional artists. By offering a free, fast, and often high-quality alternative, AI tools are leading companies to rely on machines instead of hiring human illustrators, designers, and creatives.4 This devalues the heart, soul, and originality that human artists pour into their work and commodifies creative services, potentially leading to a race to the bottom where the price for creative work is driven down by automated solutions.21

To provide a clear overview of these distinctions, the following table offers a comparative analysis of the three media types.

Attribute	Analog Art	Digital Art	AI Art
Creative Process	Slow, messy, and deeply personal. Handcrafted.	Human-led. Artist commands a tool.	Algorithmic. Artist directs a machine with a prompt.
Locus of Authorship	Resides in the artist's hand. Clear.	Resides in the artist's mind. Clear.	Ambiguous. The machine generates, the user prompts.
Primary Value Proposition	Authenticity, human touch, and unique object value.	Efficiency, scalability, and enhanced production.	Speed, accessibility, and conceptual novelty.
Commercial Market	Traditional, established market. High value on provenance.	Established, but with a growing online presence.	Emerging, volatile, and driven by new collectors.
Legal Status	Clear copyright protection for the human author.	Clear copyright protection for the human author.	No copyright for pure AI outputs. Legal gray area for user.

Section 2: The Sound of Revolution: Echoes from the 1980s Music Industry

2.1. The Technological Triumvirate: MIDI, Drum Machines, and the Home Studio

The technological revolution in the 1980s music industry was not a single event but a confluence of three major innovations that fundamentally changed how music was created and consumed. The first was the introduction of the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI). Before MIDI, musicians relied on analog connections and patch cables to link their electronic instruments. MIDI provided an elegant solution, enabling different pieces of musical technology—such as synthesizers and drum machines—to communicate and synchronize with each other from a central computer.23 This allowed musicians to sequence entire compositions and have them played back by multiple devices simultaneously, opening up a world of new creative possibilities. MIDI also allowed for precise control over parameters like pitch bend and modulation with just a few clicks, eliminating the need for manual adjustment.23

The second innovation was the rise of drum machines. Hardware like the Linn 2 drum machine replaced the need for live drummers, providing a "relentless beat" and an almost "robotic feel of hyper precision".24 This shift was not merely a convenience; it defined the sound of the 1980s. Artists could now program intricate, perfectly timed rhythmic patterns that were difficult or impossible to achieve with a live drummer, lending a distinct flavor to electronic compositions.23

These technologies, when combined with increasingly affordable home computers like the Commodore 64 and Atari ST, led to the birth of the home studio.23 This was arguably the most significant development of the era. For the first time, aspiring musicians could compose, record, and produce their own tracks from their bedrooms, circumventing the need for expensive studio time and the reliance on major record labels.23 This unprecedented level of accessibility gave rise to a powerful "DIY ethos," empowering underground scenes and subcultures to express themselves freely and without financial constraints.23

2.2. Initial Resistance: The "Not Real Music" Rebuke

The introduction of these new technologies was not universally welcomed. Much like the current debate surrounding AI art, early electronic instruments were met with a backlash from traditionalists who questioned their legitimacy as an art form. As early as 1954, a German musicologist described the sounds of synthesizers as "barking hell-hounds" that came from a world devoid of humans.25 Many musicians and composers feared being replaced by computer processes and machines, seeing the new technology as a threat to their livelihoods and the authenticity of their craft.25 The central argument was that electronic music was not "real music" because it lacked the human element, emotion, and skill of a live performance. This deep-seated societal anxiety was even reflected in the science fiction of the era, which imagined dystopian futures where human culture was threatened by an over-reliance on technology.25

2.3. The Inevitable Integration: The Birth of New Genres and a Broader Audience

Despite the initial resistance, the technological revolution was not only inevitable but also creatively transformative. Rather than replacing human creativity, these new tools served as a catalyst for the creation of entirely new musical genres that would have been impossible with traditional instruments alone.23 Synthpop, New Wave, and Industrial music—pioneered by acts like Depeche Mode, Human League, and Kraftwerk—defined the sound of the era.23 The technology became a tool for self-expression, not a replacement for it. Iconic tracks and albums, such as Michael Jackson's

Thriller and Kraftwerk's Computer World, seamlessly integrated these innovations into mainstream music, demonstrating that the future lay not in rejecting technology but in mastering it.23 This shift proved that technology could expand creative possibilities, empower a new generation of artists, and give rise to a broader and more diverse audience for music.

Section 3: Bridging the Divide: Unpacking the Parallels and Divergences

3.1. The Core Debate: From "Not Real Music" to "Not Real Art"

The parallels between the 1980s music technology revolution and the current AI art shift are profound. The rhetoric of resistance is strikingly similar. In both eras, critics claimed the new art form was not "real" because it lacked human emotion, effort, and originality.10 This argument rests on a flawed premise: the notion that the value of art is determined by the effort invested in its creation. As one source points out, it is possible to create a perfectly listenable electronic song by arranging pre-selected loops from a sample pack, a process that requires minimal effort.26 Similarly, a simple text prompt can generate a beautiful and intricate image. This challenges the long-held belief that the value of an artwork is inextricably tied to the labor invested in it. The historical lesson is that new technologies force a fundamental re-evaluation of what we truly value in a creative work: is it the manual effort or the final creative output? The historical precedent suggests that the value lies in the latter, which is why the "not real" arguments of the past ultimately faded as the new art forms gained cultural and commercial acceptance.

3.2. The Value of Imperfection: Human Touch vs. Algorithmic Precision

Just as analog art is valued for its imperfections and "human flaws," traditional music was prized for the raw, live-recorded performances that captured a unique moment in time. The introduction of technologies like digital quantization and autotune in music created a soundscape where every note was "pitch-perfect," and every beat aligned perfectly.27 This trend toward flawless production trained listeners' ears to expect polished, sanitized sound, leaving little room for error or human imperfections.27 This is a direct parallel to AI art, which excels in "precision and perfection".2 Critics argue that this algorithmic perfection can strip away the "rawness" and emotional depth that often makes human-made art impactful, creating works that feel "too polished or sterile".2 The analysis of both fields reveals a profound cultural shift from valuing the handmade, imperfect, and raw to prizing the polished, perfect, and reproducible.

3.3. Legal Ambiguity as a Catalyst for Change

The legal challenges posed by AI art are a direct echo of the battles fought in the music industry decades ago. In the 1980s and 90s, the music industry grappled with the legality of sampling—the unauthorized use of existing sound recordings to create new works.8 This legal quagmire eventually led to the establishment of new legal precedents and licensing models that reshaped the industry. Today, a similar battle is being waged over

AI training data. AI companies argue that using billions of copyrighted works to train their models is an act of "fair use," as the models do not reproduce the original works but use them to learn patterns and styles.8 Artists, however, argue that this process constitutes mass-scale, unauthorized reproduction that infringes on their exclusive right to their work.8 In both eras, the new technology necessitated a re-evaluation of existing copyright and intellectual property frameworks, demonstrating how legal ambiguity can be a catalyst for fundamental change in a creative industry.

3.4. The Economic Fallout: Democratization vs. Commodification

The technological revolution of the 1980s, while democratizing music production, also laid the groundwork for a future of economic precarity for artists. While home studios and MIDI made it possible for more people to create music, the subsequent digital and streaming revolutions have shown the economic paradox of "constant music availability".28 Music is now ubiquitous, yet artists are earning less from it due to the fractionalized royalties of streaming services. This foreshadows a similar economic fate for visual artists. AI art provides a free and readily available alternative to hiring human illustrators, challenging the prices and value of creative services.21 The core lesson is that a technology that democratizes a creative medium can also, if not properly regulated, commodify the output and devalue the creators' livelihoods.

Feature	1980s Music Revolution	AI Art Shift
The Core Debate	"Not real music," lacks human emotion and effort.	"Not real art," lacks human soul and lived experience.
Creative Shift	From manual performance to pre-programmed sequencing.	From manual rendering to algorithmic generation via prompts.
Legal Challenges	The fair use/sampling debate and new licensing models.	The fair use/training data debate and the human authorship requirement.
Economic Impact	Democratized production, but later commodified by streaming.	Democratizes creation, but risks commodifying creative services.
Audience Reception	Initially met with skepticism, but eventually embraced by new audiences.	Skepticism from traditionalists, but embraced by new, digital-native collectors.

Section 4: Strategic Stances for the Modern Artist: A Forward-Looking Framework

The historical precedent of the music industry's journey provides a clear path forward for modern artists. The challenge is not to resist the technology, but to understand its implications and choose a strategic stance that aligns with one's professional and creative values.

4.1. Stance 1: The Auteur of the Algorithm

This stance views AI not as a threat but as an incredibly powerful tool for ideation and creative enhancement. Artists who adopt this position use AI as a "workflow enhancing assistant".3 They leverage generative models to overcome creative blocks, quickly generate composition sketches, or explore unexpected color palettes and stylistic combinations in seconds.4 This approach requires the artist to learn new skills, such as "prompt engineering," to effectively direct the algorithm with a clear creative vision.6 The National Art Education Association (NAEA) supports this view, advocating for AI to be used to "foster creativity and innovation" and encourage student experimentation.20 The value proposition of this stance is not in the human hand, but in the human mind's ability to conceive and direct a new form of creativity.

4.2. Stance 2: The Purist of the Handcrafted

This stance posits that the rise of AI art only makes the unique value of human-made, analog work more apparent and desirable. Artists who embrace this philosophy double down on their traditional processes, emphasizing the slow, deliberate, and deeply personal nature of their craft.1 They reject algorithmic intervention and highlight the imperfections and human flaws that distinguish their work from the sterile perfection of AI. This strategy appeals directly to traditional art collectors who seek authenticity and a "refuge" from the homogenizing tendencies of digital automation.1 The value proposition of this stance is not efficiency, but the emotional and cultural depth that only a human can provide, offering a compelling alternative to the allure of artificial intelligence.2

4.3. Stance 3: The Hybrid Collaborator

This stance recognizes that the future of art is a seamless blend of human and artificial creativity. Artists who adopt this position integrate AI into their process to forge a new, hybrid style that is difficult for pure AI to replicate. This could involve creating a base image with an AI tool and then heavily modifying and refining it with traditional digital or analog tools to infuse it with human touch and intent.3 This approach requires the artist to document their creative process—including prompts, revisions, and manual adjustments—to establish a clear chain of ownership and demonstrate their "creative control".29 The value proposition here lies in the novelty of the collaboration itself, where the artist's unique vision guides the algorithmic output into a new, singular form of expression.

4.4. Stance 4: The Ethical Advocate

This stance is rooted in the belief that an artist's role in the modern era is to ensure technology serves human creativity, not replaces it. Artists who adopt this position champion ethical practices, focusing on transparency, intellectual property rights, and the responsible use of data. They are upfront with clients about their use of AI, ensuring that contracts address the unique copyright situation of AI-generated content.19 They may also choose to use AI platforms that have more favorable terms regarding user ownership and challenge systems that are trained on unethically scraped data.29 This stance builds a foundation of trust with both collectors and the public, positioning the artist as a steward of creative integrity. The value proposition of this approach is not in the art itself, but in the moral and ethical framework that underpins its creation.

Stance Name	Core Philosophy	Recommended Actions	Primary Value Proposition
Auteur of the Algorithm	AI is a powerful tool for ideation and creative enhancement.	Learn prompt engineering; use AI to overcome creative blocks and generate ideas.	Speed, innovation, and conceptual novelty.
Purist of the Handcrafted	AI's rise makes human-made work more valuable.	Double down on analog processes; emphasize the slow, personal nature of the work.	Authenticity, unique human touch, and emotional depth.
Hybrid Collaborator	The future is a seamless blend of human and machine creativity.	Integrate AI and traditional methods; document the creative process to establish ownership.	The novelty of a new, collaborative art form.
Ethical Advocate	An artist's role is to ensure technology serves human creativity.	Be transparent with clients; champion ethical practices and fair compensation for artists.	Integrity, trust, and moral authority.

Conclusion: The Future of Creativity in an Era of Co-Existence

The historical precedent set by the music industry's journey from technological skepticism to creative integration provides a compelling roadmap for the modern art world. The AI art revolution is not an end to human creativity, but a pivotal moment of redefinition. Just as live bands, electronic producers, and DJs have found a way to co-exist and influence each other today, analog artists, digital creators, and algorithmic auteurs will find their respective places in a new, expanded creative ecosystem.

The artists who will thrive in this environment are not those who resist the change, but those who understand and adapt to its implications. Success will come from a combination of adapting to new tools, specializing in a unique value proposition—be it the irreplaceable human touch or the visionary direction of an algorithm—and actively advocating for an ethical framework that ensures technology serves the artist, not the other way around. Ultimately, the enduring value in art will always be in the human story, whether it is told with a brushstroke, a synthesized note, or a well-crafted prompt. The challenge is to navigate this new era with a clear sense of purpose, ensuring that while the tools may change, the essence of human creativity remains at the heart of the artistic endeavor.

Works cited

1. AI vs. Analog: Why True Craftsmanship Matters in a Digital Age - Tim Layton Fine Art, accessed August 29, 2025, https://timlaytonfineart.com/2025/02/05/ai-vs-analog-why-true-craftsmanship-matters-in-a-digital-age/

2. The Debate on AI Art vs. Human-Made Fine Art: A Perspective | New Buffalo Art Gallery, accessed August 29, 2025, https://newbuffaloartgallery.com/post/11911-the-debate-on-ai-art-vs-human-made-fine-art-a-perspective

3. AI vs. Traditional Artists: How Technology is Changing the Art Market, accessed August 29, 2025, https://artsology.com/blog/2025/03/ai-vs-traditional-artists-how-technology-is-changing-the-art-market/

4. The Pros and Cons of AI Art - Jenna Rainey, accessed August 29, 2025, https://jennarainey.com/pros-and-cons-of-ai-art/

5. Prompt Engineering for AI Guide | Google Cloud, accessed August 29, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-is-prompt-engineering

6. Prompt Engineering: From Words to Art and Copy - Saxifrage Blog, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.saxifrage.xyz/post/prompt-engineering

7. Free AI Art Generator: Lightning Fast, No Login! - Magic Studio, accessed August 29, 2025, https://magicstudio.com/ai-art-generator/

8. Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law | Congress.gov ..., accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

9. Is AI-generated art actually art? - University of Plymouth, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/discover/is-ai-generated-art-actually-art

10. AI and the Debate on Artistic Authenticity | by Siddh Saraff | Aug, 2025 | Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@saraffsiddh/ai-and-the-debate-on-artistic-authenticity-8f139c8886e5

11. Human perception of art in the age of artificial intelligence - PMC, accessed August 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11750838/

12. New research shows demand for AI-generated art is set to grow as new collectors turn to tech, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.hiscoxgroup.com/news/press-releases/2024/19-09-24

13. Global AI in the Art Market Statistics 2025 - Artsmart.ai, accessed August 29, 2025, https://artsmart.ai/blog/ai-in-the-art-market-statistics/

14. What does the future hold for the AI art market? - Kyiv. Gallery, accessed August 29, 2025, https://kyiv.gallery/en/articles/what-does-the-future-hold-for-the-ai-art-market

15. Why AI Art Is Winning over Young Collectors - Artsy, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-ai-art-winning-young-collectors

16. The Rise of AI in Art Market Analytics - One Art Nation, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.oneartnation.com/ai-art-market-analytics/

17. The Impact of AI on Art Collecting and the Secondary Market - FairArt, accessed August 29, 2025, https://fairart.com/editorial/guide/the-impact-of-ai-on-art-collecting-and-the-secondary-market/122

18. www.vlplawgroup.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.vlplawgroup.com/blog/2025/06/02/copyright-and-ai-generated-images-what-you-need-to-know-a-blog-post-by-michael-whitener/#:~:text=U.S.%20copyright%20law%20requires%20human,be%20asserted%20over%20such%20outputs.

19. Copyright and AI-Generated Images: What You Need to Know – A Blog Post by Michael Whitener - VLP Law Group, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.vlplawgroup.com/blog/2025/06/02/copyright-and-ai-generated-images-what-you-need-to-know-a-blog-post-by-michael-whitener/

20. NAEA Position Statement on Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-generated Imagery in Visual Arts Education, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.arteducators.org/resources/platform-and-position-statements/naea-position-statements-curriculum/1303-naea-position-statement-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-and-ai-generated-imagery-in-visual-arts-education/

21. The Impact of AI on The Art World - Tacit Collective, accessed August 29, 2025, https://tacitcollective.com/pages/the-impact-of-ai-on-the-art-world

22. 'If artificial intelligence creates better art, what's wrong with that?' Top Norwegian investor and art collector Nicolai Tangen : r/Futurology - Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/14o9ixu/if_artificial_intelligence_creates_better_art/

23. How Home Computers Transformed 80s Music Making - Kids In ..., accessed August 29, 2025, https://kidsinamericaband.com/blog/how-home-computers-transformed-80s-music-making/

24. The 1980s and new recording techniques | National Museums ..., accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/1980s-and-new-recording-techniques

25. The Fear That Synthesizers Would Ruin Music - JSTOR Daily, accessed August 29, 2025, https://daily.jstor.org/the-fear-that-synthesizers-would-ruin-music/

26. Just realized that "AI Art isn't Art" is the same as "Electronic Music isn't Music" : r/comfyui, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/comfyui/comments/1inucsu/just_realized_that_ai_art_isnt_art_is_the_same_as/

27. Technology and the Music Industry - LibraETD, accessed August 29, 2025, https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/downloads/tq57ns04w?filename=Buckley_Emily_STS_Research_Paper.pdf

28. How Technology Changed the Rhythm of the Music Industry - LSU Scholarly Repository, accessed August 29, 2025, https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2000&context=honors_etd

29. Artificial Intelligence versus/& Human Artists: AI as a Creative Collaborator in Art, accessed August 29, 2025, https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/artificial-intelligence-versus-human-artists-ai-as-a-creative-collaborator-in-art/