Could AI replace original art?

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about how quickly AI is weaving itself into everyday life. While I’m fascinated by the possibilities, I also find parts of it uncomfortable. So much of it feels distant and impersonal, and I sometimes wonder what that means for creativity, connection, and the value we place on human expression.

I often hear artists worry that AI will replace original art, and I understand that fear. For me, art has always been about human presence, emotion, and the beauty of imperfection. It’s about seeing the trace of someone’s hands and thoughts in a finished piece.

That’s one of the reasons I’m drawn to printmaking. It has already lived through a technological shift. When digital methods took over mass production, printmaking didn’t disappear, it simply evolved. It became slower, more thoughtful, and more personal. What was once an industrial process became the realm of the artist.

Linocut, in particular, speaks to me. It doesn’t try to compete with digital perfection. Instead, it offers what digital methods could not replicate: texture, subtle variations from inking and pressure, and the visible presence an artist’s hand.

I think this is why we’re seeing such a renewed love for heritage skills and handmade objects. We’re craving connection. We want things with stories, not just decoration. We want to know that a human being stood behind what we’re holding. When you own an original, hand-printed piece of artwork from an edition, it makes you a shared custodian of something deeply human.  

This is a world where AI cannot compete.