This Insight Brief is brought to you by Infegy’s partnership with Joesph Bayer’s students at The Ohio State University. We work with these students to dig into a particular topic of their interest and encourage deeper insights.

In the past few years, AI-generated art, created using tools like DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stability AI, has gone from being just a technical experiment to a cultural trend. It’s now showing up in everything from creative artworks and ads to social media posts. Let’s take a look at the 1.3 billion views on TikTok under the “AI Painting” hashtag (Yu et al., 2024); it’s clear that people are really interested in this technology and AI tools changing the way we create and experience visual culture. But like with any new tech, it also raises some ethical and societal concerns, from what counts as “real” art to copyright issues and the practical implications it may have for professional artists. 

Why social media data analysis?

Many academic studies have also explored topics related to AI-generated art from theoretical angles, such as the technology acceptance model and individual factors (Grassini & Koivisto, 2024; Yu et al., 2024). But, unlike traditional survey or interview methods, social listening tools like Infegy Starscape offer a more dynamic and realistic view of public discussion. With sentiment analysis, demographic, keyword clustering, and trending capabilities, Infegy enables large-scale analysis of naturally occurring online discussions, helping us capture how attitudes toward AI art shift in real-time and in natural contexts.

Is AI Art Real Art?

The debate about AI art being “real” art is really heating up! Last month, both the number of posts and overall engagement around this topic reached their highest levels so far, with 904,025,202 posts and 192,822,748 engagements in March 2025. That's an 86% jump in engagement, showing how this topic is starting to attract more people. 

Figure 1: Post volume associated with “whether AI art is real art” (January 2022-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Figure 2: Engagements associated with “whether AI art is real art” (January 2022-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Interestingly, the Bio Keywords word cloud shows that artists themselves are among the most active voices in such conversations, suggesting that this issue is particularly important to those in the creative field.

Figure 3: Source Bio Keywords associated with “whether AI art is real art” (January 2022-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Three Different Camps - Supporter, Cautiously Optimisitic, and Opponents

The debate around “Whether AI art is real art?” basically breaks down into three main camps based on what we’re seeing on social media and in online articles. Supporters state that prompts or user commands are essentially a creative process that AI is just bringing human ideas to life visually. Neutral or cautious voices emphasize human-AI collaboration, suggesting that AI can be an assistive tool but cannot yet serve as an independent artistic agent. For instance, independent animator Ruth Stella Lingford, Deepmake, and Harvard Business Review all noted that AI is better suited as a smart assistant than an independent creator, as it lacks true creativity and imagination (Mineo, 2023; Schwanke, 2024). Opponents, by contrast, argue that AI art diminishes the originality of human-made works and violates artists’ intellectual property rights. In an article published by The Harvard Gazette, architect Moshe Safdie stated that AI could only recombine existing styles without achieving genuine breakthroughs, lacking the innovation and emotional intent needed for “aesthetic paradigm shifts” (Mineo, 2023). Alex Hughes from BBC Science Focus also mentioned the same point and added that AI still struggles with getting detailed parts just right. (Schwanke, 2024).

Figure 4: Example Bios associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

First Christie’s AI Art Auction

Surge in Public Attention and Reactions 

Christie’s New York held the first AI art auction called “Augmented Intelligence” from February 20 to March 5, 2025. It raised widespread public discussion because of copyright issues and questions about artistic innovation. Social media data shows that from early February, posts about this topic grew fast, reaching 87,657 posts in March. Engagement hit an all-time high around the time the auction was happening, but it dropped afterward. This trend clearly shows that the auction became a major event in the art and tech field during this period. It caught the attention of not just the traditional art market but also tech communities and mainstream media.

Figure 5: Post volume associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Figure 6: Engagements associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Market Response

The auction was positioned to explore the unlimited potential of AI art, describing it as “an extension of human creativity” and “a collaborative tool for artists” (Christie’s, 2025). Data shows that positive sentiment around the auction reached 56.4%, mainly focusing on appreciation for technological innovation and expectations for breakthroughs in art. Reports indicate that final sales exceeded original expectations, and the buyer demographic skewed noticeably younger (Cassady, 2025). This suggests growing interest in this emerging art category, with AI art attracting a new generation of collectors to the art market.

Figure 7: Sentiment associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Copyright and Ethical Controversy

Despite impressive market performance, the auction also triggered strong criticism from parts of the art community. These detractors focused their conversations on the ethical impact of AI art, in that the AI models used to create the auction works were trained on large datasets of existing artworks, often without the original artists' consent, potentially constituting copyright infringement or “theft.” Social media analysis shows hashtags like “#ArtistRights,” “#Copyright,” and “#NoToAI” appearing frequently, reflecting artists' strong concerns about intellectual property. This controversy essentially reflects the deep conflict between artistic creation and copyright protection in the AI era, challenging existing creative ethics and legal boundaries.

Figure 8: Top hashtags associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Protests and Public Confrontation

Themes such as “Open Letter” and “Thred Website” highlight the divisions within the art world over the legitimacy of AI art. According to NBC News, over 6,400 artists jointly sent a letter to Christie’s questioning the auction (Kainz, 2025). In their open letter, they pointed out that many of the AI artworks participating in the auction were generated through AI models that may have used copyrighted works without authorization during their training process. This protest seems aimed not just at this particular auction but challenges the entire AI art industry, highlighting the tension and potential confrontation between human and algorithmic tools in artistic creation.

Figure 9: Narrative table associated with Christie’s AI art auction (January 2025-March 2025); Infegy Social Dataset.

Conclusion and Future Direction

Christie’s AI art auction both showed the market potential of AI art and exposed the ethical and legal challenges it faces. As technology advances and regulations are established, AI art has the potential to transform from a controversial focus to an important innovation in art history. Therefore, the debate triggered by this auction shouldn't be seen as simple opposition but as a multidimensional response to artistic disruption that will continue for the foreseeable future. Whether supporting or questioning it, AI art has entered the public eye, and its future will be shaped collectively by us.

Key Takeaways

• Social media analysis shows split opinions about AI art. By tracking topics like “Whether AI is real art” and “Christie’s AI art auction,” we can see AI art market trends and how different groups have different views on its value.
• Big events spark wider conversations. People talk about it a lot more when something major happens, like the Christie’s auction. These real-world events help bring big questions about AI art into everyday discussions and make people think deeper about them.
• Copyright issues are at the heart of AI art controversies. The frequently appearing keywords in social media discussions show that intellectual property has become the key factor in determining AI art’s legitimacy and future development.

References 

1. Cassady, D. (2025, March 5). Christie’s AI Art Sale Defies Controversy, Surpasses Expectations. ARTnews.com. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/christies-ai-art-sale-augmented-intelligence-controversy-surpasses-expectations-1234734870/
2. Christie’s. (2025, February 7). What is AI art? https://www.christies.com/en/stories/what-is-ai-art-augmented-intelligence-36dc0897d3584268b5102468a3bf8a8c
3. Grassini, S., & Koivisto, M. (2024). Understanding how personality traits, experiences, and attitudes shape negative bias toward AI-generated artworks. Scientific Reports, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54294-4
4. Mineo, L. (2023, August 15). If it wasn’t created by a human artist, is it still art? Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/is-art-generated-by-artificial-intelligence-real-art/
5. Schwanke, A. (2025, March 3). Generative AI — never truly creative? Medium. https://medium.com/@axel.schwanke/generative-ai-never-truly-creative-68a0189d98e8#:~:text=Limited%20Creativity%3A%20AI%20is%20good,technically%20impressive%20but%20lacks%20depth.
6. Yu, X., Yang, Y., & Li, S. (2024). Users’ continuance intention towards an AI painting application: An extended expectation confirmation model. PLoS ONE, 19(5), e0301821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301821