During a recent exhibit in Copenhagen, attendees were greeted by a unique experience: an AI-powered jaguar named Huk. This digital host engaged with visitors in a dimly lit room, sharing narratives about her daughter, the lush rainforest, and the devastating fires that once threatened the Bolivian Amazon. The interaction, facilitated by advanced technology, adjusted to each visitor through visual cues. This innovative art piece is the brainchild of Bolivian Australian artist Violeta Ayala, created during an artistic residency at Mila, a prominent AI research institution.
Such art residencies, hosted by various tech hubs, museums, and academic institutions, offer artists the opportunity to experiment with AI, providing them with vital tools and collaborative support. “I aimed to create a robot that symbolizes something beyond human,” Ayala explained. Her work not only showcases an inventive application of early AI but also reflects a rising trend of artist residencies that empower creators with AI resources, shaping public, legal, and institutional perceptions of this technology.
AI art residencies have seen rapid growth in recent years, with new initiatives appearing throughout Europe, North America, and Asia. Notable programs include those from the Max Planck Institute and the SETI Institute, both aimed at fostering creative AI applications. Many in the tech community view these residencies as a form of soft power, with works from participants showcased in esteemed institutions like New York’s Museum of Modern Art and Paris’s Centre Pompidou.
In early 2025, Villa Albertine, a French-American cultural organization, launched a specific AI program aimed at adding four new residents to its existing roster of 60 artists and thinkers each year. This initiative was introduced during an AI summit in Paris attended by French Culture Minister Rachida Dati and supported by OpenAI’s CEO of applications, Fidji Simo.
“We aim to foster inquiry rather than take sides,” commented Mohamed Bouabdallah, the director of Villa Albertine. “Some residents may critique AI or examine its potential risks.” In 2024, the organization also held a summit titled “Arts in the Age of AI,” which attracted over 500 participants, including representatives from OpenAI, Mozilla, SAG-AFTRA, and copyright offices from both the US and France.
Bouabdallah emphasized that these residencies focus on selecting artists rather than merely evaluating their work. They provide artists with the essential time and resources to delve into art projects that incorporate AI. “Even if someone uses AI heavily, they must clarify their intent. It’s not solely about the output; it’s about authorship,” he noted, adding that “the tool must be positioned behind the human.”
This cultural framing not only encourages artistic production but may also reshape public perceptions of AI art, countering the often negative attitudes surrounding it. Ethicist Trystan Goetze remarked, “An AI developer might seek to shift perceptions regarding legitimacy by presenting the use of AI in a manner akin to traditional artistic methods, making it more palatable.”
“The real value here is giving artists the space to grapple with that themselves.”
While these residencies provide targeted support for artists, they do not necessarily tackle broader issues around AI art. Goetze articulated that altering the context from casual users interacting with models to structured residencies does not resolve underlying concerns: “The labor issues persist.”
Questions of authorship and compensation remain contentious, with ongoing class-action lawsuits in the United States examining if generative models trained on copyrighted materials constitute fair use.
As courts deliberate these legal challenges, public opinion may play a crucial role in defining boundaries. If AI-generated art is perceived as derivative or exploitative, it may complicate efforts to legitimize it in policy and law.
This evolving dynamic mirrors events from over a century ago. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that piano rolls, then a new medium for music reproduction, did not fall under copyright protection due to their unreadability. The backlash from musicians and the public prompted Congress to enact the 1909 Copyright Act, which introduced a licensing system mandating payment for mechanical reproductions.
Goetze noted that these AI models possess a distinctive style: “With increased exposure to these visuals, they might become normalized.” This acceptance could potentially reduce resistance not only to AI art but to AI technologies in general.
“The ongoing debate surrounding inspiration versus plagiarism is vital,” Bouabdallah remarked. “The true value lies in providing artists the opportunity to explore these themes independently.”
Ayala articulated concerns that “the issue is not AI’s ability to copy, as humans often replicate, but rather the unequal distribution of benefits; larger corporations stand to gain the most.”
Despite the ongoing challenges, Ayala regards these residencies as crucial forums for artistic innovation. “We must not only critique the privileged structures behind AI’s creation; we need to actively pursue alternatives,” she stated. “It’s not merely about my vision for AI, as it already exists; we are evolving alongside it in our relationships, memories, and creativity.”
