New Concordia ‘AI + Creativity’ art program draws backlash

The course’s instructor says it teaches artists to engage with AI critically

NewsHannah Scott-Talib — Published March 17, 2026 5 minutes

The initiative, titled “CTRL + AI: Human Creativity and Agency in the Age of AI,” is backed by the Tom Berry Fund for AI and Creativity. It combines a for-credit fine arts undergraduate course with a “series of six public conversations and hands-on workshops that foreground artistic agency, experimentation and critical engagement,” according to Concordia’s website. 

However, the initiative is drawing criticism from art students and practicing artists at the university. In particular, students are criticizing the undergraduate course within the initiative, titled “AI + Creativity.” 

Alyson Bouffard, a student in the studio arts undergraduate program at Concordia, said she believes that generative AI has no place in the world of visual arts.

“I don’t know why they would introduce a class like that,” Bouffard said. “I don’t know what clientele they’re trying to reach.”

The “AI + Creativity” course description states that it seeks to “prepare students to integrate generative AI into professional creative workflows as a collaborative tool,” adding that “students will learn to use AI to explore divergent directions, generate raw material, and accelerate iteration, while maintaining rigorous professional standards.”

Bouffard said she was shocked to discover the existence of the course.

“I think that just doesn’t make sense because how can you create something raw with AI?” she said. “I definitely don’t think that it should be promoted as a new technology or a new way of creating art.”

Bouffard is not the only Concordia student who feels that a course on generative AI does not have a place at the university. Meggan Caunter, an artist and English literature student at Concordia, finds the idea of the course "abhorrent."

“I don’t think it belongs there. I don’t think AI generative art is a [real] thing," Caunter said. "I don’t think it’s art. It’s just a compilation of different arts that were stolen off the internet from actual artists.”

In the world of visual arts, generative AI companies have long been accused of stealing the pre-existing works of artists, leading to widespread backlash and lawsuits from artists. 

Given her view on the course, Caunter said that she began to look into pursuing a degree at another institution and will be leaving Concordia this year. 

“The installation of the AI course was the final straw for me to realize that this institution is going in an awful direction and I want absolutely nothing to do with it,” she said. 

According to both Caunter and Bouffard, not a single artist they know supports the idea of a future where generative AI becomes normalized and integrated into art practices. 

“The whole point of [pursuing an arts degree] is to learn how to get more creative and how to think artistically and improve our modes of creating,” Bouffard said. “I just think that using AI is completely backwards from what could be learned and taught through universities." 

For Caunter, the promotion of generative AI in the art world is harmful for many reasons. 

“First of all, you’re teaching students that it’s OK to copy and steal from other artists, you’re teaching artists not to think for themselves, you’re teaching students to be lazier,” Caunter said. “These programs skip steps.”

She added that the course’s description—which refers to generative AI as a collaborative tool for artists—is misleading, along with the thought process of “it’s going to happen whether you want it or not” when it comes to the integration of generative AI into the arts. 

“That exact mentality is why it’s happening, and why we’re normalizing it,” Caunter said. “We’re normalizing it and making people be OK with it by accepting this wave of AI.” 

Meanwhile, Bouffard said that, in her case, pursuing a degree in studio arts should not involve learning about generative AI. 

“It’s really not what Concordia is to me,” Bouffard said. “I chose to study here because I knew that I could get a great education from artists who know what they’re doing and who have had experiences in the field.”

In an email statement to The Link, Concordia’s inaugural AI expert-in-residence Christian Beltrami—who will be teaching the “AI + Creativity” course—said that the goal of the course is not to teach students how to generate more content faster.

“It is about teaching them how to remain artists when generation becomes easy. It is about new frameworks for thinking, new methods of critique, new ways of working and a much higher standard for selection and authorship,” Beltrami wrote in the email. “If a student leaves the course believing the goal is to prompt harder and flood the world with more images, then the course has failed.” 

Beltrami continued that, through this course, students must be taught that AI is not a neutral tool, but a system shaped by human data, historical bias and embedded assumptions.

“That means learning to ask concrete questions before using any tool,” Belrami said. “What role is this system actually playing in the process? Where was it trained? What kinds of biases or flattening effects might it produce? And how much trust should be placed in its output without human oversight?”

According to Beltrami, artists will come across AI in the future of their careers, whether they like it or not. 

“The question is not whether students can avoid these systems entirely. They will encounter them,” he said. “The real question is whether they are being prepared to use them critically, knowing what these tools accelerate, what they flatten and where human craft still has to lead.”

Looking towards the general future of visual arts, Bouffard said she has noticed that an increasing number of artists seem to be drawn towards digital practices, which saddens her as an artist who works primarily through paint and canvas. 

“What drives me to be an artist is the fact that I can get creative with my hands and create things physically. Sculptures and things like that cannot be replicated through digital art,” Bouffard said. “It would be sad to see more people leaning towards that, and losing these original forms of art that are so old and that have been so important to society.”

This article originally appeared in Volume 46, Issue 11, published March 17, 2026.