There is a lot of noise around AI at the moment. Some of it is useful, some of it is not, and some of it misses the point entirely.
For me, AI is not a replacement for creativity. It is not the beginning of the work, and it is certainly not the whole process. It is another tool, and like any tool, its value depends on who is using it.
My artworks do not begin with a typed prompt. They begin with a photograph.
Real people come into my studio. They are photographed using a medium format camera, with controlled lighting, costume, atmosphere and direction. That first image gives the work its foundation. It gives me the face, the body, the pose, the mood and the human presence. Without that, the image has no anchor.
From there, the photograph moves into Photoshop. The figure is masked, separated, adjusted and broken down into layers. Armour, clothing, background, atmosphere, texture, colour and light are all treated as separate parts of the image. This is where the work starts to become something else.
AI then enters the process, but not as a replacement for the artist. I use it in the same way I use photography, compositing, drawing, retouching and digital painting. It becomes part of the workflow. Sometimes it helps build a background. Sometimes it helps develop a costume idea. Sometimes it expands an atmosphere or gives me material to composite back into the image. The important point is that it is being directed, edited and controlled.
The references I use are often photographs, sketches, costume ideas, armour studies or visual concepts that already exist inside the project. The AI generation is not the final artwork. It is raw material. It has to be selected, cut apart, corrected, blended and made to work with the original photograph. Most of what is generated never makes it into the finished piece.
This approach comes quite naturally to me. I have worked in the video games market, I am a trained graphic artist, and I have spent years working with photography, restoration, layout and visual presentation. New tools do not frighten me. They interest me. When used properly, they allow an image to go further than it could have done through photography alone. That does not mean the machine is the artist.
The concept is human. The model is real. The lighting is chosen. The costume is arranged. The photograph is made. The layers are built. The image is judged, rejected, rebuilt and refined. The direction comes from me, not from a prompt box.
I also use AI for product mock-ups. Yes, I can place a model in the heart of Shinjuku wearing one of my T-shirts. That is part of the modern visual language of online selling. It helps people imagine the work beyond a flat product photograph. But again, the deeper point is not the mock-up. It is the idea behind it. The inspiration, the concept and the implementation remain human.
People often use the phrase “fine art” as if it explains something. I have never been too concerned with that. To me, fine art is often just a term coined to describe something someone likes. I like these artworks. They come from my own interests, my own photographs, my own visual language and my own sense of what looks right. My hope is simple. Other people may like them too.
So yes, AI is part of the process. I think it is here to stay, and I think artists should engage with it rather than pretend it does not exist. But there is a great difference between using AI as a shortcut and using it as part of a considered creative process.
For me, it all begins with a photo.
