Few subjects divide a room of artists, musicians, and filmmakers quite as sharply as artificial intelligence. For some, it is an exciting new instrument, full of possibility, that lowers barriers and frees up time for the work that matters. For others, it is a genuine threat to livelihoods and to the very value of human craft, built on the uncredited labour of the people it now competes with. Nottingham's independent creative scene, never shy of a strong opinion, is having this argument in studios, venues, and pubs across the city. So where does the truth actually sit?
Image by Magnific
The Case For The Defence
Start with the genuine upside, because there is one and it deserves a fair hearing. For an independent creative working alone or on a shoestring budget, these tools can remove the grind that so often gets in the way of the actual art. The tedious, repetitive, technical middle of a project, the part nobody got into a creative field to do, is frequently exactly what the technology handles well.
Take video, a notoriously time-hungry medium that can swallow days of an independent maker's life. For a one-person studio, an ai video generator can handle the dull middle of the process, the rough cut and the basic assembly, so the maker spends more of their limited time on the ideas and decisions that genuinely matter. Used this way, the technology is not replacing the creativity. It is clearing space for it.
The Case For The Prosecution
The concerns, though, are just as real and deserve equal respect rather than dismissal. Many of these tools learned from the work of human artists who were never asked for permission and never paid a penny. For a community built entirely on creative labour, that is not a minor technicality. It is a fundamental question of fairness.
Creatives also worry, with good reason, about being undercut by cheap, fast, generated output, and about what happens to craft, skill, and originality when anyone can produce passable work in seconds.
These are not paranoid fears dreamed up by people resistant to change. They are live, serious questions about ownership, fairness, and the future of creative work, and they will not be settled quickly or easily.
Finding A Middle Path
Between the wide-eyed cheerleaders and the absolute refuseniks sits a more useful and more honest position, and it is the one many working creatives are quietly adopting. They are treating these tools as exactly that, tools, to be used for some jobs and pointedly ignored for others. The skill lies in knowing the difference.
That means using the technology to remove obstacles and handle the drudgery, while never surrendering the vision, the voice, and the human judgement that make the work genuinely theirs. A tool can assemble a rough cut, but it cannot decide what a piece is really about, or why it matters, or how it should make someone feel. Those decisions remain firmly human, and the creatives navigating this well keep them that way.
What The Wider Sector Says
This tension is being felt right across the creative industries, not just in Nottingham. Arts Council England has acknowledged both the creative potential of new technology and the importance of protecting artists and their livelihoods, a balance that captures the dilemma rather well. The aim, sensibly, is neither to halt the technology nor to embrace it uncritically, but to shape how it is used so that human creativity remains genuinely valued and fairly rewarded.
That is a difficult balance to strike, and the conversation is ongoing, but it is the right conversation to be having. Pretending the technology does not exist helps no one, and nor does ignoring the legitimate concerns of the artists it affects.
A Personal Decision
Ultimately, how an individual creative responds to all this is a personal choice, shaped by their medium, their values, and their circumstances. Some will embrace these tools enthusiastically, some will reject them entirely on principle, and many will land somewhere in between, using them selectively for the parts of the job they are happy to hand over. All of those are defensible positions, and there is no single right answer that fits every artist.
The Nottingham View
If there is a lesson from a scene as fiercely independent and self-determined as this one, it is that tools have never made the art. People did, and people still do. AI will change how some work gets made, just as digital cameras, editing software, and synthesisers did before it, each greeted with its own wave of suspicion. But the ideas, the perspective, the politics, and the soul still have to come from somewhere human, and no prompt can supply them.
The creatives who thrive will be the ones who use whatever tools genuinely serve their vision, while keeping that vision unmistakably and uncompromisingly their own. The technology is just the latest instrument. What matters, as it always has, is who is playing it and what they have to say.
We have a favour to ask
LeftLion is Nottingham’s meeting point for information about what’s going on in our city, from the established organisations to the grassroots. We want to keep what we do free to all to access, but increasingly we are relying on revenue from our readers to continue. Can you spare a few quid each month to support us?