AS has entered the job market and infiltrates all facets of our lives at an unprecedented speed, the leaders of the industry told us that if you do not use it, You are late. However, when the use of AI in art enters the conversation, some retirement In discomfort, rejecting it as an affront to the very essence of art. This current debate continues to create disturbance Among the artists. AI fundamentally changes the creative process, and its objective, its meaning and influence are subjective to its own values - which makes its trajectory difficult to predict, and even more difficult to face.
The Panamanian photographer based in Miami, Dahlia Dreszer, stands out as an optimist and a believer in the powers of the AI. She compares the use of AI in art with the act of painting or drawing – another medium which can unlock a creative potential and an artistic vision which has never been made without it. Using generative AI models such as stable diffusion, 3.5, Midjourney, Adobe, Firefly and Nova, Dreszer formed an AI image generator for more than a year, asking him to produce illustrations with her sensitivity, with a piece in his current exposure produced entirely by AI.
Entitled “Bringing the outside”, Dreszer calls the show a “living organism”. (He was exhibited until May 17, 2025 in Green Space Miami.) His lively and maximalist mother’s lives represent family inheritances in layers, Judaica, flowers and textiles manufactured by Panamanian native women. Participants can interact with an IA images generator in the exhibition to produce their own works in the style of Dreszer, saying to the machine in a sentence or two what they want to produce, and in seconds, a work of art is created. As part of the show too, Dreszer has programmed a clone generated by AI, which resembles and speaks like it, to guide visitors via a video chat through space.
This interview was slightly modified for length and clarity.
Time: bring me back at the first moment you realized that AI could improve your art. And did AI attract you? What did you feel?
Dreszer: I think technology is there to overcome us. When the generating AI entered the dominant current, I knew I wanted to get my hands dirty right away. I was already in the world of NFT, but it was a different conversation. It took more than a year of experimentation and dialogue with image generators to feel comfortable finally creating a piece to include in a set of works.
This exhibition includes a piece that I made in collaboration with AI. I have personalized an IA image model on what the exposure means, looks like and looks like images that fuel it embodying my style. I included the Florida Everglades in the foreground, reflecting the landscape where I live today. I am not only interested in AI and art, but also to add nature to this conversation. I hung flowers on this piece that fall on the setting or the floor when they die, allowing nature to do its thing. I did not intervene physically. I believe that nature, art and technology may well coexist.
I really thought that all The parts of your exhibition were produced by AI.
It is also intention, no, because they are not. I always try to play with viewers, to disorient, because everything is not what you see at first glance. There is no artificial improvement in most of these works, but just the fact that you think there is – I find this story interesting.
What inspired you to create a clone for this exhibition?
My clone is so fun. I try to ask the community questions when they get involved with this work: to go ahead, what does it mean for relationships when we talk to a machine as if it were a human, and we cannot know the difference? What is our role of humans if we have clones that can imitate what we do? I want to see how this dialogue is evolving. There is also a practice. The clone guides you through the show, probably better than me. He is trained on what I know, but as a machine, he is supercharged.
Why did you include your clone?
I wanted to have an AI version of me to guide viewers and answer questions, to educate others to demystify AI. Through the clone, I can humanize technology, “the art of the possible”, to incorporate technology into artistic workflows.
Are you going to keep your clone after the exhibition? Are you going to educate him on other parts of yourself?
I am very interested in continuing the relationship with her. I work through ideas and ways to train it. I haven’t shared it yet, but there are different characters from the clone. I will settle and create different versions depending on the relationship I want her to have with the public with which she is committed.
Some criticisms would call for the use of AI in “cheating” art. What do you say to these criticisms?
I would love to have a conversation to understand how this opinion was formed. I encourage them to see it as a collaboration. Many people do not understand the process and the time it takes.
I would invite the criticisms to dive more deeply and to think about it not only as: “I put an invite, it makes art, then I finished.” It is a long process, but this relationship between technology and the arts is not new. We have already had disturbances of art through technology. It’s just more aggressive, intrusive and rapid in its speed and pace of innovation.
What specific challenges have you encountered so far using AI in your art?
Often outings are not what I wanted. As an artist, I have high expectations. I like to control the visualization, so it is very stylized, organized and composed. With AI, this control disappears, because AI has its own intelligence and creativity, whatever the quality of the invitation. It is a hard and frustrating but also enlightening process; It may not create what you want, but it can do something you don’t have know You wanted. Then there are technical things that he doesn’t know how to do it, but ultimately. It is not great with certain renderings or visualizations.
What scares you and excites where AI goes to the next generation of artists?
I am especially excited because of the rapid pace. Generative AI software updates occur in a few weeks. There is also healthy competition on the market, which means that as users, our needs are satisfied more quickly than ever. Our comments are incorporated and the tools change.
You have asked questions about fears. AI enters our workflows and industries in one way or another. Will we accept it? Deny it? Who will late and who will be at the forefront? I am more excited than fearful, but I see why others may be afraid. This disrupts our workflows, and if we are not ready to change or acquire new skills, this can be frightening.
Will collaboration with AI replace collaboration between artists?
No, no, no. There are many examples of the way I and several artists have collaborated with AI. An artist came to see me with his artistic vision and his words, and I used my skills in fast engineering and my knowledge of AI systems, and together, we created a play of AI which was his vision in life – this beautiful red textile tree which had a huge trunk.
As an artist, there is a trip that we are going through during creation. When you use AI, does this always allow you to access this experience of another world of the creative process?
There are certainly parts of the creative process that AI does not understand. So, for example, when I do art I have, I do not paint or that I do not dirty. There are physicity that is not included in this trip. But I think it’s similar to any medium. So let’s say that I choose to use my camera as my tool and not a brush. There are also experiences that are missed through my photographic artistic process, that if I used a brush or another tool, it would be a different journey. This is why I see the art of generative AI as its own medium, and each medium is delivered with its own trips and processes exclusive to this medium, right?
Do you see the term “post-human” as a specific way to reflect this era that we enter art?
I would divert a little of “post-human”. I see AI more like a booster, not like a replacement, but an accelerator and a catalyst. So, if “post-human” means that it is a replacement, then I would look more at the perspective of AI as a compressor turbo that we, humans, can take with us to bolt. I think it could replace the banal tasks that we may not want to do. And this is where the beauty of collaboration comes into play, where we give it these tasks so that our human brain reaches our full potential, because then the low value tasks that we can outsource in generative AI.
How do you think historians will return to this particular era of rapid expansion with AI?
We are in the era of foundations. Everyone knows what Chatgpt is. We have passed the inflection point, and now we are at a time when industries, individuals, businesses and creatives find their place in AI. How do we adapt – or not – for that? Time is gasoline. What we decide to do now, literally today, compared to a week or two, or three, or in a month, will define the next five to 10 years.
