how can people who do not create democratize creativity?

white men’s greed, shame, and lust for power renames blatant theft as providing access.

stealing people as providing access to civilization.

stealing rituals as providing access to religion.

stealing homes as providing access to land, and

stealing art as providing access to creativity. “democratizing” creativity.

instead of seeing something they don’t understand or don’t yet know as something to learn and be learned, these men see it as something to be conquered. something to be subjugated, to be made to do their bidding. and isn’t that just what generative AI is? being confronted with not yet knowing and being given a way to instantly “know.” completely stepping over the process of knowing, the experience of learning, to now possess the desired information. instead of wrestling with one’s own creativity, creativity itself becomes something to be conquered. made to do your bidding. in one click, a creative idea is made to become a creation, and it is called “access to creativity.” “democratized” creativity.

but how can people who do not truly create democratize creativity?

how can people who do not truly learn democratize learning?

this idea that "democratization" is the way to address learning and creative skill gaps is delusional at best and propaganda at worst. we’re currently witnessing a shift from an awareness that people possess varying levels of skill and an acceptance of some people as being more skilled through their dedicated learning about one or more topics to the notion that everyone should be able to instantly obtain expert-level knowledge, creativity, recognition, and trust through the use of generative AI. this is nonsense. skill gaps are being seen as “unfairness”. someone not yet being able to do something at their desired level has become an indictment on society vs. a current personal state of being. we’re seeing people go from failed creative to leveraging the wholesale robbery of human creativity to soothe their shame, simply because “it’s not fair that i can’t create the way i want to yet.”

it’s not fair that i can’t write.

it’s not fair that people don't like my writing.

it’s not fair that i’m not as good as someone else.

it’s not fair that i want to write a book and i can’t just have a book written.

nonsense.

as someone immensely fascinated by learning, me not knowing everything at this very moment doesn’t automatically mean i want or need to know everything instantly, or that fairness comes into play. if i don’t yet know how to draw, it is not a crime against me that i don’t know how to draw like a professional at this very moment. i can learn. if i want to learn, i can learn. i don’t need to be an instant expert. the professor or the prodigy. i enjoy the process of learning information in my own time. the circuitous nature of research that allows me to find the pieces of information i both wanted to know and didn’t know i needed. i am comfortable saying i don’t know or i don’t know yet. and i’m comfortable listening to the people who do know. the human beings who have taken the time and energy to acquire said knowledge. to learn. i appreciate the winding paths i take to learning something new or relearning something old. the frustration of not acquiring a skill as quickly as i’d like, or realizing i don’t really care about a skill or hobby or topic as much as i originally thought. the elation of discovering a new way i’m able to express myself.

my learning and my creativity are active processes i do for me. they’re about connection, communication, understanding myself, and expressing my identity. even as i grapple with perfectionism, the writing i ultimately share is not about how excellent it is. it’s about what i want to say. for my internal validation. because i can’t help but tell myself that my words matter to me. what i create matters to me.

generative AI is so insidious because these tools have been constructed by people who know this. people who know what the creative process means to creative people. when creative people speak of “what we create”, we’re speaking about how we’ve made what we’ve made and why. when people who do not create speak of “what they create”, they’re speaking about the what. the “creative” end through whatever means. the builders of these tools know they can muddy language and persuade people who do not create to believe they’re using generative AI to express themselves exactly like people who do. and they’re not. 

the move from a desire to create to instantly holding a creation in your hand is a bastardization of the entire creative process, and not experiencing the process robs us of the art itself. the very people sanitizing theft and plagiarism via generative AI are fully aware of this. their use of progressive language to describe their theft shines a light directly on their shame. they know true, human creativity is hard and worthy and preferred. the human experience of making art is thrilling and depressing and lonely and frustrating and electrifying. it means dealing with our own insecurities and anxieties and strengths, reckoning with ourselves to create something from nothing. it means not doing your art for extensive periods of time because you’re struggling to confront yourself or your feelings, or intense flow states – months and months and months of creation pouring out of you as you exorcise your emotions.

they know many people don’t create because they feel like they can’t or they can’t yet. and i’m not talking about people who aren’t creating due to lack of access to resources, programming, money. i’m talking about people who don’t because of entitlement. shame. lack of discipline. lack of true interest. convenience. no care for the creative process. because it’s hard and they’re unwilling to do the hard stuff. they can’t achieve the ultimate goal, so they don’t start. these people can be convinced that generative AI is the path to achieving their creative dreams. with little to no resistance. when the product is the focus, who cares about the path you took to get there?

but people do care. we prefer human-created art.

it’s not that people want creativity to be democratized; they want to feel okay with not being able to do things they say they want to do while claiming they can. not knowing things and claiming that they know.

they want people who can truly create to tell them “we are the same.”

we are not the same.

i write. i am writing.

i don’t produce writing.

i write.

creativity is already democratized. everyone can create. self-expression is already available to everyone. everyone possesses an innate ability to figure out ways to say the things that they desperately want to say. it has nothing to do with being good or acceptable to others. art is a yearning to share, a yearning to communicate, a yearning to connect, even if it’s solely with yourself.

so much of art is us, the relationship between a person and the art. steven soderbergh’s latest film THE CHRISTOPHERS (2025) written by ed solomon offers up a strong thesis about humanity, art, authenticity, capitalism. about the process of creation and how much of ourselves as humans we both express and learn through the art we create and experience. the opportunity for serendipity, and things and people and memories and moments we didn’t expect to be at play during the creation of a piece of art. generative AI eliminates all of the murky in-between, the actual learning, in search of some “democracy" – a confounding and disturbing experience to witness when we know human beings are instinctively drawn to humanity. we crave stories about the how, the journey from the artist to their art.

the creative journey is very rarely a straight line, and those instances when it is are miraculous because they are quintessentially human. humans are wealths of knowledge and history and reference and wit. we are. we care deeply about the meandering paths we take to become the people we are. the leaps forward and the mounting setbacks. the starts and stops. the fact that we can have ideas and things totally unexpected can knock into those ideas and change the course of our lives.

generative AI has unleashed the power to create incredibly straight lines – perfect straight boring lines from idea to creation. touting claims of access as if we’re not being made to see firsthand the eradication of the entire creative process. straight lines destroying opportunities for synchronicity with other people, opportunities for serendipity, opportunities for storytelling. there’s an ad plastered all over the trains in nyc gleefully showing exactly this: one step from prompt to presentation. two paths – one serpentine, the other straight. the first described as the “old” way – with people; collaborating and confusing one another, disagreements and epiphanies. the second? generative AI making a way for you to get exactly what you wanted with no obstacles. capitalism has bludgeoned us enough for the second to feel like the obvious choice.

every time i see the ad, i can’t help but think of two versions of a life. same beginning, same end. the only thing that matters is the path. all we care about is the path. it’s why we create and experience art. it’s why we read stories, watch movies, play video games, sew garments. we want the confusion and the complexity. we want human creativity.

it doesn’t need to be democratized. it already is.

make something.

you can.