After Glasgow City Council approved a mural proposal using an AI-generated concept, local artists, musicians and residents have raised concerns about what the decision means for creativity and public art in the city.
When walking the Glasgow Mural Trail, it becomes impossible to miss that this is a city shaped by human hands.
From large-scale portraits to playful interventions woven into alleyways and building corners, Glasgow’s murals are not just images on walls but expressions of place, history and community.
Each piece bears the mark of an individual artist, their decisions, their labour, and their relationship to the city around them.
Against this backdrop, Glasgow City Council’s recent approval of a mural proposal that used an AI-generated image as its conceptual basis has struck many as deeply out of step with the city’s globally renound creative identity.
The artist involved has said the AI image was used only to “get the ball rolling” for planning approval and that the final work will be hand-painted, but reactions across Glasgow’s creative community make clear that the issue runs far deeper.
For many artists, musicians and residents, the decision reflects growing unease about technology entering cultural spaces not as a support for creativity, but as a shortcut around it.
A City of Murals, By the People, For the People
Glasgow’s mural trail has become an internationally recognised feature of the city, built on commissions that prioritise local artists and site-specific storytelling. Murals here are not interchangeable decorations; they respond to neighbourhoods, histories, and social movements.
Walking the trail, the physicality of the work is unavoidable. You see the brushstrokes, weathering, scale, and texture all speaking to time, effort, and human presence.
Artists Question What AI Means for Art Itself
For Glasgow-based artist Julia McTiernan, the controversy raises more fundamental questions about language and expression. She begins with a rejection of the term “AI art” itself.
“For starters, the term AI art does not sit right with me. Until the day AI feels compelled to create a picture or a melody of its own volition, without a prompt, I would be wary to call such a thing art,” she said.
While Julia does not dismiss the use of AI across other sectors, she draws a clear boundary when it comes to creative work.
“While I do not doubt AI can have a suitable function within various sectors, my main discrepancy with the use of AI as a replacement for art is the dependency of its usage becoming a reality.”
She warns that the consequences extend beyond employment. “Replacing not only jobs, but human expression and robbing otherwise creative people of their ability to make sense of their imagination and the unconscious material within the mind.”
For Julia, murals occupy a particular cultural importance. “Murals are artworks, and therefore should be treated with artistic expression in mind,” she said.
Although artists have long debated what art truly is, she believes the reaction to AI-generated imagery is unusually consistent. “With the rise of AI art, it is telling that most artists that I can see agree it does not hold up to the standards of what we define as art.”
“Art has never just been about creating a picture.”
A Wider Cultural Shift
These concerns are not confined to visual art, but are shared across Glasgow’s creative scenes. Poet and musician, J MP Lingham framed the issue as part of a broader economic and ideological trend.
“It being used by governments and businesses is a way to cut costs, cut jobs and reduce art and human expression to that of binary code. In a sense it is perfect for capitalists,” he said.
He also highlighted the environmental cost often overlooked in discussions of efficiency. “The actual cost of AI in the form of data centers will drink the earth dry.”
Placing the mural debate within a familiar struggle, he added: “As always when it comes to people vs profit, unless something is done by the people, profit will always win.”
“We have to reject AI in what is the first ideological battleground of many.”
Public Frustration Echoes Online
Reactions from Glasgow residents have mirrored these concerns. Social media responses show frustration not only with the use of AI, but with what many see as a contradiction between Glasgow’s creative reputation and the council’s decision.
One resident questioned the environmental logic of the proposal, commenting: “Featuring wind power while using AI which is awful for the environment.”
Another wrote: “It’s hypocrisy trying to portray the best of Scotland while not even using the best of Scot artists.”
Others were more direct, describing the proposal as “a JOKE” or questioning why public money was not being used to “pay real artists.” One commenter remarked that the project appeared to be organised by “people who would believe that chat gpt can fix potholes.”
Political Response and Calls for Clearer Guidance
The backlash has reached beyond the arts community and into Scottish politics. Glasgow MSP and Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie criticised the council’s handling of the proposal, urging local authorities to rethink how AI is treated in public art decisions.
“Glasgow City Council must learn from the reaction to this issue, and ensure that developers do not rely on AI rather than the huge pool of talent Glasgow and the rest of Scotland has to offer. Failure to put clear rules in place will dismay Scotland’s creative arts sector,” Harvie said.
He was particularly critical of the implications for artists’ livelihoods.
“The use of AI slop must not take hold. It’s artistically worthless, and contributes to the erosion of local artists’ employment opportunities, at a time when artists are already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.”
Placing the issue within Glasgow’s broader cultural history, Harvie added:
“Glasgow is a proud post-industrial cultural hub with amazing artists doing work that’s recognised around the world. All councils in Scotland should be supporting local artists, not replacing them.”
Harvie also questioned who benefits most from the increasing use of AI in creative industries.
“The only people that benefit from replacing human creativity in our communities with algorithms are the super-rich owners of the AI companies that rip-off artists’ work, without seeking proper consent.”
While acknowledging that AI is not inherently without value, he stressed the need for caution.
“AI undoubtedly offers both opportunities and risks, but the opportunities are being hyped and the risks too often ignored. The Scottish Greens advocate for a responsible use of AI, with robust regulation and safeguards to ensure people and planet are put before profit.”
More Than One Mural
Taken together, these responses make clear that the controversy is rooted not in hostility toward technology, but in disappointment that, in a city shaped by human creativity, an AI-generated concept was allowed to replace artistic vision.
Mitchell Street – Image Credit: Courteney Pearson
Walking the mural trail makes clear what many artists and residents are trying to articulate: Glasgow does not lack ideas, skill, or imagination. What it risks lacking, if decisions like this become normalised, is the willingness to prioritise those qualities when shaping the city’s public spaces.
For a city whose walls already tell such rich, human stories, many are now left asking why an algorithm was invited into the conversation at all.
Feature Image Credit: Courteney Pearson
