Ugly design is better than AI?

Recently, I’ve been seeing a lot of “ugly art is better than AI” trends on my fyp where people (usually beginners) show their creations and seek support. Some really good artists also jump on the trend to speculate on it, acting somewhat “pick me” in an attempt to go viral.

This made me think: is it actually the case or just a trend? And is ugly design better than AI?

Let’s dive in

To answer this question, I started thinking about different artists and their work. What was so special about the ones who became world-famous while we know so little about others? And usually, it’s not a skill issue.

You either love it or hate it

Rothko’s paintings are sold for millions of dollars. Looking at one, you might think, “Give me a brush and a canvas and I’ll do it myself in 15 minutes. And honestly, it's not an example of extraordinary technical skill, and it's not hard to replicate. It's a canvas with a few rectangles on it. But the idea that color alone can provoke a feeling is exactly what made Rothko so famous, and his work so desirable.

Woman with Bicycle, 1952 by Willem de Kooning

Don’t hate on me all Kooning’s fans. I can appreciate this piece from a distance in the museum but no way this thing is going on my wall even for free. The original painting is estimated to be valued at $100–150 million tho. Why? Because it is a monumental masterpiece from a defining 20th-century art movement.

How about digital art?

Harold Cohen, Shawna X, or Davidcarson - some great digital artists right there👇

None of that is "type a prompt into Midjourney and call it a day.” But what if they did use some AI to get there? What if 10% of the process was AI? What if 80% was? Does it make the work less valuable? Does the statement “ugly art is better than AI” still applicable here? Would the people spiraling about this online even agree on what to call it? The line gets blurry.

Let’s go one step further: What if 100% was AI?

Everyone has stumbled upon AI art by now. I’m not talking about that shitty image chatgpt generated you after a one-line prompt.

I’m talking about proper AI art. And honestly, it can be quite impressive.

"Memories of Passersby I" by Mario Klingemann.

The piece is an installation: an AI placed in a custom chestnut-wood cabinet, wired to two framed screens. Unlike earlier generative art, it doesn't pull from a database, it's an AI brain Klingemann trained himself, generating brand-new portraits pixel by pixel, in real time. Nothing on screen is random. It's always new, and the flow of images follows no script - the AI is reacting to its own output in a feedback loop, so no image ever repeats.

Klingemann mentioned in an interview with El País, "The machine can produce many things, but it still cannot discern which ones make sense and which ones don't, so we are the ones who have to find, among all this infinite output, what makes sense to us.”

This is as close as it gets to AI producing art in my opinion. But let's zoom out and take a look at the bigger picture. The artificial intelligence was only a part of the process. Did it decide to place itselft in a room in the form of two pictures hang up on the wall? Did it decide to train itself on the art of 17th century? Would it even exist without Klingemann?

Refik Anadol

Refik Anadol’s work is the intersection of humans and machines. He uses machine intelligence and massive datasets as his primary creative tools for his stunning exhibitions. I once attended one of those in London, and I must say I was as mesmerized as I've ever been standing in front of a Monet.

So is ugly art better than AI?

Depends what you call AI. And depends what you call "ugly". What one says is ugly, another says it's gorgeous. In my opinion, it really comes down to one question: does the work have a "soul"? If lets say someone just prompted Midjourney to generate a random image - that’s just a collection of pixels that happen to resemble a real painting - soulless. If using Midjourney they brought an idea or feeling to life - that’s art. The difference seems subtle but in fact it’s huge. In the first case AI is the artist, in the second - a tool. And the moment it becomes a tool you are no longer comparing your ugly art to AI. It’s human vs human again. Just different ways to express inner creativity.

Back to design

And I don’t just mean UI/UX design. I mean any kind of design: product, industrial, graphic, interior, architecture, fashion, etc. The main difference between art and design is that art is driven by personal expression and emotion, while design is purpose-driven and focuses on solving a specific problem while striving to pursue beauty.

Take interior design

There’re objectively ugly designs out there:

It’s not functional, the aesthetics are questionable or both.

Then there's AI-generated design. I personally think it looks much better. And it's probably at least as functional if not more.

Of course there’s a trade off - no personal touch. Soulless. Again. You end up with something very generic and a little boring. Functional? Probably. AI at least knows color theory and basic interior principles most people don't. And some people don’t mind that. And that’s okay. And not to sound like a hypocrite, but, gun to my head, i would rather my home look like a second option if i had to choose. But that's also very hypothetical. Will i ever have to make that choice? Probably not.

Digital design

Google "bad website design" and this is the first result you'll get:

I gave it to Claude and asked to redesign.

Let’s analyse it together:

• Added some basic design principles ✅

• We can see a clear CTA ✅

• Better readability ✅

• Lost its personality ❌

• Looks super generic and not memorable ❌

• Both don’t look professional, therefore users might doubt how reliable it is ❌

I’ll let you answer for yourself if it’s better.

Album cover for Charlie XCX

If you're looking at that cover wondering why the text is so blurry, I’m with you. That is genuinely what got uploaded to every official platform.

Freaney, the desiger who created this, revealed later that the final blurred ‘Brat’ cover was caused by an export error of a low-res screenshot.

But here’s a funny part. Charlie was really happy with and that she felt like really represented her album in the right way.”

And there’s so many examples like this, where a mistake or a misunderstanding ends up being better than the original intention. Because it’s human. It has flaws. And those flaws carry meaning. Something we recognize in ourselves. And AI has flaws too, yes. But it’s just an error in the algorithm or the wrong prediction. Zero actual understanding or taste used along the way.

So is ugly design better than AI?

If you ask me - no. There’s a beauty in creating, in making mistakes along the way, and looking imperfect. Some might disagree. But i bet those are the same people saying they can remake Rothko’s paintings in 15 minutes.