Human-AI co-creation or conflict? Mapping art students’ diverse perspectives on creative identity with genAI: A Q methodology study

Abstract Generative AI (GenAI) is rapidly transforming creative fields, raising critical questions about its impact on artistic identity and authorship, which also influence art education. While studies have explored GenAI adoption, the diversity of art students’ subjective perspectives on collaborating with these tools remains under-examined. This study uses Q methodology, a mixed-methods approach to investigating subjectivity, to explore the distinct perspectives art students hold regarding their creative identity when collaborating with GenAI. We conducted a Q study with 40 university students from various art-related disciplines (e.g., visual arts, design, music, animation) across different academic levels. Participants sorted 42 statements reflecting diverse viewpoints on GenAI collaboration, authorship, ethics, and creative control. By-person factor analysis revealed five distinct perspectives: (1) Human-centered directors, who treat GenAI as a tool under strong human intention; (2) Authorship guardians, who resist AI co-authorship and prioritise authenticity and ethical boundaries; (3) Conflicted co-creators, who use GenAI but struggle with ownership, disclosure, and earned pride; (4) Pragmatic integrators, who adopt GenAI for workflow efficiency while keeping craft expertise central; and (5) Enthusiastic explorers, who embrace AI’s creative possibilities, open to co-agency and novel expression. These findings offer a nuanced typology of student viewpoints, moving beyond simple acceptance or rejection. We further propose a two-dimensional framework that maps these perspectives according to students’ openness to GenAI and their sharing of creative agency with it. This research contributes empirical insights into how art students negotiate creative identity with GenAI, provides a valuable framework for educators to develop tailored pedagogical strategies addressing diverse student needs and concerns, and offers implications for designing more human-centered GenAI tools for creative practice.