I use AI in my creative work. I still think the slop deserves criticism.
I use AI almost every day in my work as a designer and creative director. And yes, I roll my eyes at a lot of AI imagery.
You probably know the look I mean. Warm tones that have nothing to do with the brand. Plastic skin. Surfaces with no believable texture. A product dropped into a vaguely beautiful scene, with very little attention paid to the details. It might be polished at first glance, but it feels distant. You could swap the logo for another business and barely notice. When that work gets criticized, I often agree. I want brands to expect more from the imagery they put into the world, including the work they commission from people like me.
A pretty image still needs a reason to exist
When I look at an image for a campaign, “does this look good?” is only the beginning.
I need to be able to explain why it belongs to that brand. How it connects to the campaign idea. What it communicates about the product, and how it works alongside the other images. Something can be beautiful and still be wrong for the project. I will reject an image if it takes us outside the concept, breaks the visual thread, or communicates something I cannot defend through the brand’s positioning.
Then there is the execution. Obvious errors, poor quality, strange hands, inaccurate product details: those need to be caught. Skin needs texture. Materials need to feel like materials. An image needs enough care to hold up beyond that first quick impression. That is part of the work. Generating something attractive does not mean it is finished.
I think some brands are missing a role they don’t know exists
I do not necessarily think founders are using AI to deliberately avoid paying for creative direction. My suspicion is that many do not know what creative direction involves in the first place. If you have built your own business, designed your own logo, and chosen your own colors, you might reasonably feel that you have the branding covered. There is nothing wrong with starting that way, especially when your budget is limited.
But there is another layer: deciding how the brand should show up in images, what a campaign should say, and which visual choices will connect everything. Without that direction, every new image becomes a separate decision. You find a reference, generate something you like, and post it. Over time, the feed can become a collection of attractive images with very little relationship to each other.
I can imagine a similar gap in a larger business when content production moves quickly and nobody is closely reviewing how the brand is being represented. AI makes it easier to produce more imagery. It also makes those missing decisions more visible.
For me, AI is a way to express an idea
The part of the criticism that feels unfair is when using AI becomes enough to dismiss the creative work entirely.
For me, it can occupy the place a camera would in a particular project: a tool I use to realize an idea and express a visual point of view. The medium is different, but I still care deeply about the concept, composition, styling, texture, and feeling of the finished work. I see that as an artistic practice. It gives me another way to explore a world I have imagined and turn it into something visible.
People can have their own opinions about that. There are also wider questions about AI that deserve their own discussion. Here, I am talking specifically about the creative work, and the care and judgment that should go into it.
What frustrates me is seeing thoughtful work and careless mass production treated as if they are the same simply because both involved AI. I understand why people are skeptical. I also want there to be room to assess what was actually made.
Real people and real results still matter
I want AI to sit alongside photography, real people, and real product experiences in a brand’s creative work. A campaign might use AI to explore an unexpected setting or a more imaginative visual idea. Elsewhere, customers may need to see how a product looks on an actual person, how it is used, or what results it produces.
Those choices need to be made deliberately. If an image is communicating a real result, that result should come from real evidence. If the product’s texture or application matters to the purchase, the visuals need to represent it accurately.
As much as I enjoy creating with AI, I want the wider brand experience to stay connected to the people and products behind it.
What I would ask before approving an AI image
If you are a founder, you do not need to understand every production tool to ask better questions about the work:
Why does this image belong to our brand?
How does it connect to the campaign and the other assets?
Is the product represented accurately?
Have the details been reviewed beyond a small preview?
Is this the right place for an AI visual, or does our customer need to see something real?
A good creative partner should be able to talk you through those decisions.
I enjoy working with AI. I also want the work to earn its place in a campaign. It needs an idea, a clear connection to the brand, and enough attention to detail that I am proud to put my name on it.
That is the standard I want founders to expect.
If you are exploring AI imagery for your brand, tell me what you’re building. At Sundae Mood, we can start with the creative direction and work out what your campaign actually needs.
