The muse and the machine

An essay by Stephan Huber

AI is not the enemy of creative output, but it does require expertise in its application. Thoughts on how the conflicting priorities of creativity, leadership, and AI expertise can be reimagined in the fashion industry.

It is what everyone is talking about – how artificial intelligence will disrupt everything from supply chains to concept development. Some fashion brands are endeavoring to utilize AI in their creative processes. Others are hesitant because they remain unsure whether the use of AI might destroy the very essence, the heart, the brand DNA.

Personally, I do not believe one should be afraid of AI. However, we should definitely be afraid of how we deploy it.

One thing should be clear: AI is not the enemy of creativity. Applied consciously, it can be a remarkable tool, a partner for developing ideas, a source of unexpected interconnections, a lens through which to question established patterns. It can assist a designer in drawing unexpected cues from architecture or literature, or a copywriter in varying tone and pace. It can even help a CMO simulate how their campaign might resonate with different segments, regions, or cultures.

Complacency Kills Creativity

The problem is that very few people actually apply artificial intelligence in this capacity. In fact, I have observed that AI is often not used as a tool for critical reflection, but rather as a substitute for the same – a shortcut to a convenient solution, a way of saving yourself the trouble, not having to deal with oneself, and producing polished mediocrity at the touch of a button.

So, when we speak of being afraid of AI or the dangers of AI, this is precisely the critical point: because creativity does not arise from complacency. It arises from friction, from not knowing, from the tension between vision and implementation. It arises when you sketch five silhouettes that fail to work before you find the perfect one. When you revise a slogan 20 times until it feels just right. When you overcome doubt, dead ends, and complexity.

Besides complacency, we face a second central pitfall: the outsourcing of our own intuition, which a designer or storyteller cultivates throughout their life. When AI becomes the first voice you consult instead of listening to your own aesthetic sensibilities, an essential element is lost.

Just as ultra-processed foods have negatively impacted our sense of taste over the years, the misuse of AI could atrophy our judgment, curiosity, and capacity for depth. The analogy to convenience food is more pertinent than it may seem at first glance: we have not only lost the ability to cook, but also our sensitivity to taste, our knowledge of ingredients, our cultural memory. In fashion and branding, we risk losing something equally essential: emotional dexterity, material understanding, narrative tension.

This is already evident in some AI-generated lookbooks and campaigns: perfect symmetry, no energy, texts that sound like 100 other brands – technically sophisticated, yet emotionally devoid. Brands that once symbolized something are now in danger of fading into the mass of the ever same. And with an increasing number of brands relying on the same tools and data sets, we run the risk of accelerating a degree of visual and verbal homogeneity – they all sound the same, even if their values differ.

Then what is the alternative? The issue is not rejection, but responsibility. It is about using AI to open up possibilities, not to automate answers. Let me share a few recommendations for usage. Use it at the end of a creative process, not the beginning. Use it to test your gut feeling, not to replace it. Great creative ideas still require flavor, context, contradictions, and a willingness to take risks. And these things can’t be derived from a prompt. They stem from real people.

Here are a few simple principles that I firmly believe in and recommend to others:

• Never ask AI to replace the first idea. Ask it to question the tenth idea instead.
• Never outsource mood boards or visual strategies. Use AI to push the boundaries after you have determined your own visual logic.
• Use it to question what has been overlooked, not to tell you what to say.
• Treat it like a brilliant intern, not like the creative director.

At the end of the day, this is not about technology. It is about how we participate in the creative process. Because creativity – real creativity – is not only about beauty or novelty. It is about meaning. And meaning – especially in fashion – requires memory, intention, and human judgment. Embrace the machine, yes. Let it provoke you, surprise you, expand you. But never permit the machine to obliterate the human touch. If we want to retain that touch, we need more than mere reflection, we need structure. How teams learn to use AI, how they are taught to question it, and how leadership sets the tone will determine whether we deepen culture with the help of artificial intelligence – or dilute it.

Culture, Leadership, and the AI Competence Gap

As AI becomes increasingly ingrained in our workflows, a new kind of cultural divide is emerging. Not between brands or companies, but within them. The difference is not one of access to technology. It involves a difference in skills, leadership, and intent.

Many creative teams are left to figure out AI on their own – in silence, in silos, without training, without debate. And that is dangerous. After all, how a tool is introduced also determines how it is applied. If AI is introduced as a shortcut, it will be exploited as such. If it is introduced as a substitute for critical thinking, it will do just that. However, if it is understood as a mirror, a provocation, a counterpart, it can actually shape the creative process more deliberately rather than detract from it.

This responsibility lies, first and foremost, with the leadership. The question is not “Do we use AI?”; ask following questions instead:

• When does it enter our process – and why?
• Why are we using it, perhaps to avoid something?
• Do we allow ourselves time to reflect before we give instructions?

Because if leadership fails to set an example, the product is interchangeable:

• Lookbooks that mimic Pinterest.
• Brand voices that appear flat rather than distinctive.
• Texts that are syntactically perfect yet emotionally hollow.

Rethinking AI Expertise in (Creative) Teams

Let’s make one thing clear: AI expertise involves more than just prompts or outputs. This is about judgment, about knowing when NOT to use the tool. This is about sensing when something seems too easy – and then moving on. The idea is to build a relationship with the machine, not to obey it.

AI competence constitutes a form of discernment. And discernment is what culture is all about.

Which is why fashion brands – and the schools that supply them with talent – need a new approach to education and training. An approach based on curiosity, contradiction, and context.

We have no need for even faster trend analysis. We actually need more capacity to interpret, digest, and resist what may not feel right.

Creating With the Machine (Not Like the Machine)

What would this look like in practice?

Imagine workflows in which:

• Designers use AI to validate ideas against historical references – yet continue to sketch themselves.
• Copywriters use AI to augment metaphors – without losing their own distinct voice.
• Strategists use AI to challenge assumptions – but still retain a personal point of view.

This is what working with AI entails. Instead of imitating the machine, let it challenge your own limits from a position of presence.

This is more than AI integration. This is creative maturity. Emotional intelligence will be just as important as technical competence, the ability to sense when something is too perfect, too familiar, too safe. This sensitivity is part of modern creative leadership.

Which brands will emerge on top in the next ten years against this backdrop? Those that find the courage to pursue this path – not by rejecting technology, but by defending the underlying human decisions.

Ultimately, artificial intelligence will not destroy creativity. Yet human complacency could!