AI, Art, and the Future of Journalism: A Bold Move or Hollow Provocation?

Reviving Tradition with AI: The London Standard’s Bold New Move

In a surprising twist, the iconic London Evening Standard has transitioned from a daily tabloid to a weekly publication, rebranded as The London Standard. While the shift might be part of a broader media evolution, it's a move that signals a crisis for the once-prominent paper, which has been forced to lay off writers and adjust to the reality of declining readership. One factor behind this decline? Wifi on the London Tube, enabling commuters to reach for their phones instead of a printed newspaper. Yet, the paper aims to evolve into a "bold and disruptive" publication, according to its interim CEO, Paul Kanareck.

The new London Standard wasted no time making waves, launching with an issue dedicated to A.I. and London’s status as a tech capital. Its debut cover featured an A.I.-generated portrait of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, while inside, an even more unexpected turn: an A.I.-written art review in the style of the late, infamous critic Brian Sewell. This resurrection of Sewell’s voice—who passed away in 2015—was intended as a provocative statement about the future of A.I. and journalism.

But is this the type of "disruption" that readers really want?

A.I. Brian Sewell: A Provocation or Empty Gesture?

Sewell, who was known for his biting criticism and often controversial opinions, may seem an odd choice to represent the future of a forward-facing publication. After all, his legacy includes dismissive remarks like his infamous 2008 statement that women aren’t good artists. Resurrecting Sewell via A.I. could easily come off as a ploy to generate outrage and controversy—yet it feels more like a gimmick than a true innovation.

In the A.I.-generated review of the National Gallery’s Van Gogh exhibition, Poets and Lovers, the critique opens with a line that feels vintage Sewell: “yet another insipid exercise in sentimental hagiography.” But upon closer inspection, the A.I. text lacks the depth and freshness that made Sewell’s voice, however divisive, compelling. In the real Sewell’s reviews, he brought surprising details and new angles to familiar stories. Here, we’re left with what feels like a copy of a copy—surface-level critiques without much substance.

Is this what we want from A.I. in journalism? It’s hard to say. What is clear is that the experiment has not been fully thought through. The publication offers little context about how the A.I. “Brian Sewell” operates or what the review process entailed. The lack of clarity makes it difficult for readers to understand what this experiment actually aims to prove, leaving them with more questions than answers.

A Missed Opportunity for Deeper Discussion

At the heart of this stunt is a missed opportunity for meaningful discourse on A.I. and its impact on writing and journalism. The publication’s two-line introduction to the experiment—essentially, “We asked A.I. what he would say”—leaves too much unsaid. It raises critical questions: What experience does the A.I. base its opinions on? How much of this is simply a summary of other critics’ reviews? Most importantly, does the text reflect any real thought or just mimicry of Sewell’s notorious tone?

Without these answers, the A.I. review feels more like a half-hearted attempt to provoke a reaction than an earnest experiment in A.I.-driven content. While the piece is passable—certainly not terrible—it falls short of being truly disruptive or insightful. And that’s perhaps the most frustrating part. As Ella Dorn noted in The New Statesman, anyone with access to A.I. tools could have produced a similar result. So, what exactly are we meant to be discussing here?

The Future of Journalism in the A.I. Era

What does this all mean for the future of journalism? A.I.-generated content is not going away, and it will undoubtedly play a larger role in the media landscape. But if this experiment tells us anything, it’s that A.I. should be used thoughtfully, with purpose. As The London Standard moves forward in its new incarnation, it will need to do more than play with cheap provocations to stay relevant. Readers today are savvy; they can recognize a hollow gesture when they see one.

The late Brian Sewell might not have been everyone’s favorite critic, but even he would likely balk at this A.I.-driven version of himself. True disruption doesn’t come from gimmicks—it comes from challenging conventions in meaningful ways, from offering fresh perspectives, and from caring enough to invest in real conversations.

As we navigate the intersection of art, technology, and media, perhaps we should take a moment to reflect on Sewell’s own words about art appreciation, how long it takes to cultivate a real connection with a work. In an age where A.I. can churn out content in seconds, we should be asking ourselves: what kind of consciousness created this, and what value does it really bring?