I can’t speak for everybody, but I personally don’t get a hankering for Italian fashion after viewing nightmare fuel. But, unfortunately for everyone with eyes, Italian fashion house Valentino seemingly believes otherwise.
The company unveiled a new “digital creative project” for its DeVain handbag this week, triggering a wave of criticism across social media, with commenters calling its AI-generated promotional video “disturbing,” “lazy,” and even “AI slop.”
The move was presented as a collaboration with digital artists, and the video was clearly labeled as AI-generated, yet the event still contributed to a growing public pushback against generative AI in the creative industries.
The short advertisement, posted to Valentino’s Instagram account, features a swirl of surreal, kaleidoscopic visuals of people morphing into one another, human limbs twisting into the Valentino logo, and bodies emerging from ornate handbag structures. But rather than striking viewers as avant-garde, many found it uncanny and strangely off-brand for a fashion house known for craftsmanship and couture detail, likening it to a surreal fever dream assembled without intention or craft.
“Call me a hater, but this feels cheap and not on brand,” one commenter wrote. Another added, “Marketing dept. please read the room,” while others argued that ad campaigns are supposed to spotlight real creative talent, not replace it.
AI slop and the loss of human creativity
Critics’ reactions weren’t just about the aesthetics, but about a growing anxiety across the creative industries. Generative AI is becoming faster, cheaper, and increasingly attractive to brands under pressure to cut costs. But every time a major company opts for an AI-driven campaign, they are choosing to do so over employing human models, photographers, stylists, set designers, or filmmakers, the very craftspeople who traditionally define the world of art and couture.
The term “AI slop”, a now-common phrase online, refers to content that looks algorithmically generated, mass-produced, and devoid of meaning. It’s increasingly used to describe not only the low-quality output of AI tools but also the decision-making behind them, giving the impression that brands are chasing cheap, cost-cutting efficiency at the expense of artistry.
Dr. Rebecca Swift, senior vice president of creative at Getty Images, noted that while people may enjoy playing with AI tools for personal projects, they expect more from big brands, especially luxury ones, which trade on exclusivity, craftsmanship, and emotional storytelling.
Valentino’s transparency did little to soften the blow. The company clearly disclosed that the visuals were AI-generated, which many experts consider a best practice. But audiences interpreted the move not as innovation, but as cost reduction disguised as creativity.
Anne-Liese Prem, a cultural insights expert at the agency Loop, explained that the deeper issue isn’t the technology itself, but the worry about what it’s replacing. “When AI enters the visual identity of a brand,” she said, “people worry that the brand is choosing efficiency over artistry.”
A pattern across industries
Valentino is far from the first brand to face backlash. H&M was criticized earlier this year for replacing human models with AI-generated “digital twins,” a move that immediately raised questions about the future of modeling and the broader ecosystem of photographers, stylists, and production workers. An AI Guess ad in Vogue also sparked debate over harmful beauty standards and the erasure of human creativity.
What all these examples share is the sense that marketing budgets are quietly being rerouted away from human creative teams and toward automation. AI can generate campaign imagery in minutes, at a fraction of the cost of studio rentals, wardrobe teams, or creative directors. But this shift raises existential questions for creative workers already seeing their opportunities shrink.
The technology is undeniably efficient. But efficiency isn’t the same as impact, and consumers seem to be getting better at spotting the difference.
Critics speak out
Valentino’s stumble arrives as more high-profile figures voice skepticism about AI’s expanding creative role. Just recently, two high-profile voices weighed in, with James Cameron reportedly calling generative AI “horrifying,” drawing a comparison to dystopian futures he has depicted on screen. Meanwhile, Benedict Cumberbatch warned that AI will “vanilla-fy” creativity, flattening artistic expression into predictable, homogenized output.
These concerns align with what many Instagram commenters expressed under Valentino’s ad: the fear that creativity loses something essential when pulled from a prompt rather than a person.
Human presence as a luxury
Fashion, perhaps more than any other industry, sells emotion and storytelling, and was once a representation of human expression. Luxury thrives on the idea of humanness, human decisions, and human perspective. And as Prem puts it, “Without a strong emotional idea behind it, generative AI can make luxury feel less human at a moment when people want human presence more than ever.”
If anything, Valentino’s misstep may serve as a reminder that in a world suddenly saturated with AI-generated content, human creativity may soon become the most valuable luxury of all.
At the Marrakech Film Festival, Jenna Ortega used her spot on the festival’s main jury to voice clear and personal concerns about the growing use of AI in filmmaking.