Cited by 40Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisDigital Media and Visual ArtArt, Technology, and Culture

Diffusion-Based Visual Art Creation: A Survey and New Perspectives

Open access
Wang, Bingyuan, Chen, Qifeng, Wang, Zeyu·2025·ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

The integration of generative AI in visual art has revolutionized not only how visual content is created but also how AI interacts with and reflects the underlying domain knowledge. This survey explores the emerging realm of diffusion-based visual art creation, examining its development from both artistic and technical perspectives. We structure the survey into three phases: data feature and framework identification, detailed analyses using a structured coding process, and open-ended prospective outlooks. Our findings reveal how artistic requirements are transformed into technical challenges and highlight the design and application of diffusion-based methods within visual art creation. We also provide insights into future directions from technical and synergistic perspectives, suggesting that the confluence of generative AI and art has shifted the creative paradigm and opened up new possibilities. By summarizing the development and trends of this emerging interdisciplinary area, we aim to shed light on the mechanisms through which AI systems emulate and, possibly, enhance human capacities in artistic perception and creativity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3728459

Cites

175 of 175 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cross-disciplinary application of AIGC tools showed particularly strong results in collaborative learning environments, with a 37% increase in interdisciplinary project outcomes compared to traditional approaches.

    “The cross-disciplinary application of AIGC tools showed particularly strong results in collaborative learning environments, with a 37% increase in interdisciplinary project outcomes compared to traditional approaches40.”

    From Integrating AI-generated content tools in higher education: a comparative analysis of interdisciplinary learning outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 3.1.3 mentions a review of AIGC in education, and Section 3.2.3 discusses integrating art into science education. Neither reports results for AIGC tools in collaborative learning or a 37% increase in interdisciplinary project outcomes. Searches for “37%” and interdisciplinary project outcomes found no matching result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our 17.2% improvement with AIGC tools suggests superior efficacy compared to conventional learning management systems and multimedia tools, though the gap narrows when comparing to adaptive learning platforms (15% improvement).

    “Our 17.2% improvement with AIGC tools suggests superior efficacy compared to conventional learning management systems and multimedia tools, though the gap narrows when comparing to adaptive learning platforms (15% improvement)40.”

    From Integrating AI-generated content tools in higher education: a comparative analysis of interdisciplinary learning outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 3.1.3 mentions a review of AIGC in education but gives no learning-outcome comparisons. Searches for 17.2%, 15%, learning management systems, multimedia tools, and adaptive learning platforms found no passage supporting the attributed comparison; the cited paper focuses on visual art creation. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Nilin Abrahamsen and Jiahao Yao. 2023. Inventing art styles with no artistic training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12015 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258833473 · arXiv
  2. Qingyan Bai, Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Hao Ouyang, Qiuyu Wang, Ceyuan Yang, Xuan Wang, Gordon Wetzstein, Yujun Shen, and Qifeng Chen. 2024. Real-time 3D-aware portrait editing from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14000 (2024). · arXiv
  3. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023). · arXiv
  4. Junsong Chen, Jincheng Yu, Chongjian Ge, Lewei Yao, Enze Xie, Yue Wu, Zhongdao Wang, James Kwok, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, et al. 2023. PixArt-α : Fast training of diffusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00426 (2023). · arXiv
  5. Xing Cui, Zekun Li, Peipei Li, Huaibo Huang, Xuannan Liu, and Zhaofeng He. 2024. INSTASTYLE: Inversion noise of a stylized image is secretly a style adviser. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. 455-472.
  6. Nicola Dall'Asen, Willi Menapace, Elia Peruzzo, Enver Sangineto, Yiming Wang, and Elisa Ricci. 2023. Collaborative neural painting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01800 (2023). · arXiv
  7. Denis Dutton. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.
  8. Xiao-Nan Fang, Bin Liu, and Ariel Shamir. 2018. Automatic thread painting generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04706 (2018). · arXiv
  9. Kunyu Feng, Yue Ma, Bingyuan Wang, Chenyang Qi, Haozhe Chen, Qifeng Chen, and Zeyu Wang. 2024. Dit4Edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03286 (2024). · arXiv
  10. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (2014), 1-9.
  11. Yingqing He, Shaoshu Yang, Haoxin Chen, Xiaodong Cun, Menghan Xia, Yong Zhang, Xintao Wang, Ran He, Qifeng Chen, and Ying Shan. 2023. ScaleCrafter: Tuning-free higher-resolution visual generation with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Representations.
  12. Irina Higgins, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher P. Burgess, Xavier Glorot, Matthew M. Botvinick, Shakir Mo- hamed, and Alexander Lerchner. 2017. Beta-VAE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In Proceedings of the the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'17): Poster.
  13. Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 (2022). · arXiv
  14. Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013). · arXiv
  15. Chenghao Li, Chaoning Zhang, Atish Waghwase, Lik-Hang Lee, Francois Rameau, Yang Yang, Sung-Ho Bae, and Choong Seon Hong. 2023. Generative AI meets 3D: A survey on text-to-3D in AIGC era. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06131 (2023). · arXiv
  16. Hao Li, Zhongyue Guan, and Zeyu Wang. 2024. An inverse procedural modeling pipeline for stylized brush stroke rendering. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics (EURO- GRAPHICS'24).
  17. Xingchao Liu, Xiwen Zhang, Jianzhu Ma, Jian Peng, and Qiang Liu. 2023. InstaFlow: One step is enough for high- quality diffusion-based text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Representations.
  18. Jon McCormack and Mark D'Inverno. 2014. On the future of computers and creativity. In Proceedings of the AISB 2014 Symposium on Computational Creativity.
  19. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 8748-8763.
  20. Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 8821-8831.
  21. Kihyuk Sohn, Lu Jiang, Jarred Barber, Kimin Lee, Nataniel Ruiz, Dilip Krishnan, Huiwen Chang, Yuanzhen Li, Irfan Essa, Michael Rubinstein, et al. 2024. StyleDrop: Text-to-image synthesis in any style. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024), 66860-66889.
  22. Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020). · arXiv
  23. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017), 1-11.
  24. Zeyu Wang. 2022. Enhancing the Creative Process in Digital Prototyping. Ph. D. Dissertation. Yale University.
  25. Xianchao Wu. 2022. Creative painting with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on When Creative AI Meets Conversational AI. 59-80.
  26. Hong-Xing Yu, Haoyi Duan, Junhwa Hur, Kyle Sargent, Michael Rubinstein, William T. Freeman, Forrester Cole, Deqing Sun, Noah Snavely, Jiajun Wu, et al. 2023. WonderJourney: Going from anywhere to everywhere. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03884 (2023). · arXiv
  27. Chenshuang Zhang, Chaoning Zhang, Mengchun Zhang, and In So Kweon. 2023. Text-to-image diffusion model in generative AI: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07909 (2023). · arXiv
  28. Han Zhang, Ian Goodfellow, Dimitris Metaxas, and Augustus Odena. 2019. Self-attention generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 7354-7363.
  29. Yinhan Zhang, Yue Ma, Bingyuan Wang, Qifeng Chen, and Zeyu Wang. 2025. MagicColor: Multi-instance sketch colorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16948 (2025). · arXiv

Authors
Wang, B., Chen, Q., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2025-05-07
Volume
57
Issue
10
Pages
1-37
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W4409182016
Cited by
40
References
175
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Guangzhou Basic Research (2024A04J4229)
  • Guangzhou Education Bureau (2024312075)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Digital Media and Visual Art
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
Keywords
diffusion models, generative AI, visual art creation, AI-generated art, creative process, artistic perception, computational creativity, image generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review