The media in China have recently noted a quiet but significant shift in the landscape of the country’s university majors. Institutions such as Jilin University and East China Normal University have suspended enrollment in fine arts programs like painting and sculpture, while engineering-oriented fields that concentrate on computing, artificial intelligence (AI), and integrated circuits, among others, are rapidly emerging. This contraction in the decline of arts and expansion in engineering reflects changing times, yet it has also sparked debate over too much focus being given to engineering, and that AI is killing the arts.
On the surface, these changes appear to be a straightforward reallocation of resources in response to policy priorities and market forces. At a deeper level, however, they reveal a subtler struggle between utilitarian imperatives and the preservation of the humanities, between technological iteration and the intrinsic nature of academic disciplines. Layered onto this is the profound impact of demographic change. When it comes to this issue, one must move beyond a simplistic, binary thought, and instead the situation needs to be considered within the broader currents of historical transformation and population dynamics.
First, adjustments to university programs, especially in China, have never been arbitrary. They are the combined outcome of policy direction, labor-market demand, and demographic trends.
Since the launch of the New Engineering Education initiative as the centerpiece of higher-education reform, policies in China have steered universities toward strategically vital fields to address shortages of high-end technical talent in the country. Industry data show that China currently faces a shortfall of more than 800,000 professionals with combined expertise in integrated circuits and deep learning. Even with annual salaries of RMB 800,000 on offer, qualified candidates remain extremely scarce. Demand for top-tier technical talent in areas such as large AI models and autonomous driving has risen by 60% year-on-year. By contrast, some art-related majors are grappling with far bleaker employment prospects. According to the MyCOS Employment Blue Book, the six-month employment rate for 2024 graduates with undergraduate degrees in arts stood at just 80.1%, 16% points lower than that of engineering graduates. Their average monthly starting salary was RMB 4,547, well below the national average for bachelor’s degree holders.
Notably, the art majors that have seen enrollment suspended tend to share common problems. Some were hastily established during earlier waves of expansion, lacking a distinctive academic identity. Others remain stuck in the older teaching models that have failed to keep pace with industry change. There are also those that have been directly affected by advances in AI, which are replacing mid- to low-end roles such as basic design and production work. Observations by Cheng Xuesong, vice dean of the School of Design Shanghai Academy of Fine Arts, Shanghai University, show that the traditional design programs emphasize software proficiency and hand-drawing skills, and these are exactly the capabilities that AI can now replicate with high efficiency, which means that there is now a widening gap between academic training and societal demand. The chain effects triggered by the fading demographic dividend have only compounded these challenges. Population decline is cascading through the education system, from kindergartens to primary and secondary schools, and now to universities. As the shrinking number of students converges with intensifying competition in the job market, the reduction of academic programs is likely to become increasingly common. This is not merely routine disciplinary turnover but an inevitable manifestation of demographic pressures within higher education, with AI serving more as an accelerant than a root cause. From the perspective of disciplinary development, recent moves by the Chinese Ministry of Education to introduce interdisciplinary arts programs such as intelligent imaging art and virtual spatial art, alongside expanded offerings at leading art academies, make clear that art education itself is not being repudiated. Rather, it is being streamlined and recalibrated to align with the times. This is not the death of art, but the phase-out of outdated capacity.
Second, the development process of “technological disruption - artistic renewal - mutual coexistence” is hardly new. In fact, it has recurred throughout history. The combined pressures of demographic change and technological advancement are essentially a test to the prevailing models of artistic development.
The claim that “AI is killing art departments” actually conflates tools with essence. AI may take over tasks such as poster design or basic illustration, but it cannot reach the realms of aesthetic judgment, emotional expression, or intellectual depth; these are the very dimensions that lie beyond algorithmic reach and form the very foundation of art. In the age of AI, aesthetic sensibility and critical reflection have become the most reliable assets for artists. The vitality of art lies in adapting to change without being swept along by it.
During the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries), the spread of scientific knowledge, particularly in perspective and anatomy, fundamentally challenged the flat, symbolic artistic traditions of the Middle Ages. Before this shift, medieval art largely served religious narratives. Human proportions were often distorted, spatial relationships unclear, and emphasis was placed on spiritual symbolism rather than realistic representation. Artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer integrated linear perspective and human anatomy into their work, using scientific principles to render spatial depth, light and shadow, and bodily structure with unprecedented precision. This approach decisively broke through the expressive limits of traditional art. The transformation was not without controversy. Some religious authorities argued that an excessive pursuit of scientific realism would undermine art’s sacredness. Yet artists did not reject science; instead, they transformed it into a tool of artistic expression. Da Vinci employed atmospheric perspective in Mona Lisa to create a soft, elusive depth, while Dürer used mathematical calculation to construct rigorously structured compositions. Through this synthesis, art shifted from being a vehicle for religious symbolism to a scientifically informed portrayal of reality and human nature. The result was a symbiotic order in which science empowered art and art carried humanistic meaning, and laid the very foundation for Western realist traditions.
During the Industrial Revolution (18th–19th centuries), the invention of photography posed an even more dramatic challenge to traditional realist painting. After the public announcement of the daguerreotype in 1839, the core function of painting as a means of accurately recording reality was efficiently taken over by photography. Academic realist painters of the time faced what many saw as a crisis of obsolescence, with some even predicting that painting would disappear altogether in the wake of photography. Yet art did not stagnate in response. Instead, it embarked on a path of pluralistic renewal. Impressionist painters abandoned the pursuit of precise visual replication and turned instead to capturing fleeting light, atmosphere, and subjective perception. Claude Monet’s Impression, Sunrise, for instance, conveys transient luminosity through the interplay of brushwork and color, and these were effects beyond the reach of photography. Subsequent movements such as Cubism and Surrealism pushed even further beyond representational constraints. Pablo Picasso incorporated multi-dimensional spatial perspectives into painting, while Salvador Dalí reconfigured reality through dream imagery, propelling art from the reproduction of the external world toward the expression of inner experience. At the same time, the new materials and techniques brought about by the Industrial Revolution expanded the possibilities of artistic creation. Photography ultimately became an auxiliary medium within the arts, while painting shifted toward domains that emphasized subjective creativity and emotional expression. The result was a new landscape of technological and artistic coexistence, marked by diversity rather than displacement.
Looking back at history, it is clear that the impact of technology on art has always been confined to the level of tools and forms; it has never touched art’s core values. On the contrary, technological change has repeatedly served as a catalyst for artistic renewal. The combined pressures of demographic shifts and AI are, in essence, eliminating training models that cling to convention and have fallen out of step with the times. If art education can move away from rote skill transmission toward the cultivation of creativity, and from single-discipline silos toward interdisciplinary integration, it can harness AI as an ally rather than be constrained by it.
Beneath the apparent rationality of program restructuring, genuine concerns do remain. Some universities, lacking a solid foundation in engineering, have nevertheless followed the trend by hastily establishing schools of AI or integrated circuits, offering little more than introductory coursework. This risks repeating what has happened in certain art majors where there were high enrollments but weak employment outcomes, resulting in wasted resources and a further imbalance in the talent pipeline. Such blind trend-chasing will only accelerate the obsolescence of these programs.
Resolving the deeper tensions behind the restructuring of university disciplines does not lie in curbing the development of engineering fields or clinging rigidly to traditional art education. Rather, it requires the creation of a new paradigm in which technology and the humanities coexist, in which specialization and diversity reinforce one another. Universities with strong engineering traditions should concentrate on core technological domains and solidify their technical foundations. Meanwhile, comprehensive universities can distinguish themselves through interdisciplinarity, cultivating talent that bridges art and technology. Regional institutions, on the other hand, should remain rooted in local contexts, preserving applied art programs that serve regional culture and development.
China’s curricula must be reconfigured as well. New engineering programs should incorporate courses in art appreciation and engineering ethics, while art programs should strengthen digital and technological competencies, allowing technology and the humanities to inform one another. At the same time, the system of educational evaluation needs reform. The education evaluation system should be refined to move beyond purely utilitarian measures, incorporating disciplinary characteristics and cultural contributions into assessments rather than relying solely on employment outcomes.
In an era marked by mounting employment pressures and demographic headwinds, China does indeed face challenges. Yet history shows that great art has often emerged not in times of comfort, but in moments of greatest adversity.
Final analysis conclusion:
The recent adjustments in China’s university programs, which have reduced some art majors while expanding engineering disciplines, have sparked debate about AI’s impact on the arts. In reality, these changes reflect the combined pressures of technological innovation and demographic shifts. Disruptions in art are not new. Throughout history, technology has challenged traditional practices but rarely undermined art’s core values, often serving as a catalyst for creativity. At the same time, declining student numbers have encouraged universities to rethink and optimize their program structures. While such adjustments carry risks, the solution lies in constructing a model where technology and the humanities coexist, and specialization and diversity support rather than compete with each other. By moving beyond purely utilitarian measures of success, universities can ensure that the arts continue to thrive amid the changing currents of contemporary society.
_____________
He Yan is a researcher at ANBOUND, an independent think tank.
