## 3 Materials and Methods
### Stimuli  
In the text-to-image system selection stage, an artist and a nonartist were invited to interact with four public text-to-image systems, namely Disco Diffusion, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DALLE 2. The theme sweet home was chosen as the theme of creation because a person's home is unique and full of individual imagination and interpretation. They were asked to co-create an oil painting with AI by inputting a prompt to describe the theme. It was suggested that the structure of the prompt should start with \"an oil painting of\" and should refer to the cases in the community to establish the experience of the relationship between text description and visual generation. In order to eliminate the interference of artistic style, artists' names and art schools were prohibited. Based on  
Figure 2: The communication research framework of AI paintings generated by the text-to-image system: The left part is the artist encoding model, and the right is the audience decoding model. The AI generator in the middle is regarded as the communication interface between the artist and the audience. prompt 1 and prompt 2 provided by the artist and the nonartist, respectively, a comparison was made, which is shown in Table 1. Then, nine art and/or aesthetic background experts were encouraged to select which method was more suitable for generating oil paintings of a sweet home. As a result, they all agreed that the attributes of the generated samples by Midjourney were more similar to those of oil paintings, and the concord of color could express the feeling of a sweet home on the effectiveness level [25]. Additionally, its degree of matching with text descriptions was much higher than that of the other two systems. Among them, Disco Diffusion confused the structure of elements and the canvas layout, while Stable Diffusion had an adequate understanding close to Midjourney but missed the artistic oil-painting style. Beyond that, DALL-E 2 better understood the feeding text, whereas its unity of tone was slightly weaker than Midjourney. Therefore, Midjourney was picked as the AI tool to collaborate with two group creators to generate paintings as experimental samples. In the experimental sample-generation phase, a total of ten artists and ten nonartists participated in theme painting creation by interacting with Midjourney, whose information is displayed in Table 2. In selecting creators, the following criteria were used to distinguish artists from nonartists: An artist should have painting experience and should have to derive some income from their pictures. A nonartist was any subject who had not engaged in this type of creative activity. Before the experiment, they had never used similar tools to assist in painting and had only heard of the power of AI. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Artists** & **AP01** & **AP02** & **AP03** & **AP04** & **AP05** & **AP06** & **AP07** & **AP08** & **AP09** & **AP10** \\ \hline Age (Years) & 39 & 41 & 22 & 22 & 40 & 23 & 23 & 35 & 41 & 43 \\ Painting Experience (Years) & 9 & 15 & 12 & 12 & 24 & 7 & 4 & 13 & 20 & 23 \\ \hline \hline
**Nonartists** & **NH01** & **NH02** & **NH03** & **NH04** & **NH05** & **NH06** & **NH07** & **NH08** & **NH09** & **NH10** \\ \hline Age (Years) & 38 & 67 & 40 & 42 & 49 & 23 & 22 & 26 & 25 & 42 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The information of the artists and nonartists: the age and painting years of the artists and the age of the nonartists were listed. The label “AP01” represents the artist that created the P01 painting, while “NH01” is the nonartist who created the H01 painting.