Art contests have new category: AI-generated artworks
In a previous article for ASI, novelist Stephen Marche said: “Creative artificial intelligence is the latest and, in some ways, most surprising and exhilarating art form in the world. It also isn’t fully formed yet. That tension is causing some confusion.”
But he also observed that these images are fascinating but oddly unsatisfying. “Perhaps it’s just that I know they’re inhuman. But the inhumanity does not feel—at least to me, at least not yet—transcendent. It’s amazing that computers made the AI art, but the AI art is not yet amazing in itself,” he explained.
AI-generated art has been in existence for a few years now but with recent AI apps, even beginners can create complex, abstract, or photorealistic works by simply typing a few words into a text box. However, when used in competitions, authenticity becomes an issue.
Art competitions have seen controversies surrounding the use of AI. Some winners have been accused of copying their works from computer app outputs. The question arises: is this legal or a form of cheating? After all, the work itself is not produced by human hands.
There are only clear guidelines on this topic if the organizers classify AI-generated artwork as cheating. However, some questions must be thoroughly observed: How can one detect an AI-generated artwork if the artist is really good at realism and could produce output similar to or not better than his AI-generated reference? Is that not a mind-boggling truth?
AI apps have caused concerns among human artists who worry about their future prospects. They question why people would pay for art when they can generate it themselves. Additionally, these tools have sparked intense debates about the ethics of AI-generated art and have faced opposition from individuals who view these apps as a sophisticated form of plagiarism, a hi-tech cheating at that.
Many artists believe that the art world is currently witnessing the decline of artistry due to the rise of AI art. While some argue that AI can be beneficial, they contend that generating art through AI does not qualify as true artistry. In fact, AI art is “oddly inhuman” according to novelist Stephen Marche.
Some artists say that using AI to create art is similar to using digital image manipulation tools like Photoshop. They also point out that human creativity is still necessary to develop the appropriate prompts to generate an award-winning piece.
Experts say AI is here to stay and will be improving by leaps and bounds in the years to come. The best way for organizers of art competitions is to consider creating another category for AI-generated artworks aside from the standard representational, non-representational, and sculpture categories, which would develop vibrant interests for artists and non-artists alike.
This could attract the young creative minds of today. Additionally, organizing an art competition that openly supports AI-generated artwork could spark new interests and a new future for the creative fields.
