In July we sent out a survey to around 3500 subscribers to our Art Prize newsletter asking about attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) acceptance in art prizes. We received over 400 responses, and have summarised them below. Our committee is considering all aspects and suggestions, and we are currently consulting with art and law experts to determine our final position before we open for entries in early 2024.

We had 420 responses to our survey. 90% of respondents are artists, 37% have entered the Stanthorpe Art Prize previously and 48% intend to enter the 2024 Stanthorpe Art Prize.

Some examples of AI generated art - from the Midjourney Showcase

The Stanthorpe Regional Art Gallery intends to NOT ALLOW artificial intelligence (AI) created entries in the 2024 Stanthorpe Art Prize. Do you agree with our intention?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree. 80% of respondents strongly agree with banning AI generated artworks.

Detecting AI entries is difficult to police. AI can now be used in works that appear to be photography, prints and digital art, as well as 3D printed ceramic art. AI is now also being used in workflows in tools like Photoshop that are commonly used by photographers and digital artists. The line between AI and creator tools is increasingly blurred.  

We plan to have a declaration in our entry form that the artist is the creator and not Artificial Intelligence, as well as advising that any awards given to entries that are later found to be created by AI will be withdrawn. 

Do you support this policy?

90% of artists agree, with 3% disagreeing, with several additional comments and responses.

Any additional feedback or ideas related to AI that we should consider?

We had 166 additional comments, some themes and highlights are included below. Common responses include many strongly stating that AI should not be allowed in any way, but a significant number saying it’s old-fashioned to not include AI, and that we’ll be left behind if we don’t. Many point out that it’s impossible to police AI entries. Many also suggest having an AI category. Several point out that AI is trained on artist’s works who are not being asked or paid for their art being used.

We inputted all the comments into ChatGPT to summarise the common themes. These were:

1. AI as a Tool: Many respondents view AI as a tool that can assist artists but shouldn't replace or dominate the creative process.

2. Defining Creatorship: There's a debate about what constitutes a "creator" and where the line should be drawn between AI-assisted work and genuine human creation.

3. Traditional vs. Digital Art: Strong opinions exist about keeping traditional, human-made art separate from digital and AI-generated works.

4. Separate Category for AI Art: Some suggest creating a separate category for AI-generated art to avoid direct competition with traditional art.

5. Artistic Experience and Emotion: Many believe that true art comes from the human experience, emotion, and personal connection, which AI lacks.

6. Enforcement and Detection: Concerns about enforcing AI-related rules, as well as difficulties in detecting AI usage, are raised.

7. Transparency and Declaration: Suggestions to require artists to declare AI involvement and provide information about its use in the creation process.

8. Uncertainty and Fear of AI: Anxiety about the implications of AI for the future of art and the potential loss of genuine human creativity.

9. Evolution of Art: Some acknowledge that AI is a new frontier in art's evolution and may require new ways of categorization and evaluation.

10. AI as a Distinct Category: Considering AI-generated art as a distinct genre or category that deserves its own recognition.

Some of the thought-provoking comments we received:

AI as a tool

• AI is a tool that can be used to inform and enable visualisation of ideas, however, the artistry of varied disciplines should be maintained & perhaps a separate category could be established for digital creativity using AI in the future?

• AI is just another tool for expression

• Any attempt to ban something from being used/called in art work has ultimately failed. It is inevitable that AI will become a tool for making art.

• A.I. is just another referencing tool for a modern high tech artist. You still need to look at colour, composition, balance, golden mean, corner pointers, visual guides etc. You then need to paint the work and that is where the years of skill are displayed. The 19th century was hog tied by the picture perfect requirements of the Paris Salon. 20th century art, the art you are promoting, abstract impressionism, was rejected, it was oppressive, and now you are doing the same thing with 21st century art - The art of now and the future. If A.I. image generation was referenced or has been painted in oil or acrylic then it must be judged on it's artistic merit.

• AI is an exciting new frontier that should be considered in the continual evolution of art & how artists use & interpret methods & techniques to create art.

•  I can see how AI can be used as a tool to assist the creator (artist). I suggest that you will need to define "creator" and/or state what is not a "creator" (ie. when using AI is acceptable).

• There is a fine line between AI and the use of algorithms in digital processes. I'm not sure judges are versed enough in these matters to know whether AI is being used or not. I support the use of algorithms, and processes to automate workflows. I do not support a policy that restricts this. I also believe that the incorporation of AI into Photoshop is very similar to some algorithms already existing and implemented by digital and photographic artists. I do not currently have a firm opinion on this, however, as an artist who embraces technology, I do not want to be restricted by a blanket NO AI policy. I do not currently use AI, but I see the benefits and potential in being able to create images, videos or other artworks that I would otherwise not be able to create due to technology limitations. In terms of pure 'text to image' AI - where this is the only and final result, I am supportive of excluding this type of art at this stage.

• I feel there should be a term in the terms and conditions that addresses AI, but I do not think it should be a blanket no. This type of restriction is limiting creativity and not allowing innovation. For centuries artists have used and abused technology to transform art and create new mediums, methods and materials. Clamping down to completely eliminate a form of technology is restrictive and oppressive.

• Don’t think of Ai as the boogeyman, it’s new and different. This should not make artists paranoid but excited for the possibilities. I work in oils and love brush painting but I don’t see Ai art as a threat to my work, I see it as another tool for artists to make art.

• I find this idea very limiting. An artist should be able utilise the tools of the time. Many years ago this kind of prohibition was instigated for the camera and look at where we are today. I think by not allowing an artist to use tools that enhance their creativity and thought processes you are limiting art itself and I don’t believe you have the right to do this. Are you defining art as anything that does not use tools to support development. I don’t agree I think the committee (am presuming there is a committee) is being very short sighted and frankly old fashioned.

• it is complicated photo editing tools are heavily AI already. Drawing the line is now impossible.

• I think there’s no reason to exclude AI as long as it is declared- similar to statement of sitters that most portrait prized require

• It’s very short-sighted to disallow AI, which cannot generate great art alone - it requires a huge amount of input from the artist. It needs direction, and if used properly can be exquisite. Why ban it? It makes no sense. It’s best to embrace it and have a category that allows artists to use. You won’t regret it because it’s the way of the future and it’s better to stay a step ahead

• Judgement on AI should be on the way and rationale for using and the end result. Similar to all works. It isnt the end of imagery, the same was said of Photoshop, the camera, the printing press. All new and net with massive support and also apathy. The same premise happened with the discovery of fire. It enabled us to live comfortably, but also gave us the power to destroy. We cannot exclude AI.

Create a new AI category

• I suggest a new category specifically for AI art to solve your problem.

• I support a separate category for AI, because the declaration will not work

• I think that there should be a declaration if a work includes AI and to what degree, and maybe it’s own category, but not an outright ban

• AI created works could be judged in their own AI created artwork category, just as photography is judged in competitions as an art form separate to drawings or paintings.

AI should never be allowed

• AI shouldn’t be allowed into competitions at all. Totally not fair on artists who have honed their skills for years.

• AI does not reflect the creativity of an artist. Remains exactly what its titled ARTIFICIAL Intelligence

• AI has no place in the heart of a true artist

• AI is not art - it is simply imagery. It can be used to inform ideas but only as the ideas come from the human artist. It should never be used as a claimed artwork

• AI output is not art. Art is so much more than the end 'product'. Art is the experience of the artist combined with the viewer's experience and it requires the human element. Art does not exist without the artist.

• As a artist we are already side lined. If you wish to have an competetion with AI please do this as a separate prize

AI ethical issues

• AI that is trained on databases of stolen artwork imagery is very upsetting.

• Defining AI is going to be difficult - do people know when they are using AI when they are using tools such as photoshop?

• it is very hard to detect if AI has been used.

In conclusion

We are still considering all of these ideas, and with the art prize dates being pushed back a few months our committee will keep working on our final decision and talking to art and law experts. We thank everyone for their contributions to this conversation.