What's your stance on the controversial AI Art that won 1st prize in Colorado?

On the fence here at the moment, because AI art is certainly fascinating. Maybe a separate category ?

In the future, artists who are using AI to generate art pieces should explicitly label this to avoid any confusion. Exactly like writers who use AI to generate books or any creator who needs AI to create. As humans, we'll eventually create new categories in contests and competitions to give space to what's really moving to the human eye. In that specific case of the Colorado State Fair, I think that the prize also came as a stance: this is the first person who has extensively used AI to generate something from scratch: kudos for the boldness! It's like Maurizio Cattelan's taped banana: no one actually congratulates him for the number of hours he put to come up with this, simply for the idea's brilliance.

The Colorado State Fair's own website proudly declares - "And there should be no lagging or hanging back by anybody who has anything worth exhibiting". Their eligibility rules also require a person to declare whether AI generative tools have been used for an exhibit, which I guess the first prize winner would have had to do if they were to be deemed eligible. So under the current set of rules, I consider it a fair judgement. That being said, I don't think it is right to club people art with AI generated art in competitions. It is normal for an artist to be inspired by someone else's work, but most of their creations are products of their imagination. Compared to this, AI generates art purely out of the huge cache of existing artwork that it has at its disposal. In my opinion, that is borderline plagiarism and copyright infringement.

When I think digital art, I think of digital concept art, 3d work, or animation to name a few. At best, it should have its own category.

In modern times - Manipulation of AI - in terms of articulation, specificity and recurring tests, to get the expected results also can be considered an art. Maybe?. However, apples shouldn't be compared with oranges. There should be a different category where the evaluation can be done under similar conditions - to make it fair.

Personally, I believe we're about to witness a new leaf turning in the history of art. I enjoy watching artists break boundaries as we go, boundaries that have been defined throughout time due to limitations.

Not a fan. Artists should be celebrated, not machines. I think they have there place and will become mainstream and provide huge benefits, but ultimately they need their own category. Celebrate the people that understand how to use it to make beautiful art without taking away from the talented artists.

I'm expecting next year it will be the same, only it might be an AI bot applying with no way of knowing there was no human involvement at all.

I feel a separate category in such competitions makes the most sense especially as prompt engineering continues to evolve, coming up with an excellent prompt can itself be a competition

Pretty interesting! Art & audio manipulation and that intersection between more human forms, is definitely something we won't be able to stay away from anymore. Separate categories?

I believe that the intersection of AI and art raises important questions about creativity, authorship, and the role of technology in shaping artistic expression. Controversies often emerge when traditional notions of artistry clash with the innovative possibilities AI offers. It's essential to have ongoing discussions to navigate the complexities of this evolving landscape and consider the implications for both artists and audiences.

It's fascinating to see AI-generated art gaining recognition, but the ethical and copyright dimensions certainly make this a complex issue worth discussing further.

The most terrible fantasies come true.