Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
User submission
1.1K
This AI-Generated Artwork Won 1st Place At Fine Arts Contest And Enraged Artists
In May 1997, the chess supercomputer Deep Blue sensationally won a full-fledged match against world champion Garry Kasparov, who was almost in his prime. “Okay,” said many experts at the time. “Chess is cool, but there are also much more tactically sophisticated games where a person can show their imagination, inaccessible to a computer. For example, Go.”
Almost twenty years later, in March 2016, the AlphaGo program defeated one of the best Go masters on the planet, Lee Sedol, with a score of 4: 1 in games. Three years later, he left the sport, admitting that computer algorithms had become so superior to humans that competition with people simply lost its meaning.
“Well,” said then the participants in the discussions about the possibilities of artificial intelligence. “After all, it’s just a game where there is a given set of rules and conditions, within which the computer surpasses the human mind. But there are also some areas of activity where unbridled fantasy is needed, accessible only to people. For example, in fine art…” You are here for now…
More info: Twitter
RELATED:
A Colorado-based designer wins a fine art contest with his AI-generated digital artwork
Image credits: GenelJumalon
Or rather, you were here. On August 26, the Colorado State Fair started in Pueblo, which also included a fine arts competition. The Digital Arts award was won by local designer Jason Allen’s “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial”, one of three entries he submitted to the contest. Really beautiful and impressive painting, for sure.
Image credits: discord
Image credits: discord
Several days later, designer confirms that the artwork was generated by a neuro network
Thunder struck a few days later when Allen tweeted that the picture was actually generated using Midjourney, a commercial neural network for generating images from a given text description, which runs on the basis of the Discord messenger and is available to literally everyone.
Image credits: discord
Allen, with the help of Midjourney, generated several hundred images, choosing three of them that he liked the most. Then the man slightly processed each of the paintings using Adobe Photoshop, enlarged it in size using another neural network – Gigapixel AI, and then printed it on canvas and sent to the competition.
Image credits: eldritch48
Of course, Allen did a lot of preparatory work, because in order to get a really effective and beautiful artwork, you need to experiment with the choice of prompts for Midjourney. In the end – try it yourself – we guarantee that on the first attempt, you will not get a masterpiece. Yes, and with the tenth, twentieth and more as well.
Image credits: macrubs
Judges of the contest reported that they weren’t warned about the use of an AI in creating the artwork
Allen states that he noted that AI was used while creating the artwork, labelling it as “Jayson Allen via Midjourney”. However, according to Cal Duran and Dagny McKinley, the judges of the fine arts competition, they were not warned that they were evaluating the work of a neural network, and not a human being, and were judging, first of all, how the art tells a story. And the official list of winners doesn’t say anything about Midjourney either. In any case, out of twenty-one entries submitted to the contest, they chose the one that was generated by artificial intelligence.
Image credits: l_unchtime
And here the question really arises – how far can AI be considered the author of the work, because, in Allen’s own words, he really spent a lot of time to find the right description for the neural network. And anyone who has ever worked with something like Midjourney will agree. Of course, if you write the famous “Draw me a sheep” from “The Little Prince” in the prompt, the result will not be as primitive as in the famous book, but it will not win the fine art contest either.
Image credits: arvalis
Two points of view on using AI in fine art may arise in this particular situation
In any case, there are two points of view here. One of them calls to consider AI just a tool for the human creator – the way the camera became almost two hundred years ago. And indeed, then, at the beginning of the 19th century, many critics said that technology would bring death to art – after all, no artist reproduces reality the way a photo camera does.
Image credits: The_Galactabee
But years have passed – and we see that photography, on the contrary, gave art a new impetus in the form of impressionism, surrealism, suprematism, and many other trends that arose, as if by coincidence, just after photography began its triumphant march around the world. As for photographers, aren’t Annie Leibovitz, Helmut Newton or Henri Cartier-Bresson considered great artists?
Image credits: JanbluTheDerg
Image credits: fluxophile
On the other hand, who can be considered, for example, the author of the great fresco “The Last Judgment”? Michelangelo, who painted it, or the Pope, who told the artist in detail his own vision of the painting? From this point of view, of course, the author is AI – and the discussion about its capabilities is entering a new round.
Image credits: CityofStPete (not the actual photo)
People on Twitter discuss Allen’s win and their points of view split
We must say that the participants of this discussion on Twitter also shared their opinions. For example, artist Genel Jumalon believes that AI is just a useful tool for the creator, but in this case, you should simply inform the judges of the competition about the use of the neural network. Going forward, Genel believes AI-created work should be separated into a special competitive category.
Image credits: GenelJumalon
Image credits: SaphireShear
Image credits: JohnM5991
Image credits: aetheredgefilm
Image credits: ichibanhomo
Other people think it’s just like winning a footrace using a car, and human and computer art should not be confused anyway. In any case, with the development of artificial intelligence, more and more questions will arise, and humanity will sooner or later have to create a new paradigm of its co-existence.
Image credits: Gunzales76
Image credits: Lofren
Image credits: OmniMorpho
Image credits: RemmingThe
Image credits: shortnocturnal
Image credits: ChrisShehanArt
We’re pretty sure you’ve got something to say on this topic as well, so please feel free to express your point of view in the comments. Be that as it may, one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that this very post was 100 percent written by a human!
55Kviews
Share on Facebook What do you think ?
IDGAFabtyourfeelings 3 years ago (edited)
There are categories for a reason. AI art should have its own, but it shouldn't be pitched against hand drawn/painted/maded art.
Ingo Schneider 3 years ago
From my Point of View as an Artist, It is indeed an interesting Tool to use AI. The Problem for me is that the AI does Not really "create" the Art. It Relies on the Works and Imagination of artists that created Images which were Fed into this algorithm. So it's more or less a Collage of existing Images. The Problem are the Image rights. Those algorithms are Programmed to remove watermarks and signatures. So there is a Copyright infringement i think. What i See Happening in the Future is that Sites Like artstation will be flooded with AI generated Images. That Look nice and all, but have No "artistic value" because it's a reshash of already existing ideas. "Real" artists will probably Not Put there creative stuff on the net anymore so It wont get Stolen by some algorithm. I think it's a nice Tool that i would suggest to my clients to establish a general mood or Idea that i can start working from. Most clients are non artistic and even struggle to Put their ideas into words.
butt soup 3 years ago
while AI art is interesting to look at & i'm not against its entire existence, as an artist i find it insulting & extremely sad that there are people defending this. while i think the AI art is beautiful & don't doubt that it was fun for him to "refine his prompts," entering it into a competition amongst artists who actually spent years learning, practicing, honing their craft, pouring their heart & soul into creating art... that's absolutely vile. it's no different than taking a photo, slapping a filter over it to make it look like a realistic graphite drawing, & entering it into a contest to prove how good the filter is. that's cheating. so is using an AI so you don't have to draw for an art contest. the pride & joy he expresses after spitting in the faces of the artists he competed against is sickening. AI is a tool. use it wisely & understand its impact on the people it's looking to replace.
Steven Mello 3 years ago
While I don't disagree with your point, I do raise issue with your characterization of this specific situation. What they did requires some amount of skill, with knowledge of algorithms and computer science to accomplish. It's basically a fledgling discipline, without its own established pantheon. The piece was entered into the digital art category, probably right next to a photo with a filter, because there isn't a dedicated "AI" art category. As techniques improve and competition intensifies, rules and regulations will refine how these pieces are judged. Hopefully, the fact that it was AI generated was disclosed and should be in competition settings. I didn't see any information here that specifically said the submission was done without disclosing it was produced with AI. (Aside from one tweet that supposed it wasn't known to the judges) The artist said they set out to make a statement about midJourney.
Load More Replies...
Leo Domitrix 3 years ago
. Stop calling it AI. True AI isn't here yet. We may get human-like AI (AGI) in another century, but I honestly think all AI will be just what it is now: Really advanced programming/technology. Which, of course, remains as flawed as its human creators. Someone(s) wrote a great program. OK. Yay. They programmed a computer to make this. Congrats, programmers. I will be hated for this, but oh well.
Loki’s Lil Butter Knife 3 years ago
I think a better name is neural machine learning or algorithmic art instead of AI. I work in the linguistics field and know that some translators feel threatened by the numerous machine translation engine that can be "taught" by linguists/programmers entering databases of previously translated text and term-bases in order to improve output. Many of the art generation programs work the same way. They rely on both creative users and programmers to enter creative prompts to help improve algorithms. American Scientist magazine has a wonderful article about this: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist
Load More Replies...
jmoore1 3 years ago
Here's the thing, Personally, I love the aesthetic of AI art and I do think it is important. But that doesn't mean I think it's better than art made by people. It's just a new unique style. So while I don't think it should have been in the contest, I don't think we should get rid of something that makes things that are unique.
Kevin Camp 3 years ago
As a fine art photographer, I see the MidJourney AI software as a tool, but it's not the same as a camera being a tool. I operate the camera when I shoot, it's not a random process and not a fully automated one either. As long as it is realized that the software did all the heavy lifting and the "artist" merely supplied some keywords then it is fine by me. In this aspect I say congrats to MidJourney.
Ivan Petrov 3 years ago
Are you using a film or digital camera? If it's digital, the similarities between MidJourney and the camera are much more, than if it was a film one (you still need to do a lot of stuff to get a good photo, but I hope you get my point). I see AI art as "lazy" art - especially, if you just try, try, and try, until a good enough result comes out. But at the end of the day, it was still a human, who was behind the process.
Load More Replies... 
lapis lazuli 3 years ago
if i entered in a digital art competition and got second place to ai i would be pissed too. i mean use it as inspo not the whole things. also i am sure he didn't do hundreds of modifications
TuesdayDangerGirl 3 years ago
I feel like I'm going to get downvoted here but if you read the text the piece was entered into the Digital Arts category so I'm not sure why there is a problem. I even went down the rabbit hole of exploring the definition of 'digital art' and imho, I feel like this qualifies.
Smutná_elfka 3 years ago
Digital art still requires people to learn perspective, composition, colour layouts, anatomy and much more. AI art doesn't need any of that. Sure it does need some skill and patience, but it's definitely not the same. I think it should be a separate category, at least.
Load More Replies...
Patrick Linnen 3 years ago
Using the example of a car in a footrace is very much 'apples and oranges.' The problem should be framed as 'Is the AI used as a tool for the artist, or is this a case of "work for hire" where the person just throws money/resources over the fence and an image is thrown back in response." Consider that a shoe produced by Nike (the Alpha/Vaporfly) was banned from sports because they were considered doping with technology.
Philip Obermarck 3 years ago
Unfortunately, artists have been using that technique for ages. Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Dave Chihuly, and so many others going back to the renaissance have used other artists to produce their ideas and then take credit for it. The artist gives their assistants a sketch or description, and the assistant produces most of the work. The artist often (but not always) refines it and signs it. Not much different than using an AI as your assistant.
Load More Replies... IDGAFabtyourfeelings 3 years ago (edited)
There are categories for a reason. AI art should have its own, but it shouldn't be pitched against hand drawn/painted/maded art.
Ingo Schneider 3 years ago
From my Point of View as an Artist, It is indeed an interesting Tool to use AI. The Problem for me is that the AI does Not really "create" the Art. It Relies on the Works and Imagination of artists that created Images which were Fed into this algorithm. So it's more or less a Collage of existing Images. The Problem are the Image rights. Those algorithms are Programmed to remove watermarks and signatures. So there is a Copyright infringement i think. What i See Happening in the Future is that Sites Like artstation will be flooded with AI generated Images. That Look nice and all, but have No "artistic value" because it's a reshash of already existing ideas. "Real" artists will probably Not Put there creative stuff on the net anymore so It wont get Stolen by some algorithm. I think it's a nice Tool that i would suggest to my clients to establish a general mood or Idea that i can start working from. Most clients are non artistic and even struggle to Put their ideas into words.
butt soup 3 years ago
while AI art is interesting to look at & i'm not against its entire existence, as an artist i find it insulting & extremely sad that there are people defending this. while i think the AI art is beautiful & don't doubt that it was fun for him to "refine his prompts," entering it into a competition amongst artists who actually spent years learning, practicing, honing their craft, pouring their heart & soul into creating art... that's absolutely vile. it's no different than taking a photo, slapping a filter over it to make it look like a realistic graphite drawing, & entering it into a contest to prove how good the filter is. that's cheating. so is using an AI so you don't have to draw for an art contest. the pride & joy he expresses after spitting in the faces of the artists he competed against is sickening. AI is a tool. use it wisely & understand its impact on the people it's looking to replace.
Steven Mello 3 years ago
While I don't disagree with your point, I do raise issue with your characterization of this specific situation. What they did requires some amount of skill, with knowledge of algorithms and computer science to accomplish. It's basically a fledgling discipline, without its own established pantheon. The piece was entered into the digital art category, probably right next to a photo with a filter, because there isn't a dedicated "AI" art category. As techniques improve and competition intensifies, rules and regulations will refine how these pieces are judged. Hopefully, the fact that it was AI generated was disclosed and should be in competition settings. I didn't see any information here that specifically said the submission was done without disclosing it was produced with AI. (Aside from one tweet that supposed it wasn't known to the judges) The artist said they set out to make a statement about midJourney.
Load More Replies... Leo Domitrix 3 years ago
. Stop calling it AI. True AI isn't here yet. We may get human-like AI (AGI) in another century, but I honestly think all AI will be just what it is now: Really advanced programming/technology. Which, of course, remains as flawed as its human creators. Someone(s) wrote a great program. OK. Yay. They programmed a computer to make this. Congrats, programmers. I will be hated for this, but oh well.
Loki’s Lil Butter Knife 3 years ago
I think a better name is neural machine learning or algorithmic art instead of AI. I work in the linguistics field and know that some translators feel threatened by the numerous machine translation engine that can be "taught" by linguists/programmers entering databases of previously translated text and term-bases in order to improve output. Many of the art generation programs work the same way. They rely on both creative users and programmers to enter creative prompts to help improve algorithms. American Scientist magazine has a wonderful article about this: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist
Load More Replies... jmoore1 3 years ago
Here's the thing, Personally, I love the aesthetic of AI art and I do think it is important. But that doesn't mean I think it's better than art made by people. It's just a new unique style. So while I don't think it should have been in the contest, I don't think we should get rid of something that makes things that are unique.
Kevin Camp 3 years ago
As a fine art photographer, I see the MidJourney AI software as a tool, but it's not the same as a camera being a tool. I operate the camera when I shoot, it's not a random process and not a fully automated one either. As long as it is realized that the software did all the heavy lifting and the "artist" merely supplied some keywords then it is fine by me. In this aspect I say congrats to MidJourney.
Ivan Petrov 3 years ago
Are you using a film or digital camera? If it's digital, the similarities between MidJourney and the camera are much more, than if it was a film one (you still need to do a lot of stuff to get a good photo, but I hope you get my point). I see AI art as "lazy" art - especially, if you just try, try, and try, until a good enough result comes out. But at the end of the day, it was still a human, who was behind the process.
Load More Replies... lapis lazuli 3 years ago
if i entered in a digital art competition and got second place to ai i would be pissed too. i mean use it as inspo not the whole things. also i am sure he didn't do hundreds of modifications
TuesdayDangerGirl 3 years ago
I feel like I'm going to get downvoted here but if you read the text the piece was entered into the Digital Arts category so I'm not sure why there is a problem. I even went down the rabbit hole of exploring the definition of 'digital art' and imho, I feel like this qualifies.
Smutná_elfka 3 years ago
Digital art still requires people to learn perspective, composition, colour layouts, anatomy and much more. AI art doesn't need any of that. Sure it does need some skill and patience, but it's definitely not the same. I think it should be a separate category, at least.
Load More Replies... Patrick Linnen 3 years ago
Using the example of a car in a footrace is very much 'apples and oranges.' The problem should be framed as 'Is the AI used as a tool for the artist, or is this a case of "work for hire" where the person just throws money/resources over the fence and an image is thrown back in response." Consider that a shoe produced by Nike (the Alpha/Vaporfly) was banned from sports because they were considered doping with technology.
Philip Obermarck 3 years ago
Unfortunately, artists have been using that technique for ages. Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Dave Chihuly, and so many others going back to the renaissance have used other artists to produce their ideas and then take credit for it. The artist gives their assistants a sketch or description, and the assistant produces most of the work. The artist often (but not always) refines it and signs it. Not much different than using an AI as your assistant.
Load More Replies... You May Like 50 AI Art Fails That Are Both Horrifying And Hilarious 44 Famous Still-Life Paintings That Convey The Beauty Of Everyday Objects 78 Of The Best 'Repaintings' Done By People On Old Thrifted Artworks (New Pics)
Eglė Bliabaitė
Aivaras Kaziukonis
Ilona Baliūnaitė
Related on Bored Panda
78
85