A prestigious portrait competition has defended its ability to allow entrants to submit works generated by artificial intelligence, arguing that art should reflect social change rather than being stagnant.

of Brisbane Portrait Award The work, which is worth a top prize of $50,000, is being described as Queensland’s answer to the Archibalds, and selected works will be exhibited at the Brisbane Powerhouse later this year.

This year, the Brisbane Portrait Prize has announced in its entry terms and conditions that as long as the artwork is original and “fully completed and fully owned” by the entrant, it is “completed in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence.” It states that it will accept submissions that have been submitted. .

A spokesperson for the awards told Guardian Australia that allowing AI submissions acknowledged that the definition of art is not stagnant and is always growing.

“The BPP prides itself on being a contemporary prize, fostering the continued evolution of the art and participating in the conversation around it, while always being interested in what ‘contemporary’ portraiture is.” ” they said.

A spokesperson said that in the past, more traditional artists objected to allowing digital and photographic submissions, but it is now generally accepted in the art world.

“As technology continues to adapt and integrate into our society, the use of assistive technology is already paving the way for inclusion for artists with disabilities, and we believe that the use of AI tools and methodologies will continue to grow in this field. “We believe this is the next step,” the spokesperson said.

The previous winner, painter Stephen Tiernan, said: told ABC The creation of AI-generated works still involves an artistic process, and the rule changes ultimately kept the awards modern.

A spokesperson said the contest will determine ownership of works based on the terms of the process used and the AI program behind it. At the time of submission, artists must declare that they have full copyright to their submitted work.

Dr Rita Maturionite, a senior lecturer in law at Macquarie University, said that under Australian copyright law, AIs themselves cannot be authors, but how much of an AI-assisted work of art can humans own in order to claim ownership. He said whether the information would have to be entered remains an open question.

“What is unclear is [is] “How much human contribution is enough for a person to become a writer?” she said. “Is one prompt enough for her, or does she need to create 100 prompts?”

A spokesperson for the Brisbane Portrait Prize said if the artist contributed “sufficient independent intellectual effort” to the creation of the work, it was likely to be protected by copyright.

“An example of someone determining full ownership of content is when an artist uses an AI tool to use elements of some of their own original work, and all original designs belong solely to the artist. This could be the case if we create new artwork,” the spokesperson said.

“We recognize that AI is an evolving field and that our laws often keep pace with technological advances.”

Dr TJ Thomson, Senior Lecturer in RMIT's School of Media and Communication, said: 'Creating an image through a camera and imagining an image through a keyword prompt are completely different experiences that require very different skills. There is,” he said.

“If you have some knowledge of photography principles and equipment, you can understand the intent of the photo, but it’s not fair to pit camera-generated images against AI-generated images.”

This is not the first contest to tackle AI entries since the explosion of widely available generative AI applications over the past year.

The National Portrait Gallery’s 2024 National Photographic Portrait Awards allows the use of generative AI tools in the development of submitted photographic works, but does not allow images that are entirely AI-generated.

However, there are strict conditions, such as requiring details of which tools were used and how. If your prompts to AI include someone else’s name, image, work, or creative style, you must obtain their explicit consent.

Thomson said the competition was a messy space with many unanswered questions, but other competitions in the meantime are likely to have similar results.

In November, the World Press Photo Contest announced it would exclude AI-generated entries from its public format after receiving “honest and thoughtful feedback,” and said the ban was “in line with our long-standing values ​​of accuracy and authenticity.” He said that it was something that

German artist Boris Eldagsen said he submitted an AI-generated photo of two women “as cheeky monkeys” to see if there would be a competition for AI images, and he won a prize at Sony last year. He declined the award in the Creative Open category of the World Photography Awards.

“They’re not,” he said last April.

In Sydney last year, a woman claimed to have taken a photo of her son with a mobile phone but lost out in a competition after judges suspected it was generated by AI.

At the NGV Triennial Exhibition to be held in Melbourne this year, Works by Irish artist Kevin Abosch They created “deepfakes of scenes depicting social unrest around the world,” including in Melbourne, and investigated how manipulated information fuels social unrest.