Oregon State University T-shirt Contest Sparks Debate Over AI-Generated Art
A T-shirt design competition at Oregon State University (OSU) has sparked a heated conversation about the intersection of art and artificial intelligence. The contest, held for OSU’s “Dam Proud Day,” a day of giving, resulted in a winner receiving $1,000 and having their design printed on 2,000 shirts. However, a student and aspiring digital artist, Madeline Langford, questioned the authenticity of the winning design, suggesting it was generated using AI.
Langford, who participated in the contest but didn’t win, noticed something unusual about the finalists’ designs. She decided to run the winning design through an AI detector, which indicated a 99% likelihood that it was AI-generated. This discovery upset Langford, who felt that choosing an AI-generated design over students’ genuine artwork was unfair. “It felt like a slap in the face,” she said, expressing concern not just for herself, but for all the artists who worked hard on their submissions.
The OSU Foundation, which organized the contest, stated that while they discourage AI use, it wasn’t explicitly prohibited in the rules. Molly Brown, associate vice president of marketing and communication for the OSU Foundation, explained that the contest guidelines recommended against AI use but did not disqualify entries based on suspected AI generation. The foundation did not respond to Langford’s suggestions on how to verify the authenticity of the designs.
The community’s reaction was largely in support of Langford’s concerns. On social media, many commenters expressed frustration with the OSU Foundation’s handling of the situation. Artists pointed out inconsistencies in the design, such as the mountain resembling Mount Fuji or Mount St. Helens rather than an Oregon mountain, and other elements typical of AI-generated artwork.
Isabel Bo-Linn, a professor at Portland State University who teaches a course on AI and design, noted the difficulty in determining whether a piece of art is AI-generated. She suggested that design competitions should be more explicit about their rules regarding AI use, especially when cash prizes are involved. “It’s threatening as long as we allow it to be threatening,” Bo-Linn said, emphasizing the need for artists to adapt and use AI to their advantage while valuing the human aspects of the creative process.
The controversy has raised questions about the future of art contests and the role of AI in creative processes. As Langford put it, “It’s kind of scary to see what will happen in the future. Like, is anyone’s art safe? Will there become a point where we ever truly know if it’s AI or a human design?”
