Dear Art World, We Can Tell When You’re Using AI

The way we express ourselves through words carries a great deal of weight in today's fast-moving art world. The written word is at a critical juncture, and its authenticity is more important than ever. This is not merely about saving time; it is about preserving the genuine essence of artistic communication. A recent example, shared by an artist acquaintance, demonstrated the crassness of AI-generated content when a prestigious Manhattan gallery sent out a press release produced by artificial intelligence.

The artist remarked, "Wow, they really have no shame." As an editor at Hyperallergic, an outlet that has always prioritized artists' personal experiences, I understand the time and resources required to create written content. The pressure to self-promote, particularly for artists without gallery representation or assistants, is becoming unsustainable.

Many artists are dedicating significant time to tasks like writing exhibition texts, grant applications, and social media posts, often without proper training or compensation. It is no wonder that when tools emerge to streamline these responsibilities, creators are drawn to them. This is not out of disdain for writers, but rather to safeguard their own artistic labor.

Institutions, particularly well-endowed museums and foundations, have no valid reason to employ AI for generating textual materials. Artists and cultural workers, many of whom are underpaid and overworked, should be given more time and resources to avoid the temptation of outsourcing their original writing to AI. Journalists and other writers, who also face similar conditions of precariousness, have a moral obligation to uphold the integrity of our profession by avoiding AI in the core process of crafting original sentences.

As Wired succinctly states in its AI guidelines, "We think someone who writes for a living needs to constantly be thinking about the best way to express complex ideas in their own words."