Contact and comment: This is not facebook. There are no ‘likes’, ‘friends’ , ‘followers’ ‘influencers’ or ‘egos’. There is no ‘signing in’, ‘membership fees’ or ‘click counts’. We are interested in two things.
The first is how we can make this better, that is good professional comment. The second is whether you can add to the ideas and examples of how AI can be used by art teachers.
Do tell us if you would like to contribute. Perhaps by sharing prompts that you have used that were really useful.
Add a comment below or use the contact form on the FAQ page to send an email.
This is new for all of us. It will be good to share ideas and experience.
7 thoughts on “Resources, Comments and Contact”
I am exploring AI and art education as part of a small cross subject working group in my school. I am interested, curious but not very impressed by what AI can do. It seems to make more mistakes which are in themselves fascinating as it demonstrates how complex the human brain is in taking in extensive knowledge and understanding the subtleties of context, culture and time. I can see how AI can be used as a tool and am intrigued (more than my students are) by the inclusion of AI artists in the GCSE Fine Art exam on the theme of humans alongside da Vinci. I believe that art will just adapt and AI is no threat, just a new tool.
I think that would be our view as well, that it is a useful tool and will be absorbed. I think we are agnostic as far as AI as a medium is concerned. I am old enough to remember being excited when David Hockney made ‘fax art’, or at least faxed a large picture back to Saltaire where it was displayed as ‘Art’. No one is doing ‘fax art’ anymore. We have tried not to promote or discourage the role of AI in art teacher’s professional lives. We see the website as opening the door to any art teacher who wants to play, and explaining how to get the most out of it if they choose to do so. All but one of the images on the website were AI generated and were used, not as impressive examples, but to illustrate limitations as much as anything else. For instance, the main landing page image presents a young female art student, but apart from the iconic blue jeans, everything else is structurally and anatomically incoherent. The last page on the site FAQ’s deliberately shows a simple stock photograph of two teachers. It is immediately clear how much more information it conveys.
But to your point about the inclusion of AI artists in GCSE. The JCQ regulations are clear, student generated AI images cannot be awarded any marks as they are not deemed the student’s own work. But they are not prohibited as long as the AI source is properly referenced. Obviously the work of artists using AI can be referenced just as any other artist can. So the question you pose is right on the cusp of this debate – well done.
I think the issue is essentially in the nature of your students’ response. If they use and properly reference an AI artist’s work (preferably using several different images) as a reference/research point for their own, painting say. Then that seems to me just a standard Google search engine analogy, which is acceptable and it is up to the student and teacher to demonstrate that the student retains creative control. If a student uses AI to generate an image to illustrate a point in critical discourse, then, provided it is declared and does not substantially inform the student’s own creative work then that should be acceptable. However, as soon as the student generated AI begins to inform a significant part of the student’s creative work then there is an issue.
This will be for the teacher, acting as the examiner, to resolve and discuss with the moderator. If the AI has been declared then the issue will not be malpractise but the awarding of marks. This is the best I can do, but you will obviously have to use your own judgement in this. I hope it helps unpack the issues and thank you for raising a really key question as the first comment.
Hmmm. Note to self. Probably need to write less, or at least work out where to find the paragraph return.
Thanks for this website it is really helpful. There is alot of uncertainty about the potential use of AI in years 10-11 and 12-13. The exams page gives some clear guidance and the discussion initiated by Sue is getting closer to defining the boundaries. The suggestion that the art department develops an art specific AI policy is a good one, especially in view of potential Ofsted safeguarding scrutiny.
That would be our view. It is likely that most schools will soon develop their own AI policy. There are generic templates already available on the web. Art departments could use the development of their own AI policy as a prelude to contributing to the overall generic school policy. It would probably be a good idea to give it some thought before the network manager develops the school policy designed to protect the integrity of the school’s firewalls. But art departments might want access to some extent. Photoshop, for instance, has built-in AI capability.
When I referred to the GCSE exam paper I mean the question that references artists who are using AI as a tool. That seems an exciting medium where it can enhance the possibilities if led by human direction and imagination. A tiny number of my students have used AI as a tool to explore their ideas but this is limited.
Yes Sue, I think I got carried away with exam regulations in my response. You were talking about something else. But it did prompt us to revisit the ‘art education IS the exam’ fallacy and make some adjustments to the exams page. The AQA GCSE exam question is indeed fascinating and draws questions of AI as an artform, medium or digital tool into the debate. It will be good to hear from art teachers as this debate begins to unravel some of the confusion that exists about AI in art education.