Chorlton Arts Festival and AI: Tool

AI is creeping into everything — admin, marketing, planning, and now (inevitably) art. The organisers of Chorlton Arts Festival recently put out a questionnaire to gauge how people feel about AI being used in the festival, especially in the creation of artworks.

I filled it in as both an artist and a viewer. And honestly… my answer isn’t a neat “yes” or “no”. It’s more like: it depends what you’re doing with it — and whether you’re being straight about it.

This post is my expanded take.

AI is already in the room

Whether people like it or not, AI is part of the creative landscape now. Some people are using it quietly for admin and planning. Others are openly using it inside their creative process. And some are using it to generate finished work with minimal human input.

A community festival is exactly the kind of place where these conversations matter — not in a “tech panic” way, but in a real, human way: what counts as making? what counts as skill? what counts as honesty?

My line in the sand: “AI-assisted” isn’t the same as “AI-made”

I don’t have a problem with AI as a tool.

If you’re using it to:

• explore compositions quickly

• test an idea before you commit hours (or weeks) to making it

• generate a concept from your own work (for example, using generative tools in Photoshop, or building a mock-up using your own images)

…then fair enough. That’s not wildly different from using a camera, a projector, a collage process, or digital editing. Tools change. Artists adapt.

Where I do have a problem is when someone uses AI to make the work for them, then presents the result as if it’s their art in the same way painting, drawing, composing, writing, or building is.

Because in a lot of cases, what’s being sold as “their creativity” is actually a remix of other people’s labour — including people’s styles.

The biggest issue: style theft and shaky ownership

AI models don’t learn in a vacuum. They learn from huge amounts of human-made work — and a lot of that work has been scraped, copied, and absorbed without proper consent.

That’s the part that sticks in my throat.

If you use AI to churn out images in a recognisable artist’s style, it’s not “inspired by” — it’s closer to taking. And it can let the user skip the hard part: the years of experimentation where you actually find your own voice.

If the process never requires you to develop skill, taste, or decisions — it gets messy calling it “your art”.

Who does AI actually affect?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: a lot of the loudest outrage comes from parts of the art world that are already relatively protected — the people who’ve had the time, money, networks, or confidence to build a career in the arts.

Meanwhile, AI can also give access to people who’ve never had that privilege:

• people working full time

• people raising kids

• people with disability or limited energy

• people living in poverty

• people who simply never had space to explore creativity before

If AI helps someone make something playful, expressive, or meaningful — I’m not here to sneer at that. For some people, it’s a doorway into creativity, not a threat.

What I don’t love is the snobbery that sometimes shows up in these debates: the idea that creativity only “counts” if you suffered for it in the approved way.

Yes, disclosure matters (and it shouldn’t be controversial)

If AI was part of the process, I think artists should say so.

Not because they should be shamed — but because the audience deserves clarity. It’s basic respect.

A simple label helps everyone:

• viewers understand what they’re looking at

• artists who don’t use AI don’t feel undercut

• artists who do use AI can talk honestly about their process

• the festival avoids confusion and resentment

Transparency lowers the temperature. Hiding it raises suspicion.

The benefits (when it’s used properly)

AI can be brilliant for:

• rapid experimentation before you commit

• visualising an installation idea

• exploring variations so you can choose the strongest direction

• taking pressure off when you’re burnt out

• making creativity feel fun again, rather than heavy

Sometimes the creative process needs play. Not everything has to be a masterpiece. AI can lighten the load — as long as it’s not pretending to be something it isn’t.

What I really hate: the divide

This whole topic is turning into another culture war. And I’m tired of it.

There are enough real problems in the world. People are suffering. There are wars. Communities are stretched thin. We don’t need more tribal shouting matches about who’s a “real artist”.

Technology always has downsides — but so does every major human leap forward. The problem is when media narratives turn it into an outrage machine and everyone gets dragged into picking a side.

I’d rather see artists supporting artists, sharing process, asking better questions, and keeping community spaces like Chorlton Arts Festival warm, not combative.

My take for a community arts festival like Chorlton

If it were up to me, the approach would be simple:

• Allow AI-assisted work, but encourage artists to talk about the process.

• Ask for disclosure (a short line on the label is enough).

• Encourage ethical choices (especially around style mimicry and copyright).

• Celebrate the human bit: intention, story, decisions, meaning, craft.

Because the future isn’t “AI or humans”. It’s going to be a messy middle. We might as well handle it with honesty and a bit of humanity.