AI “art” doesn’t belong in galleries: A discussion of Indelible Fine Art Gallery and the ethics of artificial intelligence in creative spaces
- Olivia Molton
- Jun 2
- 17 min read
Today’s discussion involves a situation involving a gallery in Brighton, and their use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create artwork. I started writing this article on the 11th of May as the situation between Indelible Fine Art Gallery and Jake Wood was happening and developing, so I’ve been able to see a lot of play out in real time. However, if you want a quick summary, you can watch this video and this video by Zoë Bread. Before we start, I need to state that everything discussed here has been posted on public social media accounts, making it public information. Therefore, this article is in no way libel and any opinion will be made clear that it's such. At the time of publishing this, some of the original posts have been removed, so I have included the screenshots that I have. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get everything before they were removed, which is definitely an oversight on my part (you can see them from others’ coverage on this though if you’re still unsure). I believe that this falls under fair dealing as I am using it for critique and do not claim it as my own. Sources will be linked throughout the article; I encourage you to do your own research and reach your own conclusions.
Now that’s out of the way, I want to introduce the main characters in this situation. First we have Indelible Fine Art Gallery, located on Jew Street in Brighton and Hove. Having a look at their website, they describe themselves as:
“Work[ing] across Modern British art, post-war abstraction and culturally significant contemporary work — placing artists, collectors and stories at the centre of everything [they] do”
They have several artists associated with them, including Jake Wood, a British actor that you’ll be familiar with if you’ve watched Eastenders. Since this What originally introduced me to Indelible Gallery was this post on the r/Brighton subreddit calling them out for their supposed right-wing views. However, that piqued my interest was actually this post by the user JeffTheGoliath saying:
“They are doing something with some guy from Eastenders who seems to spray paint on top of AI images. Total shite”
Deny, deny, deny
As an avid hater of generative AI in the creative space, I knew I had to go and have a look. Sure enough, there was some art that looked like it could’ve been AI-generated, but I wasn’t 100% right off the bat without fully studying it. I’m ashamed to say that AI has gotten so good that you can’t always tell if something has been generated. On top of that, I’m not exactly an expert at realism myself, so I wanted to reserve judgement, at least for now. The first place I looked at for clarification was in the caption, which described it as “hand-finished”, something I viewed as a way to skirt around the fact that the main part of it is in fact AI-generated. Still, I thought surely a gallery wouldn’t lie about how work was made…..right? There wasn’t much more on the website either; originals were described as “mixed media on canvas” and prints as “hand-finished”. So, I asked for clarification about what “hand-finished” meant in a comment, which conveniently went unanswered.
To be frank, I forgot about it all for a bit until I saw another Reddit post in r/IsThisAI, where the user specifically picked out the David Attenborough “appreciation” artwork. I then shared this into the r/Brighton, because it related to that conversation from a while back. You might see this as stirring the pot, but I personally want people to informed of what they’re supporting. Especially when prints and originals of Wood’s work aren’t exactly cheap, I think buyers deserve to know how something came about. Something to note, when you post to Instagram, you get the option to toggle on an AI label in cases where content contains “certain realistic content that’s made with AI”. In wanting to be fair, I went and read Instagram’s guidelines on what AI they require to be labelled. Strictly speaking, Wood doesn’t have to label his work as AI, because the photos and videos he uploads of it wasn’t made using AI. But in saying that, it means that it’s even more important to be transparent in the caption, where you can give full details on how the AI was used.
So, how can we be sure this is AI? The biggest giveaway in my opinion is the lack of showing the process. Go on most artist’s social media and you’ll see artwork in different stages of creation, including timelapses a lot of the time. While you can certainly fake this too, it’s a lot harder to do it than simply not showing your process. Or, if you’re lazy enough, you can just use an image that has blatant mistakes in it. I debated not showing the original image here because quite honestly it disgusts me to have AI rubbish on my website, but I feel it’s necessary for the conversation. This post by Hannah Gabriel looks at it in good detail. There are multiple things that are telltale signs of an AI-generated image. For example, the gorilla isn’t actually sitting on his lap, it’s some strange floating suit material. Looking at the medals, they blend into the surroundings and attempt to spell out “national treasure”. The chair is strange as well, it’s asymmetrical and the back is wider than the actual seat. If this wasn’t bad enough, the Union Jack is all messed up too, on a piece that’s meant to celebrate pride in the country. Any brit can see that the flag doesn’t look like that. This post by Hannah Gabriel looks at it in good detail, if you want a closer inspection. I think the worst thing about using Sir David Attenborough is when you consider his lifetime of environmental activism and the damage that AI is causing to the environment. I highly doubt that Attenborough would approve of his image being used, as he’s expressed his opposition to AI in the past.
Although I have an issue with AI “art” being praised at all, I have an even bigger issue with people who lie about using it. I see it as deceptive to (allegedly) purposely omit information that gives others the impression that an artwork has been created entirely by hand. At least if you label something as AI, you give people the choice whether they want to support that artist or not. I know some people have the same thing to say about digital art because you have things such as stabilisation and the symmetry tool. However, digital artists still need to learn things such as anatomy, colour theory shading etc that take years to refine. Nevertheless, that’s why I’m very open about being a digital artist. While it still requires great skill to be able to draw digitally, there are things that are undeniably easier than if you drew the same thing on a single piece of paper. But, people who buy digital artwork know this and have the chance to inform themselves on whether to support an artist that uses that method.
Since the Reddit posts brought an influx of comments asking about (or outright accusing) Wood of using AI, he updated his caption to say:
Just to clarify I do not use Al to generate any of my artworks. I do not use Al personally. The images and photos I've used were already in existence and I have then collaged them (digitally or manually) and then painted over them digitally myself before printing and sticking them over a mixture of collage, spray paint and acrylic.
Call me pedantic, but this doesn’t actually say that he didn’t use AI, it says that he doesn’t use AI to generate his work. What this implies is that the AI image(s) he allegedly uses are already in existence, which only makes it marginally better if that’s really the case. It would mean that he isn’t generating the images himself, but it doesn’t change the other issues. Since this, he also disabled the comments on some posts, which shows further acknowledgement of the comments that have no answer. Brighton is a very creative city; we have such a lively arts community and there are so many artists who would love to have the recognition for their art that Wood has had. It’s such a shame that he was able to use his existing fame to make a name for himself win the art world, which you could argue isn’t even his work. Call me jealous or a “hater”, I’d rather be that than someone who doesn’t speak out against this behaviour. And although I consider myself an artist, I’m not looking to put my art in a gallery any time soon. The core issue of this is the fact that Indelible Gallery and Jake Wood are making a profit off of the backs of other artists’ existing work.
Responses to criticism
This is less related to the subject at hand, but it relates to how we have conversations surrounding AI. Indelible’s tagline is “Not Another Fucking Art Gallery” (I guess I’ll give them that for the alleged AI…), which implies standing out from the norm right? People who go against the grain naturally see some pushback from the “norm”. Additionally, if you put yourself or your business online, you automatically open yourself up to both good and bad opinions. In the past, indelible have calling anyone who critiques them “trolls”, which just isn’t what trolling means. Trolling involves making comments where the intention is to deliberately bait someone into reacting negatively, typically behind anonymous accounts. Some pushback I’ve seen from Wood’s supporters are to just ignore it if you oppose it, but how are you supposed to if Indelible nor Wood have the backbone to be transparent in the caption and on their website? Giving an art gallery or an artist critique for partially using AI to generate art, not disclose it and make a profit off of it is valid criticism. In fact, you could argue that completely denying the use of AI in cases when there are clear signs of it being used is more something a troll would do. I’m sure a lot of people (myself included) would have more respect for Wood and Indelible if they simply just admitted to the AI.
Following Zoë Bread’s videos on this whole situation (and undoubtedly the comments that came from it), we had some attempts at damage control from both the gallery and Wood. After what was likely another surge of comments, Indelible Gallery put up a statement. Honestly, I think it just made people dislike them even more, judging by the comments.
Over the past few days, we've received a huge range of messages regarding the current exhibition, from supportive to deeply critical and we understand why this conversation matters to so many people. As an independent gallery in Brighton, our focus has always been on supporting artists, local initiatives, and charitable causes. Over the years, we've donated more than £20,000 to charities and community projects, and our current exhibition, 'Icons' was created to celebrate Dame Barbara Windsor while raising money for Dementia UK. We appreciate that there are strong and differing opinions surrounding the use of Al within creative industries. These conversations are complex, evolving, and often deeply personal to artists and audiences alike. At this time, we don't feel it is productive to contribute further to speculation or online hostility directed at any individuals involved. We remain committed to respectful dialogue, supporting creativity in all its forms, and ensuring the charitable intentions behind this exhibition are not lost within the wider debate. We thank everyone who has engaged with us respectfully, whether in support or criticism, and we ask that all discussions continue with consideration and kindness toward[s] everyone involved.
What’s almost laughable about this is that the origin of Wood’s “art” wouldn’t even be up for debate if there was honesty from the beginning. People would have most definitely still complained, but it would not have felt like deceit. While I do prefer a debate that leans towards the more respectful, I do find it ironic that Indelible are asking for respect when they have shown their attitude towards AI in art and how they respond to criticism regarding it recently. I'd encourage you to look at the original post, but it's one of the uploads they deleted. Luckily, I was able to screenshot the full comment to give more context.
Does the artist not have to come up with the idea first and create the prompt?
And the worst offender:
I understand why you are unhappy with Al because soon a robot will be able to take your job and probably do a better job, should [have] tried harder at school I suppose
Someone get these people a PR officer because in what world is that something you say on your business social media account? Because I’m quite an opinionated person myself, I don’t object to business-owners standing up for what they believe in, but there’s a way to do it that doesn’t tarnish the business and those associated with it. What leaves an especially bad taste in my mouth is that this is coming from someone who is also an artist. Judging by another comment under that post, this was actually written by the Director of the gallery, Daniel Marsh, not Kitty, who runs the social media otherwise and manages the gallery (from what I’ve gathered). It reminded me of this post I made a couple months back. I truly can’t understand why people in the creative space would want AI to succeed when all it does is poison art. Every time you engage with AI, even if that’s to compare what AI would create versus your own interpretation, you’re making it easier for artists to be replaced. There’s a graphic designer on YouTube who I used to watch, until he started encouraging people to use AI to “help” with their designs, even taking sponsorships from AI companies. It makes little sense to me because people like this might not be able to be replaced right now, but at the rate that so many are feeding AI their ideas and designs, it won’t be long until they’ll be replaceable too. I may write another article on this specifically, but I also hold the same opinion for people who use their own work to train AI for their own use. I have no desire to support work not created from the heart of an artist. In my opinion, no artist is safe from being replaced by AI if they have they accept generative AI in the arts.
AI as a tool?
I won’t pretend to fully understand how AI-generated images work, but what you need to know is that they rely on being fed pre-existing images and ideas associated with them. They can then spit out pixels that mimic shapes that’ve been prompted by the user. This is an extremely simplified explanation though so please research it for yourself to understand it better. Anyway, I recognise that AI has its uses in cases such as in identifying cancerous cells and in regular search engines (Google, Bing etc), but there is no excuse to use it for generating “artwork” or “photos” for the reasons I already stated. Which brings me onto the argument of AI “tool” as a tool in the creative process. Yes, you still have to think of what you want to generate, but that’s simply having an idea. The whole point of being an artist, no matter the medium, is the craft behind it. Hundreds of hours are invested into learning a skill, which is partly why AI “art” is so offensive to the vast majority of artists. Art is created from the heart of the artist, it can represent trauma, perseverance, beliefs and so much more. By replacing human-made art with AI-generated images, it fundamentally contradicts the point of creating art in my view. We should be using machines to make more time for things we enjoy, rather than having the instant gratification AI-generated images reinforces.
Leading on from that is the idea of images generated by AI are a form of plagiarism. I’ll go into copyright more deeply later on in this article, but I want to bring the focus back on to how AI images are made. Every time you generate an image, it finds and assembles facets of past work. By definition, this isn’t the work of the ‘artist” (or prompter, I should say). If anything, it’s the work of the machine. A common retort to this is that there are no original ideas. Which yes, at this point in history it would be asinine to assume that there are completely original ideas that still exist. But the point is, artists who use others’ work as inspiration generally don’t claim the work as their own. If they do, they get in trouble for plagiarism or copyright infringement. So what makes AI-generated “art” different? For me, it’s always the intention. Someone who has put prompts into AI to create an image is doing it with the knowledge that they have had no hand in making that image come to fruition. They may not think of it that deeply, but they’re aware that they’re not the ones putting pen to paper to create it. Now, some people said the same thing about digital art when comparing it to traditional methods. But there’s the thing, digital art programs are actually a tool, because they still require the user to create the art. Regardless, as I said earlier, people may not want to purchase digital art because they don’t see the value in it, and that’s okay! At the end of the day, if someone gave me a piece of paper right now, I would be able to make the same damask pattern that I could on Procreate (albeit a bit wonky and lacking symmetry), as I have the background skills.
The question of copyright
I want to preface this next part with saying that I’m no copyright lawyer so all this is just my understanding after reading different guidelines. I wanted to dig into something that Zoë brought up in her second video, the licensing of the photo of Dame Barbara Windsor. Assuming that the image of her is actually the same photo (more on that in a bit), there’s an issue on whether money can legally be made from it. As Zoë said, you can find the original photo by searching 89878780 on Getty Images. From there, you can pick from three different sizes to purchase the editorial licence. Getty clearly states that their editorial license doesn’t include commercial use, which means making money from the image isn’t permitted. Getty states on their website that:
Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial” for any commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, gambling/betting/gaming uses, or merchandising purpose…you are responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals from third parties such as individuals featured or event organisers before using “editorial” content for a commercial purpose.
In addition to this, it very clearly says that the rights are restricted and for people to contact Getty for more information on commercial use. Luckily, Zoë already did this and they confirmed that the image is only for editorial use. As far as I can work out, they would still need to purchase a license for the image, even if now 100% of proceeds are going to Dementia UK. Now, I will say that (as far as I’m aware), you can use an image if you contact the original photographer to gain permission on your specific usage. Whether Wood did this though is obviously unknown. I’d like to think that he has, but considering his use of AI to steal from artists, I wouldn’t bet on it. Therefore, even if he ran the image through AI and the image isn’t actually the original Getty one, there still could be a violation of copyright. If we take this case of Zhang v Dieschburg, where a lawsuit was filed (and eventually won). It demonstrates that copyright infringement can apply across mediums, even if the reproduction isn’t completely identical to the original. Wood may have used the excuse that he’s new to art, but it just goes to show that you need to be ultra careful and do your homework before you sell something.
Deflections and donations
Something I find wish to touch on that’s not directly related to this is but is still part of the situation is using donating to charity as a way to dodge taking accountability (in my personal opinion). Wood and Indelible Gallery initially stated that 10% of the proceeds from the artworks would be donated to Dementia UK. 10% might sound like a decent amount, but not when you use it as a way to dismiss critiques. If the charity donation was at least 50%, I’d perhaps partly understand why they’d think they could use donating to charity as an excuse for the AI, but certainly not when 90% was still going into their pockets. Regardless of the charity donation, people are still allowed to disapprove of a product being sold. For context, I volunteered in a charity shop multiple times a week for about a year, have donated and supported charities in multiple ways in the past couple of years alone. That isn’t me taking some moral high-ground either, it’s because I know that their response to that would be something along the lines of “well what have you done for charity?”. Yes, giving 10% is better than nothing, but when you also consider the studies coming out that are showing how AI is actively harming our cognition, it's pretty counterproductive to use it to raise money for combating dementia. It seems that Indelible and Wood both agreed with 10% being too low, because it was later revealed in a annoyingly low-contrast post (which has since been deleted) that now all of the proceeds would be going to charity:
I think it's important to address some of the discussion surrounding my exhibition currently on display at Indelible Fine Art Gallery. Whilst I acknowledge that two of the images featured in the exhibition, Attenborough and Trump, Incorporated AI-generated source imagery, these images were not personally generated by me and already existed prior to being used within the works. These particular pieces were created in 2024 and were not originally intended for inclusion in this exhibition. Since then I have not used Al within my artworks and do not intend to moving forward. I understand the concerns and wider debate around AI in art, and I respect the opinions being expressed. As a relatively new artist, this period has been part of my own creative development in discovering both a style and a process that I am happy with. Inevitably, that journey involves learning, evolving and making mistakes along the way. I would like to apologise to the gallery for any negative commentary directed towards them. Indelible Fine Art are a brilliant small independent gallery in Brighton that supported me and the exhibition in good faith, with the shared intention of creating fun whilst also raising awareness of dementia and money for Dementia UK. I am really sad that the conversation around the exhibition has shifted in this direction and may have taken attention away from the cause and the wider intentions behind the show. Raising awareness of dementia and supporting Dementia UK remain incredibly important to me and, following the recent discussion, 100% of my profits from the exhibition will be donated to the charity.
Now, I understand having trouble avoiding AI reference images, it’s one of the reasons why I either work from my own photos, or just go back to when AI didn’t exist. With AI getting harder to spot, and so many platforms pushing it, it’s become increasingly difficult to avoid using AI. But the reality is, it can be done. Wood could have avoided some of the negativity him and Indelible received if he was simply honest and didn’t try to deny it, even when it was painfully obvious it was a lie. Although I give him a bit of credit for fessing up to it now, it definitely makes me not want to support his art in the future. It also strikes me as odd to mention that the pieces weren’t originally intended for an exhibition, because it has no relevance to the topic at hand. I’ve had pieces of art that I didn’t intend to post on instagram originally, but I ended up posting them because I was willing to put my name to them, as Wood did with this work he planned to make money from.
Where are they now?
As of the 16th of May, Indelible released a statement that you can read here, announcing that the exhibition won’t be going ahead anymore. I won’t go through their statement, because I’ll just be repeating myself. They’ve also had some graffiti over the Churchill mural that Wood “designed” with some anti-AI statements, which I'm not shocked happened. Zoë also did her own art auction where Indelible ended up being the highest bidder at over a grand. So, I guess they’ve redeemed themselves somewhat.
Since dropping the Dementia UK exhibition, they’ve wiped Wood from their bio and website, with all the posts they collaborated on now being absent. It seems that they no longer have a relationship, at least publicly. Indelible also announced their next charity exhibition, where 100% of the proceeds will go to The Lily Foundation, a charity working to find the cure for Mitochondrial Disease! They mentioned that there'll be no AI "art" in this exhibition and I hope that it stays that way.
Keep art human
This sounds like a line out of a sci-fi film but, having emotions is what separates us from machines. Art is how we express ourselves as human beings and an art gallery is supposed to showcase that. We buy art that resonates with our beliefs, experiences and opinions. We display it on our walls, wear clothes covered in it and get it permanently inked on our bodies, because it resonates with us. Yes, it’s the person that puts the prompt in, but part of art is executing ideas. You don’t have to be “good”, hell there are many people who have purposely imperfect art styles because that’s part of the expression and appeal.
And as is often said now, “pick up a pencil and learn how to draw” like the rest of us did.
Enjoy this article? Consider supporting me on Ko-fi!
Comments