The University of Alaska Fairbanks undergraduate arrested earlier this week for eating an AI-generated artwork on view in an MFA exhibition has since addressed his controversial meal.
Graham Granger, a student in the school’s film and performing arts program, was charged Wednesday with class B misdemeanor criminal mischief for tearing up a set of Polaroids by artist Nick Dwyer, causing less than $250 in damage.
“[Granger] was tearing them up and just shoving them in as fast as he could,” a witness told The Nation. “Like when you see people in a hot-dog eating contest.” According to the police report, roughly 57 of the 160 images in the show were destroyed.
Granger spoke to The Nation following his release from the Fairbanks Correctional Facility—he said he expects to pay a fine rather than serve jail time—and clarified that the vandalism was not premeditated. “I saw the AI piece, and as an artist myself, it was insulting to see something of such little effort alongside all these beautiful pieces in the gallery,” he said. “It shouldn’t be acceptable for this ‘art’ to be put alongside real, great pieces. It’s a very personal work, but it loses its substance by not being made by the artist himself.”
Continuing, he described his actions as both a “protest against the school’s AI policy specifically” and “performance art,” adding that he “needed something that would elicit a reaction.” He said the intensity of the response (it went viral) surprised him, noting that it was covered by an Italian art magazine, and he was even contacted by a Russian newspaper.
For his part, Dwyer told the publication that he did not accept Granger’s explanation for destroying his project, likening it to vandalizing personal property as a form of protest against the oil industry. He said he had considered pressing charges because Granger violated “the sanctity of the gallery,” but ultimately decided against it. “AI is a lens, and it’s viewing humanity. Some people will see it as stealing from artists. The other way to see it is that it’s an extension of humanity,” Dwyer said. “AI art might be a tax on artists. Tax is nonconsensual; some people say tax is theft. That’s something we’re going to have to wrestle with.”
The use of artificial intelligence in the creative industry has become a flashpoint for disputes ranging from the philosophical to the legal. In 2023, digital artists filed a class-action lawsuit targeting Stability AI, Midjourney, and the image-sharing platform DeviantArt, while others sued online retailer Shein for appropriating their designs. Some of these suits saw modest success in 2024, but AI’s explosive growth continues to outpace the industry’s ability to resolve its legal and ethical dilemmas.
“I think artificial intelligence is a very valuable tool,” Granger said. “I think that it has no place in the arts. It takes away a lot of the human effort that makes art. If art cannot be improved upon by criticism, it’s hard to call it art.”
