In January 2025, the Art Renewal Center (ARC) announced the winners of its 17th International ARC Salon Competition, a prestigious event celebrating excellence in representational art. Shortly thereafter, concerns emerged regarding one of the awarded pieces, with allegations that it was not a traditional artwork but an AI-generated image. These claims gained traction on social media, prompting the ARC to investigate the matter. Upon confirmation that the piece in question was indeed created using artificial intelligence, the ARC rescinded the award and issued a public statement addressing the oversight. The following is a general overview of the issue with a timeline of how the the issue occurred, how some shined a light on the issue, and some ideas on what steps can be taken to reduce the chances of this issue occurring in the future.
Sequence of Events
January 5, 2025: The ARC announces the winners of its 17th International ARC Salon Competition. The work, “The Witchling,” by Alyson J. Barton, receives an honorable mention in the portrait category and a purchase award from the Art Renewal Center.
Early-Mid-January 2025: Artists and art enthusiasts, including notable figures such as Donato Giancola and Tristan Elwell, begin expressing concerns on social media platforms about the authenticity of one of the awarded pieces, suggesting it may be AI-generated.
Artist Tristan Elwell posts on January 9th, “I have very mixed feelings about the Art Renewal Center. On the one hand, I’m grateful that they provide a showcase and resource for so many of my friends, including several of the winners in this year’s “Salon.” On the other hand I’ve always found their program and mission reactionary and kind of stupid. And I’ve never thought much of the Ross’s level of connoisseurship and taste. To that point, this piece is the recipient of one of this year’s ARC Purchase Awards. I wonder what they’re getting for their money?”
We are all fighting this wave of A.I. generated imagery, please do the right thing for the artists who hold onto the principles you profess to support."
Mr. Elwell also shares this screenshot from the an online AI detector:
On January 19th, Donato posted,
"Do the right thing Art Renewal Center.
This artist deceived you by submitting a work based upon an image using Artificial Intelligence software generation. Cancel this award and reject the submission to the Salon, a contest which is supposed to uphold the highest of integrity of hand-created artistic realism. Your own rules forbid submitting digital art and painted over photos, let alone A.I. images.
I am very saddened by your choice to double down on the error, by swapping out the A.I. image originally posted of the award winning entry, to an image of a retouched print/canvas, like this was what you had awarded in the first place. That paint over displays numerous A.I. artifacts from the original digital image.
What Donato was referring to was a different image that replaced the original which appeared on the site after initial online grumblings over the issue and can be seen here (compared to the initial):
January 20, 2025: The ARC issues a public statement acknowledging the oversight, rescinding the award from the AI-generated piece, and announcing plans to select a new honorable mention. The statement was as follows:
"Dear ARC Community, it has been brought to our attention that one of the images from the 17th ARC Salon titled, The Witchling, possibly contained digital elements or was digitally created. We have now completed a full investigation into this mater, hearing comments, reviewing images and speaking to the artist. The work itself was examined in person as is customary for all purchase awards prior to the award being given. After the allegations were made the work was also removed from its frame for closer examination and tested and is an actual painting, not a painted over print. This being said, the image is not representative of the final painting and as our competition clearly states that no digital elements or alterations are allowed, we feel we have no choice but to remove the awards given to this specific work based on the image submitted to the competition. The painting itself is lovely and we wish the image submitted was representative of the final product. The ARC will be re-reviewing the scores from the final round of category adjudications and a new honorable mention to the Portraiture Category will be announced by the end of the week. The ARC had over 200 awards given out and over 5,000 entries to the 17th ARC Salon Competition. We thank our viewership and the ARC community in bringing this to our attention as we uphold the integrity of the ARC Salon Competitions."
February 10th: Content creator “Jakedontdraw” releases a video analyzing the contested artwork, providing evidence supporting the claim that it was created using artificial intelligence. The video is titled “How AI Tricked the Worlds Largest Painting Competition” and is captioned “The largest traditional oil painting and drawing competition just gave an award to the most obvious piece of AI art I’ve ever seen. The judges were top authenticators of realist painting works, did they not see this? Or was there something greater happening?” At the time of this writing the video has amassed nearly 70K views and carries a robust section of outraged artists and art enthusiasts. You can watch it here:
The video was a thorough walkthrough of the issue, and I stated as much on the video comment thread: “Wonderful walkthrough of the issue. My name is Anthony Waichulis and I am one of the jurists for the salon you mentioned. I would just like to share with you and your viewers that the artwork in question here was not the only entry that was clearly AI. More people are trying to do this and we do need better means for identification. I identified SEVERAL this year in the IR category alone which were removed from the competition. As you truthfully report, I do support the use of any technology in creative pursuits—but what I do not support, in any way, is dishonest practices. I appreciate your efforts here and hope you and others will continue to bring such issues to light….”
Several inaccurate statements were made in the video, including the author’s errors in terms of category and specific jurors, but he did address the issues with correction notes in his captions.
Personally, I was not overly bothered by the errors in this coverage, nor did I pay much attention to the “conspiracy theory” implications. I believe this video is important in that it promotes an open discussion on the issue and forces competition organizers and jurors to be more mindful of the dangers.
One very bothersome piece of information in all this was a series of contributions from an individual believed to be renoun artist Michael John Angel, founder of the Angel Academy of Art. Mr. Angel WAS one of the actual jurors in the appropriate category that recognized Barton’s work for an award. The account @michaeljohnangel6359 wrote:
“If the work is beautiful, who cares who painted it, AI or not? If “The Man in a Golden Helmet” turns out not to be by Rembrandt, I don’t care: it remains one of the most beautiful paintings in the world. There are idiots who buy awful paintings because they’re painted by Leonardo or Rembrandt. All painters paint terrible works every so often, but idiots buy them just because of the name. The same thing works in reverse, as here where a beautiful painting was painted by an artificial intelligence but is spurned. It shows you that people are more influenced by who painted it than by what the painting looks like. Personally, I would rather have a beautiful painting painted by AI than a rotten painting painted by Picasso. I love paintings, not painters."
I am not sure if this means Mr. Angel recognized the piece as AI and did not care or if he was just informed after the fact and also did not care. In any case, the Art Renewal Center prohibits any and all “digital” work in the Salon. On the ARC site, the rules state:
“All entries must be original artwork, conceived and created by the entrant within the past 3 years. Works need to be original works of art and not copies of works by other artists. Painted over prints or drawings over prints are not acceptable in any category and are a direct violation of the rules of the competition. At this time, we do not accept etchings, photography, or other forms of prints whatsoever, nor do we accept digital art or art with digital elements. This is a competition for fine quality representational based works of art, no modernist works such as abstract expressionism will be accepted. Representational work in all styles spanning from highly realistic to impressionistic to imaginative qualify. ARC reserves the right to eliminate works if it feels the method of creation is in question. If the work is in question, we will always do our best to contact and discuss the technique used with the artist before any disqualifications are made. If you have questions on what types of works are accepted into the ARC Salon, please peruse previous year’s results or write to the e-mail address above.”
An Equally Important Consideration in All This
Throughout the many discussions yesterday regarding the video covering the AI debacle in the recent ARC Salon, I noticed an important aspect of the conversation was largely overlooked. While it goes without saying that those responsible for evaluating and assessing artwork must stay informed about the rapidly evolving technological landscape, there’s another pressing issue: more and more traditional and digital artists are being wrongly accused of “using AI.” As many of you recognize, such accusations can have serious consequences for an artist’s career and reputation.
Too often, people identify one or two elements in a piece that resemble something an AI image generator might produce and immediately cry foul. But as visual artists, we are constantly absorbing a vast range of stylistic and aesthetic influences—both consciously and unconsciously. These influences form an ever-evolving “grand pool of aesthetic stylistic elements” that shape artistic decisions in countless ways. For example, some contemporary, traditional artists incorporate visual effects that resemble pixelation or digital artifacts—not because they used AI or digital tools, but because these elements have become part of the artistic environment that surrounds us.
This is why we must be careful with our assumptions. When I identified AI submissions in the categories I juried, I did not rely on a single trait or assumption. Instead, I followed a rigorous process:
1. Identified multiple AI-specific features that aligned with known patterns.
2. Conducted multiple detector analyses to confirm suspicions using different detectors.
3. Researched the piece and the artist to gather contextual information.
4. Consulted additional experienced individuals for further verification.
5. Presented a well-supported case to the ARC staff for review.
This is the level of due diligence I believe is necessary before making serious determinations. Our conclusions in this arena must adhere to the same standards as rational arguments—ensuring both validity and soundness. Knee-jerk reactions, limited observations, or singling out a single questionable feature are simply not enough to justify an accusation.
At the end of the day, we must root out dishonesty while also avoiding reactionary accusations that harm legitimate artists. At the risk of being increasingly controversial in some of my positions, I state with great conviction that I would much rather see an AI image erroneously pass a gatekeeper than have any hard-working artist mislabeled and unrecognized for their efforts. Let’s ensure that we all work to uphold integrity on both sides—by detecting AI work responsibly and protecting artists from unwarranted claims.
Some Ideas Moving Forward
Throughout the many discussions online to better remove dishonest AI-generated entries in the future, several good ideas were put forward. Solutions cannot be impractical, as any hosting organization must balance security with ease of entry.
IMPORTANT: It’s important to note that any measure to identify a potential AI image must be comprehensive. No tool or action for detection listed here would yield sufficient evidence for a justified conclusion on their own. Each is a tool for analysis that, when combined in the hands of someone with appropriate expertise, can allow a jurist to make a reasonable, evidenced conclusion.
Here’s a few of the ideas that can be effective without being impractical:
1. Establish a Transparent AI-Detection Policy
Why? Clear specific rules are a must. Any competition should have very clear language for use it allowed and what is NOT allowed. This is a first line of defense…always!
Implementation:
- Announce zero tolerance for AI-generated images in competition guidelines.
- State that finalists may be asked for additional proof before official selection.
- State that individuals who violate these rules will be banned from competition permanently.
2. Educate Judges on AI Art “Tells”
Why? Judges should recognize subtle AI-generated elements and “stylistic tells.” While such tells cannot be conclusive by ANY means (as I mention in this article above), they can prompt a judge to investigate further. In time, such tells may be impossible to detect, but for the time being, awareness and detection remain a viable tool.
Common AI Art Issues:
- Issues with Material Dynamics (appropriate textures missing, inappropriate textures implemented, surface anomalies, etc.).
- ** Oddly consistent yet seemingly illogical distortions** (certain types of distortions, recognizable patterns often associated with the technology.)
3. Require One or More High-Resolution Work-in-Progress (WIP) Photos
Why? While these can, of course, be faked, people using AI generators often have a significant challenge controlling the specific output. This requirement could at least put a bump in the road for those using AI-generated images in these competitions. Organizations like the Art Renewal Center already have a multi-image option for entry, so this would not be difficult to implement. One big issue here would be ensuring the artist’s procedural privacy. Only jurors should have access and all images would need to be deleted after the competition. An artist’s process is personal, and the publication of one’s process can impact their business model.
Implementation:
- Require one or more high-resolution WIP photos. If multiple, they should be taken from different angles and/or different stages (e.g., sketch, underpainting, midway, final details).
- Ensure the WIP images “match” the final submitted work in composition and execution.
2. Mandate a “Verification Shot” of the Artist with the actual Artwork
Why? Again, this too can also be faked with some Photoshop work, but when combined with other steps, it adds yet another bump in the road for those looking to get in a competition dishonestly with an AI image. Incidentally, such an image may offer jurors a better sense of the work scale. Again, if any procedural images are included here, they must be carefully handled, as mentioned above.
Implementation:
- Ask for a photo where the artist is seen with their actual artwork (preferably but not necessarily during the process.)
- Specify clear, even lighting to ensure that digital overlays or post-processing manipulations are easier to detect.
3. Require a Brief Written Description of the Creation Process
Why? Prompts the artist to articulate their approach in a way AI users cannot. Those with a strong technical background should be able to detect further potential red flags when someone tries to articulate a process. Yes, they can use AI also to create a process document—but AI and plagerism detectors are also available to jurors. (I personally like Quillbot.)
Implementation:
- Ask for 2-3 sentences describing the materials, techniques, and challenges faced.
- Optional: Provide a simple template (e.g., “This piece was created using [medium] on [surface]. The biggest challenge was [describe], and I resolved it by [describe].”)
4. Perform Reverse Image Searches & AI Detection Tools (When Suspicious)
Why? Many AI-generated works exist publicly before submission and AI detectors, while not 100% reliable, can be a useful contribution to a comprehensive analysis. If a jurist gets a “hit” with any of the above info, the AI detector and Reverse Image Search should be an instant go-to. Again, detectors can and do give a good number of false positives—it’s just one more piece of evidence to contribute to arriving at a reasonable conclusion.
Implementation:
- Reverse image search (Google, TinEye) if a piece looks suspicious.
- Use AI image detection tools (like IsItAI?, AI or Not, Winston Ai,, etc as a secondary check, though they aren’t 100% reliable.)
I hope this article will be organic, updating this latter section with new ideas to detect AI Images in this context. Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts here and elsewhere, as open discourse is always one of the best tools for positive change moving forward. Also, please do not hesitate to let me know if there are any errors here in how anything is represented or if I have omitted anything that you may feel is important to include for clarity or context.
UPDATE: Feb. 20th, 2025 update/response from the ARC:
“To the Representational Art Community
We understand that there is a lot of controversy circulating on social media about the AI image that was posted with the winners and honorable mentions of the 17th ARC Salon Results. Please know that all of us here at the Art Renewal Center share your hurt and indignation. We, as an organization and personally as individuals, have been working tirelessly since ARC was founded 26 years ago to promote and defend representational art and skill-based learning in the visual arts. This is the first time in the history of the ARC Salon Competition, which began in 2004, that anything like this has happened or the authenticity of a work was brought into question. We, like so many institutions, are trying to catch up to a quickly changing technological landscape.
ARC is grateful that the image was identified as fraudulent. The integrity of the ARC Salon Competition is of the highest importance to us. We are always open to hearing from the public if someone feels strongly that something has gone amiss, and we will continue to take appropriate actions if we feel errors have been identified. In the end, we are not individuals in an organization but an entire community helping to ensure the traditional values of the fine arts are upheld.
Please remember that there are literally thousands of images that must be gone through in each competition and even the best of us are capable of making a mistake. Over 50 jurors participated in judging over 5,000 artworks submitted into the 17th ARC Salon. Several other AI entries were entered into the salon and were identified and removed earlier in the adjudication process. All of our jurors have excellent reputations and have dedicated their lives to the fine arts in one way or another, but no one can be flawless 100% of the time. Hindsight is 20/20. The work in question was removed from the competition and the awards revoked. Let’s not forget to congratulate the 200+ amazing award winners and 1,970 other incredible works created by hard working artists published as part of this year’s competition. They deserve our congratulations and support.
Currently, we are working to find solutions for immediate implementation into the 18th ARC Salon to protect us from having this happen again. This includes a program to filter entries for suspected AI works. Any work flagged will be questioned and subject to further review. We will also be requiring a supplemental image for all artworks submitted of either a progress shot, a photo of the artist standing with the physical artwork, or a detailed image where jurors can see the actual surface texture of the work. AI technology is relatively new but already exists in all aspects of day-to-day existence. It is growing exponentially and advancing in its abilities and diversity of use at an alarming rate. It has become a valuable tool to many but also a serious threat to the skill-based tradition that so many of our artists, fans, and followers have worked tirelessly to uphold and preserve.
We understand that AI is a quickly changing technology and many artists are rightfully fearful of how AI will impact the future of careers in the fine arts. Traditional artists need organizations that uphold traditional techniques now more than ever. Without organizations like the ARC, there is a risk of losing the knowledge we have worked so hard to revive.
We hear your thoughts regarding various aspects of the ARC Salon Competitions. We will be thinking hard in the months ahead on ways we can make the competitions more accessible both financially and artistically without compromising the importance of traditional art or the security of our federally regulated non-profit’s ability to operate for generations to come. We urge those who have benefited from our organization either by finding schools at which to study, using our online resources or gaining promotion, commissions, scholarships or increasing opportunities through our website and competitions, to remember our positive contributions to the fine arts.”