Bristol-based illustrator and designer Adam Birch was one of the first to make a public statement. He was cautious because he wanted to be, indicating that he didn’t believe the choice was malevolent but rather misguided. However, he kept returning to a question that was more difficult to ignore than the anatomical errors on the cover: why learn creative skills if the organization endorsing those classes doesn’t value them enough to bother commissioning even a photograph, let alone a real human illustration? “Something devoid of creativity is being used to promote creativity,” he stated. It was the type of sentence that didn’t require embellishment.

In addition to the cover, the booklet included about ten other AI-generated images. And there was a big backdrop to it all. In 2023–2024, Bristol’s cultural sector had an economic impact of £892.9 million. Nearly 90% of the council’s £134 million fine art collection is hidden away in storage. Just weeks prior to the backlash over the pamphlet, the council’s Head of Culture, Philip Walker, had publicly stated that Bristol’s creative community was a “vital part of how we live, connect, and grow.” There was enough space for a bus to pass between that language and a four-fingered AI illustration on a pamphlet about painting classes.

Wick, South Gloucestershire-based illustrator and artist Luke Oram expressed the worry that elevates this beyond a local embarrassment. He described the 22-year-old recent art school graduate who is attempting to establish himself in a field that is already challenging under typical conditions. Careers start with those entry-level commissions, such as the booklet cover, the small council project, or the community publication. They don’t have any prestige. They are frequently underpaid. However, their existence is important, and when organizations choose to use an AI tool instead, the claim that the work isn’t worth paying for becomes self-fulfilling in a way that intensifies over time.

Speaking to the BBC, an unnamed artist from Leamington Spa claimed that his CEO had instructed them to incorporate AI into their work. “We’re being told to bring our heads out of the sand,” he replied. However, he had a different opinion about who really gains from that training. The people who will benefit from AI are not the ones being advised to use it. Additionally, his portrayal of the technology as “fast-food”—never pausing to consider whether we should, only whether we could—landed more forcefully than the majority of the official statements made by both sides of the dispute.

Reading the Bristol response gives the impression that the city recognized the decision’s symbolic significance in a way that the council did not at first. Eventually, council leader Tony Dyer acknowledged the “strong feelings expressed by residents” and announced that AI guidelines had been revised. For his part, Birch kept going back to a straightforward solution: use pictures from the real classes. Showcase the artwork created by the students who participate. When people show up, let the cover be a celebration of their creations. It would have been practically free. It would have made the appropriate statement. Additionally, it would have had the right number of fingers.

The post The Bristol Backlash: City Council Under Fire for Replacing Artists with AI appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.