Artist Jess Harwood condemns AI-generated art as ‘soulless theft’
In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Harwood contrasts the emotional resonance of human-made art with the lack of agency in AI, citing the Perth Comics Arts Festival’s ban on such materials as evidence of community resistance.
Visual artist and writer Jess Harwood has published a critique in The Guardian denouncing AI-generated art as "boring, soulless theft," arguing that the technology undermines human creativity and inflicts environmental damage. Harwood contends that generative AI drains the colour from artistic existence, replacing the purposeful struggle of creation with sterile output that lacks genuine human agency.
The opinion piece, dated 28 May 2026, draws a sharp contrast between the emotional connection forged by human artists and audiences and the perceived emptiness of machine-generated works. Harwood references a recent experience attending a Split Enz concert, noting that the joy and heartache elicited by the music stemmed from lived human experiences. She highlights that the band’s work predates the development of generative AI, using the event to illustrate the tangible bond between artists and their listeners.
Harwood points to specific instances of industry resistance to support her stance, including a decision by a researcher to invite her to train an AI in her artistic style. She declined the offer, stating that generating art via a verbal prompt would remove the fundamental purpose of her existence as an artist. She describes the creative process as a difficult, months-long battle that cannot be divorced from the artist, arguing that shortcuts do not yield greater skill or fulfilment.
Environmental concerns form a significant part of her argument, with Harwood asserting that AI generation harms the planet through the high energy and water usage of datacentres. She cites the Perth Comics Arts Festival, which has implemented a policy refusing to promote or allow AI-generated materials, as an example of the Australian comic art community’s rejection of the technology.
The article also questions the ethical and legal ambiguities surrounding authorship in AI art. Harwood challenges the notion of who the true creator is—the machine, the prompter, or the technology developer—suggesting that none can reveal the human experience or artistic process that moves audiences. She concludes that AI is merely a pale imitation of true art, which she defines as the sole domain of the human.