In summary — Conveneo and DDAMA launched the AI Art Prize 2026 to ask an uncomfortable question: what remains of the artist when the tool can make the picture on its own? In this manifesto, curator Christine van Stralen traces the line from Kandinsky and Mondrian through Peter Struycken's early computer art to today's generative models, and argues that every generation of artists has answered new technology by escaping it — by building a visual language the tools alone could never produce. She draws a hard line between AI slop (cheap, commercial, instantly forgettable) and work that transcends its tool. And she sets out the six pillars the jury will judge by: creativity, authenticity, visual inspiration, content and meaning, sincerity, and uniqueness. Using AI is not the problem. Letting AI do the imagining is.
Conveneo and DDAMA have come together in a search for the role and position of human beings within the technological force that humanity itself has created. It is a kind of self-destruction that humanity seems to be engaged in.
Initially, technology was seen as a way of freeing us from mind-numbing work. Repetitive household chores, for example, became much easier through technology. The middle class was provided with increasingly efficient and better tools for administration, translation, and organisation.
When we thought that creativity was something reserved exclusively for human beings, along came OpenAI. Humanity gained access to a vast repository containing almost everything it had ever produced. That global digital collection of creative works has now become our digital creative treasure chest — a place from which we can freely pick and choose.
The longer humanity exists, the less there seems to be left to do to experience life as an interesting activity. Work was primarily regarded as a burden, but something important was lost along the way: the enjoyment and satisfaction that people experienced through work at many different levels.
The loss and retrieval of the human touch
For some time now, the arts have been next in line. If we can simply take art "out of the wall" whenever we want it, then perhaps something essential is lost. What disappears are precisely the aspects that art is about: the amazement and delight we experience when encountering what another person knows, can do, imagines, creates, and makes.
Art allows us to confront and discover a world that, for "ordinary mortals," is often almost inaccessible. Within that world, people can find hope, relaxation, and an escape from the many things that weigh them down.
With the competition Conveneo, AI, Human After All, DDAMA is searching for that escape. Which creative mind can master AI tools? Who can work with them without succumbing to the temptation of producing the easy image? Who can transcend the tools, make the content say something about those very tools, and thereby reveal new possibilities? Where is the hope?
Ever since artists began using computers, the question has once again become relevant: what is art? Is art created with a computer actually art?
Peter Struycken, the Dutch pioneer of computer art who began working with computers in the 1970s, no longer needs to defend himself as an artist. But with the emergence of OpenAI, the question has become relevant once again: is art created with AI also art?
Historical continuity and artistic resistance
Artists have always been extraordinarily skilled at finding escapes from established movements and conventions within the arts. In doing so, every generation, in every period and every region of the world, developed its own identity and recognisable visual language.
It is much like music. I have always been amazed that, even though there are already endless numbers of melodies and rhythms, new ones continue to emerge. The same applies to visual and artistic expression.
These cultural innovations have always been accompanied by friction and criticism between the new and the old. When figurative art in the previous century gave way to more abstract directions in the visual arts, with artists such as Kandinsky and Mondrian, and later Minimal Art with artists such as Sol LeWitt, figurative movements also spontaneously re-emerged. But they were different from those that had existed before.
The art worlds and networks that emerged around these movements often found it difficult to mix. They frequently remained strictly separated, almost like religious denominations, each strongly criticising the others.
What could be more beautiful than having the possibility and freedom to endlessly explore and develop new forms? That is at the heart of what artists do.
Artists generally function as sensitive antennae within society. They help their contemporaries, who are themselves constantly searching for ways to give shape to their thoughts, experiences, and identities. Artists continuously reflect themselves against others and, in doing so, learn how to relate to their own time. This is particularly important for young people, who need knowledge and possibilities to find their way out of confusion and uncertainty.
The digital imperative and the dilemma
Because of the rapid development of IT, from which no one can escape, the ground beneath our feet is constantly being shifted. Those who want nothing to do with it risk isolating themselves. Nothing is as compelling as our digital world.
But how do you find something to hold on to? How do you know what you should think about something? What should you choose when there is so much available? This is not only about something as simple as choosing what to wear. More importantly, it concerns how we relate to events that often overwhelm and surprise everyone.
Because the digital world enters our lives through every part of society, it is extremely important that digital artists engage with it. They have always done so by using the newest tools and developments in IT. But now we may be facing a completely new challenge for artists across many disciplines: tools that appear to make artistic creativity itself unnecessary. These tools strike at the very heart of what it means to be an artist.
In the new AI era, which is arriving with unavoidable force and persistence, the question becomes even more relevant: "Is this art, or was it made with AI?" The question itself seems to imply that if a work of art was made with AI, then it is somehow not art.
"It looked very much like someone directly, just from a prompt, created different clips and then stitched them together. AI art is so cheap and kind of doesn't feel like it has any value."
— Software developer at the Walker Art Center, on Olalekan Jeyifous' work Field Recording
According to the curator at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, it is important that sufficient information is provided about the digital process behind a work. For an artist, this could create a dilemma if they were expected to disclose the sources and technical aspects involved in creating the work. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate question to ask: was a work generated by AI, or was it created with AI-assisted tools?
Clarity on this matter would be consistent with EU legislation, which focuses on transparency in relation to AI-generated work, particularly concerning issues of intellectual property.
AI slop versus transcendent art
This brings us to the territory of AI slop. To determine whether something was created using AI, an artwork can be put through an AI slop detector. AI slop is characterised by the familiar AI-generated trash that can be found all over the internet — Trump as the Pope, for example. AI slop is not necessarily about art. It is often about commerce, misinformation, misleading advertising, mass production, and making a quick profit or gaining attention as rapidly as possible.
The six pillars: how submissions are evaluated
Creativity — Imaginative originality beyond standard prompts.
Authenticity — Genuine emotional resonance and artistic identity.
Visual inspiration — Captivating visual aesthetics and depth.
Content and meaning — Thoughtful message, narrative, or philosophical substance.
Sincerity — Honest exploration of medium and intention.
Uniqueness — Standing head and shoulders above generic generation.
In DDAMA's view, there is nothing wrong with using OpenAI and a wide variety of related tools. But, as with all our choices in digital art, the result must transcend the tool. The artist must know the tool well and give the work a unique emotional and conceptual charge — something that can overwhelm and astonish us.
Conveneo AI, Human After All is also about our curiosity: which artworks and which creators will rise above within this new art form and stand head and shoulders above the rest?
To make things even more complicated, digital artworks — including those in which AI plays a role — are often created through the combined use of many different tools. Specific tools are used for their particular qualities in order to achieve the desired effects. This requires considerable IT knowledge, which artists may call upon specialists to provide in order to realise the image they have in mind. The final result is therefore often the outcome of a process involving research, experience, searching and experimenting, development, and continuous refinement until the desired result has been achieved.
The viewer goes through an almost opposite process. For the viewer, what ultimately matters is the finished artwork. If the viewer becomes intrigued, they begin to peel back the layers, drawing upon their own background and experience: the content, the context, and sometimes even the secrets of the technology behind the work.
Drs. Christine van Stralen Director / Curator, DDAMA
Submissions for the Conveneo AI Art Prize 2026 close on 15 October 2026. The winner is announced on 1 November 2026. Prize: €5,000. No entry fee, and the creator keeps full IP. Enter at conveneo.eu/artprize.
Citation reference: Alex V. Cipolle, 19 August 2026, ON AIR, BBC World Service: "Walker, artist respond after visitors mistake digital artwork for AI-generated work."