Alex Gervais ’28
Executive Opinion & Design Editor
A new crisis is plaguing Trinity’s campus. No, the water isn’t off in the library again and eduroam is indeed fully operational. Instead, AI posters have taken over the walls and windows of our College. Each time I walk into my dorm or down the Long Walk or into Mather or into an academic building, I’m met with posters that can only be described as slop. They boil down the design process into single-sentence generative AI prompts, serving as constant reminders of all our campus can, but refuses to do.
It is first essential to learn how to identify an AI poster. They seem eerie, with “art” that is trying so hard to be perfect that it falls flat on its face into mediocrity. Its figures are often distorted and off-color; they stare out at you with lifeless eyes and emotionless faces, grasping at the world with six fingered hands. Its typefaces are constrained, warped, sans-serif fonts struggling under the weight of millions of data points, still unable to make a true impression on the viewer. Their layouts are hyper-usual, an aggregation of every poster ever made from Cheret’s lithographs to the WPA to the Public Theater; they’re trying to make a perfect copy of art that can never truly be perfected. They leave us with a bad taste in our mouth, wanting more from “art” that we may not even want in the first place.
These posters are not merely one-offs used by underfunded, under-managed student organizations looking for an easy way out; they have instead been embraced by competent, well-run organizations hosting school-sponsored events, and even an academic department here on campus. When I saw the theater and dance department’s “Syllabus Rex” poster series and the ACC’s “Clash of the Bants” post, I felt ashamed for my College. Open use of AI to generate “art” on our campus is, at its core, embarrassing. It says to prospective students and staff: “We don’t care enough about our organizations to spend ten minutes on Canva. We used AI instead.” It’s a clear signal that not only are art and artists not valued on campus, but effort isn’t either. It’s a sign that Bantams choose the easy way out, even on completely voluntary tasks. It says that our creativity can be mimed by a machine, mimicked so well that many of us will never know the difference.
There is nobody forcing our student organizations to advertise their events or academic departments to promote their majors—these are conscious, voluntary choices. Using AI to do this completely voluntary promotion doubles down on our aversion to caring: here, we choose to care so little about the very things we’re supposed to care so much about. We ask an unknowing, untalented computer to make us event posters as wise, talented artists have their skills go underutilized on our campus.
Yet, the school has openly sponsored and vocally supported AI ‘art,’ and seems poised to continue to do so in the future. During his inaugural address. President Lugo endorsed task automation and language generation through AI, asking us all to shape the ethics and interpretation—not the content—of the future. The College must instead commit to sponsoring the arts on campus, compensating real artists for their real work. The Office of Student Life and Engagement should create a signup system that matches clubs in need of design help with real artists on campus, not machines. Clubs should be able to enter into either project or semester-based agreements with artists for their work. A system of sponsorship within the arts will not just make our campus AI poster free, but also strengthen the many skilled artists we have here at Trinity.
In the midst of a seeming AI takeover, I challenge our student body to care. I challenge us to create for ourselves, to let us have our own artistic endeavors and not rely on a machine to design for us. I challenge us to throw away ten minutes picking a Canva template and typing basic information into it. I challenge us to consider the message we send to the rest of our community when we ask ChatGPT instead of a human artist to make our posters. It’s time to try, not use AI.
All of the arguments levied here against ChatGPT made posters can be equally applied to Canva. Canva replaces “real” artists, creates boring and boilerplate designs, and takes far less time than creating a poster would in a previous era. None of this leads me to conclude that a Canva poster indicates a lack of care or excitement about the event it’s advertising.
In lieu of ChatGPT/Canva, clubs would not commission artists to design posters, the posters would simply never be made. It seems obvious which option clubs will choose.