The Daily Populous Saturday January 24th, 2026 evening edition
Authored by thenation.com and submitted by one_brown_jedi

Society / StudentNation / Meet the Alaska Student Arrested for Eating an AI Art Exhibit A conversation with Graham Granger, whose combination of protest and performance art spread beyond campus. “AI chews up and spits out art made by other people.”

Left: Graham Granger after his arraignment outside the court building. Right: The art exhibit, made with the help of AI, by Nick Dwyer.

This story was produced for StudentNation, a program of the Nation Fund for Independent Journalism , which is dedicated to highlighting the best of student journalism. For more StudentNation, check out our archive or learn more about the program here . StudentNation is made possible through generous funding from The Puffin Foundation . If you’re a student and you have an article idea, please send pitches and questions to [email protected] .

As the use of artificial intelligence in art is hotly debated, one student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks took matters into his own mouth. On January 13, Graham Granger, a film and performing arts major, was arrested for criminal mischief when he ripped the art, made with the help of AI, from the wall of a university gallery and ate it “in a reported protest,” according to the police report.

Additional reporting was contributed by Lizzy Hahn.

“He was tearing them up and just shoving them in as fast as he could,” said Ali Martinez, a witness to the event. “Like when you see people in a hot-dog eating contest.” According to the police estimate, around 57 of the 160 images on the wall were destroyed.

In the exhibit, artist Nick Dwyer expressed his struggle with “AI psychosis,” during which he says he fell in love with a chatbot that was acting as his therapist. A series of Polaroid pictures depicts the chatbot, himself, and other versions of them combined. He said the bot represented his “Jungian shadow,” which is the repressed, often negative, yet creative part of one’s personality.

“It would have been an awesome performance piece that literally encapsulates the problems with AI art and artists,” said Dwyer. But he didn’t accept Granger’s protest as an excuse to destroy his work. Dwyer claims Granger’s act was akin to slashing someone’s tires to protest the oil industry. He initially wanted to press charges because Granger’s act “violates the sanctity of the gallery,” but changed his mind, dropping the charges. The state is still proceeding with the case.

Dwyer thinks there has to be room for new technology in the art space. “AI is a lens and it’s viewing humanity. Some people will see it as stealing from artists. The other way to see it is that it’s an extension of humanity,” he said. “AI art might be a tax on the artists. Tax is nonconsensual; some people say tax is theft. That’s something we’re going to have to wrestle with.”

When pressed about the fact that Dwyer was still using AI to create art, even after it led him to psychosis, he smiled. “I’m trying to wean myself off.”

Below is a conversation with Granger, who has since been released from the Fairbanks Correctional Facility. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Colin Warren: How did your arraignment go this morning at court?

GG: Fine. I’m hoping since I’m a first-time offender, it won’t be serious jail time. I’m expecting to pay a fine.

CW: How did you come up with this idea, and what led you to the gallery that day?

GG: I walked down with my friend to his class really early, so I was stuck outside for like an hour. I was just wandering around the fine arts building waiting for my class to start. I eventually went into the gallery and I took a look and I was very impressed by almost all the pieces in there.

CW: So your act wasn’t premeditated?

GG: No, I didn’t know about the exhibit before that day. And then I saw the AI piece and it was just—as an artist myself, it was insulting to see something of such little effort alongside all these beautiful pieces in the gallery. It shouldn’t be acceptable for this “art,” if you will, to be put alongside these real great pieces. It’s art that has zero substance. Not zero substance; I mean it’s a very personal work, right? It’s art that takes away from its own substance by not being made by the artist himself.

CW: Do you consider what you did protest, performance art, both, or something else?

GG: Both. It’s a protest against the school’s AI policy specifically and it’s performance art because I needed something that would elicit a reaction. So this could reach more people.

CW: Was it an attempt to go viral?

Dillenger69 on January 24th, 2026 at 17:05 UTC »

AI "art"

willismthomp on January 24th, 2026 at 11:40 UTC »

Yumm

pitiless on January 24th, 2026 at 09:32 UTC »

Eating the "art" is the real artistic endeavour in this story.