Anno Museum in Hamar, Norway, has ignited a sharp cultural debate by releasing a short, artificial intelligence-generated film depicting the 12th-century Baldishol Tapestry. Produced for 7,000 kroner, the project pits museum innovators against traditional illustrators and filmmakers who condemn the reliance on generative tech.
The Baldishol Tapestry Experiment at a Glance
- The Project: A two-minute and forty-second animated film bringing the rare medieval Baldishol Tapestry to life using multiple generative AI platforms, created for a software credit cost of 7,000 kroner.
- The Clash: Museum leadership defends the project as a necessary experiment for institutions, while artists and the action group KIKI label it a betrayal of human cultural workers.
Bringing a Medieval Masterpiece to Life Through AI
To audiences stepping into Anno Domkirkeodden historiesenter in Hamar, the past arrived with dramatic background music and animated figures stepping from a burning tapestry. The institution, part of a network of 29 museums in Hedmark, rolled out the project to present one of the very few preserved tapestries in Europe before the 1200s. Stine Skrutvold Skjæret, who is both a producer for the film and communications manager at Anno museum, orchestrated the visual piece by combining tools like Nano Banana, ChatGPT, ChatGPT Image 2, Kling 3, Seedance 2, and Suno 5.5 for the audio track.
Yet the machine-learning pipeline brought friction. Skjæret noted that the American-trained software insisted on rendering the 12th-century woman as either a model or a witch, while occasionally slipping modern automobiles into medieval scenes. Staff had to actively police the prompts to keep the historical context intact. Skjæret defended the approach by stating that the museum’s alternative was simply not making the film at all due to financial constraints.
The Backlash From Norway’s Creative Community
The experiment quickly drew fierce condemnation from professional creators. Illustrator Flu Hartberg, leader of the artistic initiative KIKI, called the project horrific and a direct blow to cultural workers. Hartberg argued that a publicly funded institution entrusted with safeguarding national heritage chose to hand money to tech giants instead of employing local 3D artists, animators, and illustrators.
Skjæret acknowledged the criticism, welcoming the debate while clarifying that the production still required professional human oversight, including a director, photographer, and motion designer, to ensure a credible final product.
| Project Element | Details & Resources |
|---|---|
| Production Cost | 17,300 credits (7,000 NOK) |
| AI Platforms Used | Nano Banana, ChatGPT, ChatGPT Image 2, Kling 3, Seedance 2, Suno 5.5 |
| Exhibition Venue | Anno Domkirkeodden historiesenter, Hamar |
| Institutional Scale | Anno Museum: 29 museums, 141 staff years |
Museum Directors and Cultural Authorities Weigh In
Per Øyvind Riise, museum director at Domkirkeodden, defended the institution’s willingness to embrace technology, pointing to Hamar’s advanced digital and virtual reality environments as proof that museums must pursue innovation.
The museum intends to use the project as an experiment to create debate about how AI can and should be used in the museum sector and the culture industry generally.
