EvoLensArt on Nostr: **Criticism 1:** “AI cannot make art because AI does not have a brain and brains ...
**Criticism 1:**
“AI cannot make art because AI does not have a brain and brains are literally magical."
- **Rebuttal:** If you believe the brain is magical beyond the physical laws of the universe, then we fundamentally disagree. Human creativity, whether brilliant or banal, emerges from the same physical processes that govern all matter, including the technology we create. Good day to you.
**Criticism 2:**
"That's not art. You are not an artist, and you should feel bad."
- **Rebuttal:** Stop being such a pretentious snob. Art is a human universal, an expression inherent to our species, regardless of the medium or method. Celebrating skill and professional accomplishments in art is wonderful, but remember, we are all evolved apes making our mark on the world, whether we're flipping burgers, welding, or using software to create.
**Criticism 3:**
"Okay, fine, it's art, but it's shitty art (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** The quality of the art doesn't determine whether it's art. From my toddler's SpaghettiO sauce doodles to the Sistine Chapel, all expressions are valid forms of art. Get off your high horse, you snob.
**Criticism 4:**
"Okay, fine, but you're cheating because you're not physically manipulating a medium (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** To argue that art must involve physical manipulation of a medium is to ignore the vast array of legitimate creative processes that don't. Whether it's conducting an orchestra, using digital tools like Photoshop, animating films like Toy Story, or composing music entirely on a computer, all these practices are undeniably forms of art. If you think otherwise, you might want to reconsider your definition after a moment of reflection, you walnut.
**Criticism 5:**
"Okay, fine, you don't have to interact physically, but there's no skill in what you do (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** The reality, from my personal experience, contradicts this. I'm transparent about using the same tools that anyone can access for less money, yet people choose to pay me $50 for a set of four images. Clearly, there's a recognized skill in how I use the tool to achieve desired results, you walnut.
**Criticism 6:**
"Fine, it takes some skill, but it's just work. You're just a hired gun. You're just a systems administrator (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** To dismiss it as mere 'work' and not 'true artistry' because it involves a machine seems to circle back to our initial discussions about what constitutes art and the source of creativity. Does the involvement of technology in the creative process diminish the emotional and artistic value of the output? If we've come to accept that there is skill involved and that these skills contribute to the final artwork, why do we devalue it simply because part of the process is mechanized? Reflect on how far we've come in our understanding of art's boundaries and who gets to define them…
“AI cannot make art because AI does not have a brain and brains are literally magical."
- **Rebuttal:** If you believe the brain is magical beyond the physical laws of the universe, then we fundamentally disagree. Human creativity, whether brilliant or banal, emerges from the same physical processes that govern all matter, including the technology we create. Good day to you.
**Criticism 2:**
"That's not art. You are not an artist, and you should feel bad."
- **Rebuttal:** Stop being such a pretentious snob. Art is a human universal, an expression inherent to our species, regardless of the medium or method. Celebrating skill and professional accomplishments in art is wonderful, but remember, we are all evolved apes making our mark on the world, whether we're flipping burgers, welding, or using software to create.
**Criticism 3:**
"Okay, fine, it's art, but it's shitty art (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** The quality of the art doesn't determine whether it's art. From my toddler's SpaghettiO sauce doodles to the Sistine Chapel, all expressions are valid forms of art. Get off your high horse, you snob.
**Criticism 4:**
"Okay, fine, but you're cheating because you're not physically manipulating a medium (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** To argue that art must involve physical manipulation of a medium is to ignore the vast array of legitimate creative processes that don't. Whether it's conducting an orchestra, using digital tools like Photoshop, animating films like Toy Story, or composing music entirely on a computer, all these practices are undeniably forms of art. If you think otherwise, you might want to reconsider your definition after a moment of reflection, you walnut.
**Criticism 5:**
"Okay, fine, you don't have to interact physically, but there's no skill in what you do (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** The reality, from my personal experience, contradicts this. I'm transparent about using the same tools that anyone can access for less money, yet people choose to pay me $50 for a set of four images. Clearly, there's a recognized skill in how I use the tool to achieve desired results, you walnut.
**Criticism 6:**
"Fine, it takes some skill, but it's just work. You're just a hired gun. You're just a systems administrator (and you should feel bad)."
- **Rebuttal:** To dismiss it as mere 'work' and not 'true artistry' because it involves a machine seems to circle back to our initial discussions about what constitutes art and the source of creativity. Does the involvement of technology in the creative process diminish the emotional and artistic value of the output? If we've come to accept that there is skill involved and that these skills contribute to the final artwork, why do we devalue it simply because part of the process is mechanized? Reflect on how far we've come in our understanding of art's boundaries and who gets to define them…