[svsoc]

I have no stance on whether this is good/ethical/art at all but given all the "it's obvious that these images are by an AI", "so called AI art doesn't have soul and that's why people won't use it" or "it can't compete with real human art" takes of late it was kind of refreshing to see someone make this point.

[brontosaurusrex]

Is it made by an ai? Or is a fusion of stuff it found online? If 2nd, then is the piece produced anything else than forgery? (No idea personally, but I do like the disruptive element of it all).

[dagw]

'remixing' existing works into your own creation is both well established an accepted within the art world. Nobody would consider it forgery to do that.

[brontosaurusrex]

The art world?

So we are just fine with 'empty' aesthetics? (that is disruptive) So the new definition of art would be: 'a human/ai product of any kind, be it remix or whatever you can sell as art'.

[dagw]

Personally I take a rather maximalist definition of art. If you self-identify as an artist and do something with the sole intention of it being art, then it is art. It can be ugly, boring, derivative, uninspiring and trivial, none of that makes it any less 'art', it just makes it bad art.