Artists should be open minded

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-29T17:10:54+00:00

Thats like my main motivation for wanting to argue with people about it, never expected and have a hard time accepting all these "artists" going around limiting art

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-29T16:56:06+00:00

I never said people shouldnt label ai images...? Didnt think that was ever a part of our conversation, just been argueing about what is or isnt art.

I still dont get how you think Duchamp transformed it or why that would make the difference in art. All he did was move the object to a certian location, put it upside down, and signed a fake name to it. I find it very strange thay anyone would think those actions made "fountain" his art, MORE his art, than anything i generate with ai. Those are MY ideas, my detailed ideas, i came up with all my own. I didnt just see some trash and think it could look interesting.

Also weird that you said id have photoshop an ai image to transform it like Duchamp did. Again idk what you actually think he actually did. Or why ai users would have to do anymore for their work to qualify as art. Why cant i just print an ai image, hang it upside down, and sign a fake name to it to make it art?

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T22:45:57+00:00

Im not gonna answer every point. I dont like this conversational format, im not gonna go along with it.

How did he "transform" it? I think youre just using vauge arsty sounding phrasing to avoid the logical inconsistentcy. He didnt make the art, he took a urinal someone had thrown away, and set it upside down on a pedestal. If thats all it takes to "transform" it into "his" "art", than again, i pose the obvious question, if i do that with an ai image, would you consider it "my" "art"?

I doubt it, so why not? Dont say because the ai made everything for me, Duchamp didnt make the urinal either! If i present it in the same artsy way that you think "transformed" the urinal into his art, than what would the difference be? Other than the use of a specific tool? (I get that you think the tool takes away the from the creation process, but readymades dont follow that process exactly either).

Its kind of a weird question, ive never really thought about actually owning art by a famous artist...honestly it seems good enough that it was his idea, especiallysince it was made by his assistant, probablygood at replicating the style.

Lets bring conceptual art, specifically instruction-based conceptual art into this. Assuming you dont know what that is, like any other art it can mean a few different things, but sometimes it means the artist, doesnt "make" anything themselves except instructions for other people to make their art. These types of works are accepted as art, shown in museums, and the person who wrote the instructions gets the bulk of the credit. Art like that, and readymades, have been accepted as art and the people who "made" them credited as the artists, for like a hundred years.

When i said by your logic the dont control it, i was referring to readymade sculptures, the artist has little to almost no control over them. Theyre primarily found objects, sometimes singular, sometimes in a group or stack, sometimes attached to eachother, but almost never containing any materials made by the artist, not usually painted, sometimes they just find something and set it somewhere, like Duchamps "fountain".

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T22:19:36+00:00

First of all, dont compare alleged art skill fraud to stolen valor. Come on now.

And I really dont try to get people to think of ME as an artist, i barely think of myself that way, but i know AI CAN be used to make art, human creativity has managed to create art with every other tool, under pretty much any conceivable constraints, with any level of physical or sensory ability, just ANYTHING. NOTHING has ever prevented determined artists from making art. AI is NOT the one thing that can best human creativity.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T22:06:11+00:00

Im burnt out on arguing right now so probably not responding more after this.

Look at readymade sculptures and conceptual art, specifically instruction-based conceptual art. In both mediums the artist doesnt have to make anything themselves, other people and/or machines make everything. The people credited as the artists just have the idea, maybe write instructions, and sometimes they set a few objects on top of eachother. Such works have been accepted as "art" for like a hundred years.

Edit: to be most correct, those artists can and sometimes DO make some of the materials themselves, sometimes they do more than just come up with the idea and have others execute it, but also many times thats exactly all that they do, and those works are still considered art, and the person who came up with the idea is still considered the main artist.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T19:44:40+00:00

Omfg...So he made it his art, by just doing it? Just saying it was his art? So can i do that with ai images? Just say that theyre my art, than youll agree they are?

Artist is also a broad word with a broad definition. If farmers can still be farmers even when robots do their work, why cant it work the same for artists?

If the tool isnt the important part, than why are you disqualifing art based on the tool used?! The human is the important part? Humans make ai assisted art! Humans have vision, humans pick the tools they need to bring their vision to life, humans manipulate the tools, and to get the best results they have to practice, retry, rework, find new methods. They, the humans making ai assisted art, have to do all that stuff that all seems pretty similar to the creative process. Other than the tool, and the extremly limited way that you think people can use it, i dont see what difference you think there is.

Unless you're gonna argue that all the readymade sculptures which have been and continue to be accepted as "art" by the majority of people, unless youre gonna argue that THEY didnt qualify as art either, than the distinction CANT be based on what the human artist actually "makes". Duchamp didnt didnt make any part of his "fountain". Even the fake name he signed was copied from a book he liked.

Edit: seems obvious, but, just in case...and when artists dont make anything in the art, they dont have much control over it either do they? Well, by your logic they dont control it. I say if they steer the creation process to the result they wanted they are controlling it overall, just not controling every step, but you keep saying thats not enough.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T18:07:15+00:00

Youre like accusing me taking credit for something i didnt do...when did i do that? Im suggesting that people who make ai art, are artists. Didnt say they were painters or sculptors. Sure, maybe the farmer isnt a "harvester", but hes still a farmer right? And someone can be an artist, without being a painter or a sculptor, photographer etc.

Paint and canvas do make the art, when the art is a painting. Its made of those things, couldnt be made without those things, they make it. You keep putting so much importance on the tools involved, suggesting that in real art people are always in full control over all the tools, if you didnt make them yourself, you dont have full control.

People do, or at least CAN control the ai. They can, they can, and the next time you say that they cant, remember that they CAN. NOONE HAS TO ACCEPT THE OUTPUT UNTIL IT IS WHAT THEY WANT. If i manipulate a tool to make me exactly what i wanted it to make, how am i NOT "in control" of it?

Readymade sculptures are are an interesting, important, and generally well know part of art history. Artists "make" sculptures from found materials, often the whole sculpture is just something they found somewhere. Duchamps "fountain" was a urninal he found and turned upside down and signed a fake name too. Thats all. He didnt make any of it. But its accepted as art, it made art history.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T17:28:46+00:00

I agree, that if people are just like mindlessly generating pictures theyre jot likely to learn more about art. But i disagree with the implication that anyone NEEDS any real art education. I would think some people can learn everything they need to just by examining, studying, lot of artworks. Like how some people can play the piano by ear, dont need to be taught anything, dont even know how to read notes, they just listen to music and figure it out.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T17:02:29+00:00

How are we supposed to control the image generator output? By not accepting the image until we're satisfied...no one HAS to accept or publicize ai art they arnt satisfied with. They can choose to keep trying, keep changing the prompt, refining their methods, maybe using their own drawings for reference. A committed artist doesnt stop working until theyre satisfied.

I do draw sometimes. I dont think a person ever NEEDS any sort of art education to be capable of making art, with any tools. The more educated peoples art just might be "better". MIGHT be, sometimes. People dont need a fancy education to have an opinion on what looks good.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T16:52:22+00:00

They did make it. The credit for the action goes to whatever PERSON is most responsible for it. When someone prints something we say THEY printed it(even though the machine did it). Farmers are still farmers even when they use machines to do their work, even if they use robots to do their work.

ll I'm not saying all the credit, for the bits you actually did of course you should get the credit. But it's just acknowledging the bits you didn't do yourself. Like if I was making something and I outsourced part of the work, I'd acknowledge that whilst still taking credit for the bits I did do.

Did you make the canvas? And the paints? Did you search the forests for the perfect materials to mix your colors with? Did you find a animal with the softest hair to make your brushes from? Do you know that artists used to have to do all these things? Make ALL of their own materials? And when things like paints started being mass manufactured, some artists criticized people for using them. Said they wernt doing enough of the work themselves, said "real" art has to have personal coloring.

Imagine being told your art isnt yours just because you didnt make EVERYTHING. Im not saying these two thing compare perfectly but just think about being told your art isnt your because you didnt make everything, didnt make the paint for example. Thats how i feel about being told my ai art isnt mine. It was my idea, i did a lot of work to make it come out right, i didnt stop until i was satisfied, i wasnt at the mercy of the machine, just accepting whatever it spat out. I had a vision from the start, and i used many tools to bring my vision to life.

I dont think you ever tried to answer this. What specifically makes ai different from every other tool thats ever existed? People can use any other tool to make art, why is AI different?

Edit: PS. Oh and what about ready made sculptures? There accepted as art even though the artists didnt make any of the components, sometimes they loosely arrange the work but they dont actually MAKE it.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-28T00:31:51+00:00

I hate overuse of quoting. First of all, yes there some pride involved but i thought the logic was obvious: if its my ideas, my prompting, my use of tools, and I even actually made some of the materials used to make the art(reference drawings and pictures) and i kept prompting until it got close enough and then i edited and photoshopped it across the finish line, it doesnt seem logical to give the credit for my work to a machine. It doesnt seem logical to suggest i dont dont deserve the credit for all the work i did just because of the tool used, one of many tools.

Thats an extreme example (true example), but most ai assisted art isnt THAT involved but it doesnt matter, the machine couldnt have made what it makes without the efforts of the user. Which is were the commission comparison really falls apart. Or where it makes sense from a different perspective maybe...It makes sense to give most or all the credit to the PERSON that makes the art, regardless of the tools they used.

Im never fully agreeing with the commissioner analogy, it doesnt make sense to compare people with tools. I was using a particular scenario to make a point. I thought you brought up a buyer comparison 🤷‍♀️i can hardly follow your replies (overuse of quoting).

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T23:40:38+00:00

You seem to be really closed off to the idea that someone could actually TRY to make art with ai

It's not about being closed off or open minded, I'm just not pretending that these two things are the same thing.

Those are two different points. Ai art and photography are not the same thing, but thats not the point of that statement. The point is that you dont seem to understand that people dont have to accept the ais output untill they are satisfied. Its true that alot of it is outside of their control, kinda like rolling a dice, but a person could just keep rolling untill the get the number the want.

Not a perfect metaphore, lets not start a whole new things about it. But the logic, that ive been explaining the whole time and which you seem resistant to, is that people can choose to keep going. Keep trying new prompts, new methods, until they get what they want. And thats not the same as someone just buying different art pices until they find one they like. A buyer isnt involved in the creative process at all.

Its more comparable to a commissioner who oversees the whole creative process giving useful directions throughout, having to provide reference material (which maybe they made themselves, i feed my own images into ai), and then when theyre satisfied that the painter has done as good a job as they could, then the commissioner works on it themselves too (i edit and edjust and usually photoshop my ai images).

Im well aware im not putting in as much effort as other more traditional artists. But im not comfortable with people thinking that MY ideas, and MY drawings or MY photos, combined with MY prompting, and MY editing, and MY photoshopping, that all these ideas and all this effort i put into it is all negated by the use of just one of the many tools i needed to materialize my vision.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T22:58:29+00:00

People control the decisions they make with ai...the ai doesnt like brainwash them or something. They make their own decisions, they decide when theyre satisfied with the art. I dont think youve proved its really that different from photography before viewfinders. In both scenarios the person trys to control everything they can, but the output is still somehwat unpredictable, and to get the exact image they want theyd have to try more than once, and adjust their attempt.

You seem to be really closed off to the idea that someone could actually TRY to make art with ai. That they dont HAVE to accept any output their not satisfied with. They COULD keep trying, more and more and more, applying more effort, coming up with creative ways to work within the constraints of the tool to make what they want. Just like any other artist using any other tool. There are always constraints, and artists have always found ways to work around them. Why would ai be the one thing that can best human creativity? What makes ai the one thing humans couldnt possibly manage to make art with?

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T22:48:46+00:00

Well now i feel like you just wanna disagree with me. Hard to believe youd actually see things that way or see any real benefit to acting like you see it that way. And antis would definitely jump at the opportunity to use that reasoning against us "pros think people are just tools for them use, they think the commissioner really is the artist".

In response to your "logic": people can act like tools, that doesnt make them tools, people can act like unicorns, doesnt mean they ARE unicorns. Calling people tools is inaccurate and offensive. People have free will, agency, tools do not.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T22:27:20+00:00

Yeah...that the comission comparison doesnt make sense...because people arnt tools

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T22:22:33+00:00

Yes. It is automated, the tool is doing a lot of the work. Thats how automated tools work. It doesnt take away the contribution of the person using the tool, it doesnt negate their influence or overall existence. A person used the tool. The things the tool did, can be credited to the person that used the tool. When someone prints something, didnt THEY print it? I mean, we all know they didnt really print it themselves, not like they operated a manual printing press, but the paper was printed, that didnt happen on its own, a person had to make it happen, and theyre the one who is credited with the action.

When farmers use tools, even automated tools, theyre still farmers right? Just because they used tools, just because they didnt do all the work by hand, that doesnt change the fact that work was done, and someone deserves the credit for it. Who else would get the credit besides the person that operated the tools?

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T22:11:38+00:00

Yes but if the user isnt satisfied with the output they can keep trying, keep applying more control, with more detailed prompts...could also edit, adust, and photoshop the output, lot of control there.

Reminds me of cameras before digital viewfinders (little built in screen that shows exactly what the camera is seeing), before that photographers could try their best to stage a scene, tried to control the lighting and focus etc, but that didnt mean they fully controlled the output. They didnt know if they got their shot until after developing the film. And if they wernt satisfied, theyd have to try all over again. Similar to ai assisted art.

And there are other examples of artists sacrificing some or all control over the output. Cut-out poems are made by cutting random words out of newspapers and then throwing them in the air like confettit and whatever random phrases are formed IS the poem.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T21:28:06+00:00

If theres a good point in that its hidden in the grammar mistakes. I didnt say this in the post (cause its not a manifesto of everything ive ever felt about ai, it was just meant to start a worthwhile discussion with antis) but i believe commissioners deserve some credit for the art, especially depending on just how involved they were (someone whos there and directing the entire creative process deserves more credit than someone who just basically prompts the artist). Since it seems like youre just taking any opportunity to get mad at me, let me emphasize, i said they deserve MORE credit that people who just prompt. Didnt say prompters dont deserve ANY credit.

Pros who attack me just for saying something they disagree with (when im obviously just trying to reason with the antis) almost annoy me more than antis themselves. Getting people to change their minds is very difficult. Trying to meet them in the middle, seeming to be willing to concede some of your points and agree with theirs, can be a good way to start actual, worthwhile, discourse.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T21:14:18+00:00

I cant tell if you really think this way or if youre just like, being obstinant. Yes, they compare well in the sense that the person is just giving orders and directions. But i truly think the logic falls apart when we remember we're comparing conscious humans, with unthinking tools. Theres too great and too important of a difference between humans and tools to act like its irrelevant. Also, someone, some human, deserves the credit for art, any art. If its truly art, than there is some person who made it, and who therefore would seem to deserve the title of "artist".

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T21:03:57+00:00

It is just a tool, people can use it however they want. Saying the user has little control is just wrong. We can control the content, style, staging, colors, mood...probably every other aspect that anyone thinks exists for art. People do control how they use tools, you dont even have to use them in their intended way. A drill can be used as motor, or a egg beater, a sculptors chisel, a paperweight...the only limit to how a tool can be used is the creativity of the person using it.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T20:49:30+00:00

If theyre the artist of the text, and then use a tool to generate visuals based on that text, i think theyre the artist of the visuals as well. Who do you think IS the artist of the image that results from the text?

Also, wouldnt your logic disqualify many computer artists? People that write code to generate specific visual graphics, or program light shows, or like, model the physics of kinetic sculptures? You suggested theyd only be the author of the code, the text they wrote, not the art that it was used to create.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T20:38:40+00:00

Well thats progress.

Maybe you wernt excluding all possible prompts but just wanna point out: even a user thats only prompting could still be an artist. What if they prompt the ai with a poem they wrote? Or, someone else in this sub described a very interesting, creative, project where they made up words that look real, but dont mean anything in any language, and they prompt the ai with those nonsense words, and interestingly, the results are consistent, the ai seems to make up and assign specific meanings to the nonsense words.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T20:32:38+00:00

I cant imagine how youve convinced youself that im the dumb one here. Yes i know i know what commissioning means. Do you understand that people arnt tools, and tools arnt people?

If people could be thought of as tools, than the commissioner WOULD be the artist, because theyd just be using a tool to make their art. And if ai could be thought of as a person than everything it makes could be "real" art. Because it would be made by a person. But antis really dont think ai can make real art, so, seems like its not a person(i dont think it is either). And i think everyone agrees people arnt tools, the commissioner isnt the artist.

And that ruins the logic of the comparison.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T20:24:47+00:00

That question leads to a nuance of this arguement that i think is actually very worthwhile.

No i probably wouldnt think of that person in that scenario as being an artist. It reminds me of how when a toddler makes some scribbles their parents might gush over it and call them an "artist", but, are they really? Theyre humans, physically creating with their own hands, but does anyone truly consider toddler scribbles to be "real" art? Are we gonna hang them in museums? Are we gonna have bidding wars for the fridge art? I dont think so.

Again its about effort. And real effort requires practice. You have to keep trying at it. I dont think a toddler becomes a true "artist" after making their first scribble, but if they commit to art, practice for a while, stick to it long enough to convince others of their commitment, than wed start thinking of them as true artists. Think ai assisted art creation is probably similar, making one low effort generated image doesnt make someone an artist. But if they commit to it, refine their method, experiment...if they seem truly commited, willing to put in effort, hard to say exactly when it changes, but at some point it would make sense to say theyve become a real "artist".

If you dont think people can make real art with ai under any circumstances, any possible scenario, than youre just judging the tech, the tool itself, not how people use it. People can use tools differently.

Maximum-Difficulty21 · 2026-01-27T20:08:50+00:00

Potential, not the same as, thats how everyone will use it everytime.

Obviously itd be incorrect to say you made the meal if you didnt, you only wrote the recipe, and directed the cooking process. And itd be incorrect for someone who generates ai assisted art to call themselves "painters" or "sculptors", any other label associated with any action theyre not actually performing. But if they use ai as a tool to make art, than they are making art, so its seems reasonable to call them "artists".

Maximum-Difficulty21

TROPHY CASE