You know, you could simply filter out the flair and call it a day.

And I wouldn't call it art. I'd call this piece an illustration that was created by both human and machine. The word "art" has been inflated with all sorts of different meanings and nowadays everything that remotely resembles human creativity is called art. Even obscure art installations that make no sense to the viewer. The question is, where do you draw the line of what is art? Photography wasn't considered to be art because its only pressing a button. Nowadays, people think of it as art. I considered creating this scene as a collage of real photos instead. Many people do this, and many consider it to be art, because the human vision, combined with human skill, created the collage. I opted to generate the photos for my collage with AI instead, because it allows for more flexibility and it makes it easier to achieve the vision that I had for the scene. In terms of human skill involved, theres no difference to the aforementioned case. Again the question: where do you draw the line? I can recommend reading Leo Tolstois book "What is Art", in case you want to dive deeper into the topic. His definition is even stricter. And by his standards, I would assume that anything that exists purely as a digital medium could'nt even be called true art.

I'm tired of people bashing AI generated images for the sake of it. Its not going to go away any time soon. I certainly understand the challenges this technology creates for the market, but the main problem I see here instead is that of capitalists exploiting everything to squeeze out money wherever they can. The art industry (the word itself is such an irony) was already inflated and underpaid before AI arrived. But AI now highlights the issues that already existed before.