Raw LLM Responses

I think art has a lot to do with intent and context. Jackson Pollock purposely did something to provoke a reaction in people, as did a lot of "modern artists" in their time, because art was becoming a stuffy circle of stuck up snobs. That's why they were significant in their contribution as challengers in history. But then like anything disruptive and revolutionary the rebels eventually became the establishment and soon the people who made and appreciated modern art became the stuffy snobs. Pro AI users might think they're the disrupters in a parallel situation, but the problem is, Warhol and Duchamp and the rest came up with those silly meme pieces and made it with their own minds and hands. It was still a very human, very rebellious act, and to me that is art. Art is rebellion. Art is humans lashing out. Most AI "art" is nothing of the sort. By producing AI art you're just being another corporate shill, playing into the hands of people already in power, doing exactly what billionaires and grifters want you to, using the money grubbing tool they designed exactly as it was intended, being at their mercy to any software changes, degrading the environment and contributing to societal decline. The user of gen AI tools aren't rebels of any kind, they are just followers who were fooled into thinking they're leaders. But I'll admit, commercial art, the kind where groups of artist are employed to make a commercial product, is sadly much closer to this slop than we like. There's still a lot of humanity in there, but studios often do their damndest to squash the creative factor and conform them to commercial and financial demands rather than maintain artistic integrity. It's why AI art isn't so much a threat to independent artists who are truly carrying forth the human spirit, as it is to commercial artists who had always been pesky round pegs stuck in square holes that management wish were obedient little robots instead.