Raw LLM Responses

"a camera does not create anything for you..." Then what makes candid photography considered artworthy? Hear me out for a sec. All photography can be classified by whether it was "staged" -- such as studio photography, where the photographer (or at least _someone)_ has clear creative control over the arrangement of the subject(s) in frame, the lighting, and so on. Or whether it was "candid" -- when the photographer does little more than just point the camera and snap a picture (or three) of whatever's in front of them for little reason other than that moment just happened to look interesting. Any concerns about whether a candid photo is art-worthy are handled "in post" (by selecting the best photo, creative cropping, etc. -- the type of stuff handled in analog darkrooms, or for digital, in photoshop). In this latter case, the photographer did not _make_ the photo so much as they _took_ a photo of something that was already pre-existing. And yet that level of darkroom curation is sufficient that we can confidently declare it art.... Of course, Ai image gen has many MORE problems (and problems worth fighting over) than _just_ how to define the specific relationship between a user and the AI model and whatever other steps they take along the way to develop a finished piece. If you want to draw a line in the sand based on an "overall" impression of the piece as a whole then sure, do that; but you _will_ have to acknowledge the existence of edge cases that uncomfortably blur the line and don't cleanly fall on just one side or the other. I also believe that the Colorado State Fair made the wrong call permitting it to be exhibited/judged alongside non-AI-gen works in this specific category; they probably should have accepted it as a "courtesy exhibit" (fairs are much more _exhibitions_ than _competitions_ anyway, strictly speaking). A photomanip, kind of by definition, needs to be derived from a specific ACTUAL photograph to qualify. Otherwise, it can still be digital art but it's not a manip.