On the one hand, you have low effort jackasses that take “the machine” and just use it to churn out trash.
On the other hand, you have zealots insisting that anything that is made by a person is made of 100% divine treasure that they did not give a shit about 2 years ago.
On the other hand, you have boardrooms full of assholes that preyed on artists to exploit their humble backgrounds and use them as faces to push trends for money, with 0 interest in any expression what so ever. They ruined the entire concept of art long before AI came along.
In the middle, you have a machine that answers the previously philosophical question : what would come out if you combined every artwork a human being made and let people use it to create their dreams?
On the other hand you have assholes using said artwork machine as an excuse to fire everyone, ruin the environment even faster, and overthrow political systems.
Like fuck all of this.
EDIT : Oh, and how could I forget the pre-AI prompt artists, “installation artists” whose job it is to know museum curators and rich people and write instructions about how to assemble boxes or tape bananas to walls. Good job assholes.
OK, but when someone has looked at enough art to form an idea of the techniques they want to employ but for some reason, lacks the practical capability or chooses to create it through prose through the machine, how is it any different?
Or, collages are art (I assume). The artists gather existing images, choose/curate the correct ones, assemble them, and end up with their artwork. Why is it any different when someone chooses a catalog of LoRAs to create the images they want to? Do they have to dig through a bunch of shitty magazines?