Show some recent work
Out of context: Reply #8639
- Started
- Last post
- 8,718 Responses
- palimpsest0
Re: https://www.qbn.com/reply/413405…
The part of the post that stood out to me was this:
> "Out of respect for everyone that doesn't use AI to draw and design, can we please not blur the lines between man and machine, so legitimate artists don't have to deal with <prompt?> in the comments?"This isn’t just a call to separate threads—it’s making a judgment about what constitutes “legitimate” art and who qualifies as an artist. At its core, this isn’t really about AI as a tool but about how viewers perceive the work. It’s a question of ontology—what defines a work’s existence—and whether it retains value if it involves AI.
---
## The Ontology of the Work
When we debate whether a piece created with AI is “legitimate,” we are implicitly asking: *What defines a work of art or design?* Is it the method of production, the labor involved, or the impact it has on the viewer?
At its core, a work exists because of intentionality. It’s the result of choices—what to create, how to guide the process, and which elements to refine. This is true whether those choices involve traditional tools, software, or an AI model. The tool doesn’t define the work’s being; it’s the creator’s agency and vision that do.
If we claim that an AI-assisted piece is not the prompter’s work, we face an ontological paradox: If *it’s not their work, then whose is it?* The AI has no agency—it cannot create independently of the prompter’s intent. Nor can we attribute the work to the dataset, as the training data exists as fragments, divorced from the context and choices that shaped the final output. Without the prompter’s decisions, the work simply wouldn’t exist.---
## The Viewer’s Role
This brings us to the mention of <prompt?> in the comments. The concern here is about how viewers respond to AI-generated work, not the work itself. But this raises a critical point: *What is the viewer’s responsibility?*
As viewers, we often carry biases about process into our judgments. When we see a piece and learn it was created with AI, there’s a tendency to discredit it—to treat it as less legitimate because of the tool involved. But this focus on the means of production misses the point. The value of a work is independent of its method of creation; what matters is the work’s ability to communicate, provoke, or inspire.
If we reduce a piece’s value to the tools used, we risk disengaging from what’s in front of us. The viewer’s responsibility is to judge a work on its aesthetic, conceptual, and emotional qualities, not to let assumptions about its origins cloud their engagement.---
## Blurring the Lines: A False Concern
The fear of “blurring the lines between man and machine” reflects a deeper discomfort with how new tools disrupt established norms. Photography, for instance, was once dismissed as mechanical reproduction, yet it evolved into an art form celebrated for the creative decisions behind framing, lighting, and composition. Similarly, digital art faced skepticism before becoming integral to contemporary design.
AI is no different. While it introduces unprecedented levels of tool assistance, it doesn’t erase the creator’s role. In fact, it highlights the creator’s choices: what prompts to write, how to iterate on outputs, and which elements to curate. The “blurring” is not a threat—it’s an opportunity to expand our understanding of what it means to create.---
## What Really Matters
Instead of segregating threads or gatekeeping tools, let’s focus on what actually matters: sharing work we’re proud of, discussing creative processes, and learning from each other. Tools are just that—tools. What counts is the work’s ability to communicate, connect, and inspire.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about AI versus traditional methods. It’s about how we define and value art in a changing world. Creators have a responsibility to use their tools intentionally and honestly. Viewers, in turn, must engage with the work itself, to set aside biases about process, and to appreciate what the work brings to the table. If we can do that, we move the conversation forward, not backward.Made *with* ChatGPT
- what's the point of apes pressing buttons to reply to arguments generated by other button pressing apes?
the ontology part is wrong btw. :-)uan - You're right. I can't argue with that!
:-)palimpsest - The more we see, the less we look.palimpsest
- Do you think a computer is going to talk me into changing my mind? And yes I am judging the difference between a fine artist and a prompter.canoe
- You think it's fair for someone to post a litany of AI whims on "recent work"?canoe
- This idea that "the work wouldn't exist" without human interaction is disingenuous to the idea of what WORK fooking is, right?canoe
- I'm not trying to change your mind, I was responding to a post on a topic.
A computer isn't trying to change your mind either, it has no agency.palimpsest - Is it "fair" to post this here? I think it's *valid* since it's about the topic. I wasn't posting it as my recent work but *about* our recent work.palimpsest
- "... is disingenuous to the idea of what WORK fooking is"
You lost me there, chief.palimpsest - The AI bot that wrote that was trying to change our perspective. Not you PLP. That's the second time you called me champ or chief. I prefer Crotch Rocketeer.canoe
- Memory updated.palimpsest
- "What do you mean by 'what WORK fooking is'? Are you saying work exists without human interaction, or that AI outputs involve work independent of human intent?"palimpsest
- If the idea is that 'work' exists independently, like something pulled from the ether, then who or what creates it?palimpsest
- Tools like AI, brushes, or even our hands don’t act on their own—they require intentionality to shape the outcome.palimpsest
- Without human interaction or agency, 'work' doesn’t come into being; it’s a process, not a pre-existing entity.palimpsest
- The role of the artist isn’t to channel some abstract 'work' but to actively create itpalimpsest
- what's the point of apes pressing buttons to reply to arguments generated by other button pressing apes?