Debate: Does AI art count as real creativity or just fancy copy-paste?

I was at the MOMA in Chicago last weekend and saw a whole wing dedicated to AI generated pieces. One painting looked like a van Gogh but with neon colors and weird shapes. Some people were calling it brilliant while others walked right past shaking their heads. So where do you draw the line between a tool that helps artists and something that just steals from real human work?

3 comments

3 Comments

jana_jones20d ago

Wait, a whole wing at MOMA? Are you telling me they gave that much space to something that basically remixes other people's work?

nathan90120d ago

Jana, I feel you on that. "Remixes other people's work" is exactly how I see it too. It's hard to get excited about a whole wing when the "art" feels like it's just borrowing from stuff that already took real effort to make. I've seen some of that appropriation stuff in galleries before and I honestly walked out wondering why anyone would pay to see what's basically a screenshot with a filter. It's like MOMA is betting on the idea that pointing at something and calling it art is enough to fill a whole room. I'm with you, it feels like a stretch.

hugoj1220d ago

Dude come on, that's like saying a chef is just remixing ingredients! The whole point of appropriation art is taking something familiar and making us see it in a totally new way, which takes serious skill. If you ask me, locking down an entire wing shows that MOMA finally has the guts to admit that copying with a twist is just as valid as creating from scratch.