To those who say he cheated: Is “art” defined by the merits of the result or by the effort and skill of the artist? If a very skilled and talented artist creates an ugly lump of clay is that more “art” than a stunningly beautiful sculpture carved by a computer? Also, I am sure that human artists would object on the basis that an AI routine is just copying techniques used by human artists and generating images that mimic those styles, but then again human artists have always done the same as well.
I’m not proposing an answer to these questions, just raising them.
To those who say he cheated: Is “art” defined by the merits of the result or by the effort and skill of the artist? I I think that the success of Andy Warhol proves that merit has little to do with the skill or vision of an artist.
The reaction of the press and “opinion makers” has a great deal more to do with the success or failure of an artist. Or whether art will be seen by the greater public.