Calling something art has economic consequences

Just asking questions

Certain interests benefit from the ongoing disagreement over the “artfulness” of machine generated images more than they would if the debate was broken down into the specific concerns of specific artists that are affected in different ways. For example, the debate over “is it as valuable as a painting by a human” is long and nuanced but the question of “will people use this instead of paying illustrators” is not, and we should not hide one behind the other. A painting meant to hang on the wall of a contemporary gallery does not “[fit into the world]” in the same way that an illustration meant to be reproduced in a magazine does. We can call both art, but we should not use a term that broad to make decisions that affect both of them.

This is what [art theory] should do for you if you are interested in images and/or art – provide the tools you need to understand the specific terms in which a piece of art fits into the world, and empower you to think independently about it in meaningful detail. If we make conclusions, we should do so with deeply felt and reasoned arguments, while retaining the flexibility to understand the range of available interpretations and experiences. If we continue to argue, we should do so with nuance and understanding. In all cases, we should be aware of the contexts in which these conversations take place, and how they affect what we can say and how we say it.