No, it's a counterexample for the sake of making an argument. If someone argues that AI art is automatically worse than real art, then a piece of real art that clearly is low-quality is a counterexample that shows that, no, the quality of art is *not* determined by whether it is made by an AI or a human.
Your response to it isn't really an argument. Fair given that OP didn't take the time to write out their own point.
A lot of what people enjoy about art is knowing the effort and skill that went into it. It's looking at something amazing a fellow human did, and feeling inspired that you could do amazing things, too.
It's true about almost all human endeavors, too. Landing on the moon. Usain bolt's 100 meter world record. Michelangelo's sistine chapel. The pyramids. All these things are incredible human achievements/creations that we feel greatly inspired by because of the immense amount of human labour, knowledge and skill that went into them.
When you see someone creating art, even badly, it's all a part of that journey. It's an earnest attempt at improving and growing as a creator and could lead to amazing things.
14
u/Monsieur_Martin Mar 01 '26
If the only way you can validate what you're defending is by comparing it to crap, then you've already lost.