Let’s talk about Picasso, appropriation, and why the argument over AI art keeps running into art history.
Where to start: the ethical standard the internet "art community" uses has only existed since the Zapata video. Their views on plagiarism are new. Previously, there was no consensus on AI or tracing.
The thing is, that the internet "art community," for one isn't composed of real artists. They're way too judgmental, and they practice conformity in the extreme, which disqualifies them.
But more than that, none of them know the first thing about art or art history. Otherwise, they wouldn't say stuff like this.
So let's do a quick lesson:
Picasso and Van Gogh were both open plagiarists (classical definition) before Dadaism made it cool. Then you've got the likes of Duchamp, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Banksy, Koons, and the list goes on.
Appropriation art is literally the art of stealing and challenging authorship. It's absurd, weird, interesting,
but more importantly it's very popular among fine artists.
Huge amounts of it are nowhere near as transformative as AI. But, in the schema of art history, that's where AI fits in.
It's appropriation art, plain and simple. And appropriation art has been considered perfectly valid art for over a century.