A stupid person will always see things as rivals, then there’s always winning and losing. That is the current situation and those people appears to be unchangeable.

Those who follow the traditional methods to create art will always criticize the emerging way of art creation, saying it’s a disaster. As a return, fans of the new way of art creation shoot back and denounce them as lagging behind .

With the rise of AI art and crypto art some stubborn artists pop up with "That's garbage! Not art!”.  Crypto art  funs are obsessed about the technology within the art work. And they’ll find art work much less attracted or probably just walk away when all the AI, programming or coding disappeared.

When it comes to traditional method of art creation, we say "learn from the mother nature", we also heard from great artists saying: “It's not my work, just the nature self-presented by my hands.”. Regardless of their genuineness ,it’s a truth.

An artwork is not a production of emotion but a result of reason, and that’s why it triggers a large variety of thinking.

Art creation and scientific research share a lot things in common, we use a variety of techniques and materials to achieve our intentions, and sometimes our "mistakes" lead to major breakthroughs and surprises. If the result is controllable, it is copying (copy our own work). If the result is a perfect accident, it is creation.

Likewise, with AI art you set boundaries, produces results, and choose from the results, then modify the parameters again, continues to generate...until it offers you a presentable results.

Therefore, for those artists who use traditional methods to create art, criticizing AI art is  basically self-denying, their understanding of art creation is limited. As the supporter of brand-new art methods, trashing traditional methods is a shallow understanding of AI. Both sides are idiots.

For those who perceive my limitations and wish to argue, please use ETH, thank you!

A stupid person will always see things as rivals, then there’s always winning and losing. That is the current situation and those people appears to be unchangeable.

Those who follow the traditional methods to create art will always criticize the emerging way of art creation, saying it’s a disaster. As a return, fans of the new way of art creation shoot back and denounce them as lagging behind .

With the rise of AI art and crypto art some stubborn artists pop up with "That's garbage! Not art!”.  Crypto art  funs are obsessed about the technology within the art work. And they’ll find art work much less attracted or probably just walk away when all the AI, programming or coding disappeared.

When it comes to traditional method of art creation, we say "learn from the mother nature", we also heard from great artists saying: “It's not my work, just the nature self-presented by my hands.”. Regardless of their genuineness ,it’s a truth.

An artwork is not a production of emotion but a result of reason, and that’s why it triggers a large variety of thinking.

Art creation and scientific research share a lot things in common, we use a variety of techniques and materials to achieve our intentions, and sometimes our "mistakes" lead to major breakthroughs and surprises. If the result is controllable, it is copying (copy our own work). If the result is a perfect accident, it is creation.

Likewise, with AI art you set boundaries, produces results, and choose from the results, then modify the parameters again, continues to generate...until it offers you a presentable results.

Therefore, for those artists who use traditional methods to create art, criticizing AI art is  basically self-denying, their understanding of art creation is limited. As the supporter of brand-new art methods, trashing traditional methods is a shallow understanding of AI. Both sides are idiots.

For those who perceive my limitations and wish to argue, please use ETH, thank you!