/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6445132
I'll add unto my argument:
Any modern piece of art or illustration, will never come close to pic related.
No matter if it's made by real artist or Ai.
Why? Because this piece has actual historical context and was made in a time before mass information media, journalism or cameras.

This isn't a piece of art that hold value because of HOW it was made or how it looks, but because it has actual context and a story to tell.
If you can't give context to an image, it isn't the fault of any of the tools you use, the fault lies with you, and that's what makes the "artist"; the ability to actually do something beyond anime titties, furry shit, porn, retarded concept art or shitty tumblr comics about fat mentally ill people that want to kill themselves.

If people managed to use AI and generate images with actual context and use, that would make them "real artists" as much as the ones still drawing manually.
If a "real artist" draws something that hold no real value besides look pretty, that's kitsch, thus has no real artistic value either.

How a piece of art is made or how photorealistic it looks, is fucking irrelevant.
>>6445140
Anon, the process is irrelevant.
If a drawing of big anime titties makes me feel all fuzzy inside, makes me think about how i would ravage them and makes my pp hard, is it art then?
Fuck no. It's kitsch, like 99% of modern art.