My cousin printed AI art for a gallery show, the buyer walked out after 10 seconds

Last month in Portland she hung 12 AI pieces she'd spent 60 hours curating and someone paid $800 for one, but a local painter called it theft to her face at the opening, so which side is right, can refinancing an image's source ever be okay if the final look is new?

1 comments

1 Comment

dylan_bell13d ago

she'd spent 60 hours curating" and the buyer still walked out after 10 seconds, that's faster than I decide on which flavor of La Croix to grab. Honestly, this whole thing is like arguing over whether a remix of a song is real music when the original artist is still alive and screaming about it. The painter calling it theft is just mad that a machine can do in an hour what takes them a week, and that's a fair feeling, but "theft" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If someone feeds a thousand existing paintings into a blender and the final image looks like a melted unicorn, I don't know if that's new art or just a fancy collage with extra steps. The real issue is nobody agrees on what "new" even means anymore, so the buyer probably just thought it was a weird poster and dipped.