@eduardmsmr

Since I read a post on Farcaster by @eliora about AI and art, I’ve been circling around this intersection. I didn’t focus on the surface debates you might expect such as stolen datasets, copyright, or lawsuits but the deeper layer: what it means to create, and what it means to feel that something was made by someone Many people feel a kind of betrayal when they discover a piece they liked was made with AI. It interrupts the invisible contract we hold with art: behind every work there should be a story, a life, a pair of hands. To realize there isn’t or at least not in the way we expect makes the ground shift under us I understand that. But my own experience has been different. For me, AI was never a shortcut. It was the first medium that finally let me express myself visually at all. I carried images, emotions, fragments inside me, and no matter how I tried, traditional tools could not bring them out cleanly. AI became my language. It gave breath where I once had silence That’s why I can’t see it fully as theft. Not when intention is present. Not when the work carries meaning, story, presence. When people encountered my art in exhibitions across cities, they didn’t ask about the machine first. They asked what it meant. They asked why it felt the way it did. And that, to me, is the heart of art Maybe the question is not whether AI art is “real” or “fake,” but whether it is empty or intentional. Extraction or expression. Hollow or human. One is theft. The other is not These thoughts spilled out of me recently, thanks to the conversation Eliora began. I wrote them down in full in an article called Intention, a deeper reflection on AI, art, and the fragile line between creation and extraction🌹 https://paragraph.com/@thehiddeni/intention?referrer=0x7dfe96c2b94C97DB2Dd7A6D0765ef54034343641

2 replies

2 recasts

2 reactions