> Still, as long as new artistic tools emerge, the "Is it art?" debate will likely continue as long as there are people to have the discussion.
For me the question is moot.
The question matters deeply to those trying to make art tradeable. Their business is about maintaining scarcity (a.k.a. non-fungibility), so they'll spend up to some portion of their profit margins on gatekeeping and defending terminology.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-ducham...
The people up in arms are the critics, the gallery owners, the rich kids who collect items made by people good at making interesting stuff. Because if art isn’t special, if it doesn’t have some deep rooted special meaning that transcends reality. They are not better than the sports commentators and shopkeepers they so desperately try to elevate themselves above.
That said, I think it's uninspired and derivative and does nothing for me. It does seems "skilled" in the sense that there's a decent use of anatomy, lighting, and composition. So on first glance it's a pretty image which might be all someone wants and to each their own.
I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details. AI tools seem to have a hard time with actually making sense in the details and has a really hard grasp on things like hands (which are difficult for humans).
All of the arms in the scene are melted stubs. The subject in the middle has what looks like an insect's leg jutting out of her waist.
> I would love to see the high-res image though to see if it holds up in the actual details.
It clearly doesn't. The judges probably thought that there was something cool about the visual weirdness of the piece—which indeed there is. However, it's much less interesting when you know that the melting arms aren't the artist intentionally playing with form—it's just a machine not knowing what arms are.
I think you're right but it's so hard to see in the Ars pic.