this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
4 points (100.0% liked)

Generative Art_Anti-Art (Refusalism)

48 readers
2 users here now

Nothing is art. Everything is art.

Art means everything. Art means nothing.

There is only art_anti-art.

I can create or destroy whatever imagery I want, however I want. There’s nothing you can do about it.

This community supports open-source and openly licensed generative AI models!

Rule 1: No serial downvoting. Let's keep Lemmy positive. Automod on duty.

Rule 2: Be civil. Play nice. And If you don't like it here, just find a different community.

Rule 3: Weird that I have to make this an actual rule, but here we go: No advocating violence or murder.

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today
4
The Refusalist Manifesto (lemmy.today)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by PapaSkwat@lemmy.today to c/genart@lemmy.today
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We refuse art_anti-art as product, brand, credential, and personality package.

We’re done asking galleries, critics, algorithms, institutions, or strangers on the internet for permission.

We reject the idea that the right materials, the right training, or the right process make something more legitimate.

Paint on canvas, junk mail glued to cardboard, a photograph, a broken chair, code, a photocopier, or an image generated with AI. Everything is a tool. Nothing more sacred than that.

We’ll use whatever we want.

Art_anti-art doesn’t have to mean anything any more than a bird has to mean something when it flies. A hawk doesn’t circle because it represents freedom. A wild boar rooting through the dirt isn’t beautiful or ugly. It just exists. Art_anti-art can exist that way too. It doesn’t owe anyone beauty, ugliness, skill, labor, difficulty, a message, or an explanation.

We refuse the demand that every object justify its existence. If we call something art_anti-art, it’s art_anti-art. If somebody else refuses to call it art_anti-art, fine. Their refusal doesn’t change ours.

And we refuse the new gatekeepers who tell us which machines we’re allowed to touch. AI generation belongs here for exactly the same reason scissors, cameras, synthesizers, photocopiers, software, found objects, and paint belong here: because we choose to use it.

The process isn’t an embarrassment to hide. Generation, prompting, selection, rejection, alteration, collage, painting over it, destroying it, or leaving the output exactly as it came out are all available to us. The naysayers can declare that it isn’t art_anti-art. We refuse their authority to decide.

There’s no required amount of work and no approved way to make something. Make something painstakingly by hand. Generate it in thirty seconds. Tear up an advertisement and glue the pieces together. Paint over your own work. Make something useless. Make something stupid. Make something nobody sees.

Refusalism begins with a simple claim: art_anti-art is whatever we decide to call art_anti-art, made however we decide to make it.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm kind of torn about the use of AI in art. I don't want to gatekeep anyone from using it, I'm more concerned about the quality of the product and the impact it has on working artists.

I used to be a graphic designer, but AI is already making the field obsolete. Creating a composition used to require specialized knowledge designers spent years cultivating and long hours of production work. Now anyone with a canva subscription can write a prompt and have a composition that would have taken hours if not days of work from a specialized worker.

On the one hand so it goes, typographers probably said the same thing about desktop publishing. On the other, AI generated work in the hands of an over worked marketing generalist is not going to produce work like I❤️NY or Mucha's Job cigarette posters. It inherently can't produce original work because it xan only remix it's training data.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is value in expertise that is lost with AI generated work. I suppose in some middle distant future the skills required for art my be some novel approach to prompting that requires careful study of the medium. Art is whatever the person who made it says it is, but if no one else agrees it's sort of a pointless endeavor. I'm all for art for it's own sake, but the work and expertise do matter if it's shared.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I used to be a graphic designer, but AI is already making the field obsolete.

My other response to you was overly long, but I want to respond to this directly. Most of my career was in graphic design as well. I designed logos (which was 50 percent of my job and I HATE creating logos) and junk mail. Even before AI, cheap outsourcing and ease of tools was making it tougher.

The amount of times I had a co-worker or boss say, "Hey my nephew designed this in photoshop, can we use this in an ad..." was crazy.

I had one boss who would take my work, then "re design" in Quark Xpress (back before InDesign became widely used), give it back to me, and ask me to use it. But of course he knew nothing about typography, margins, or layout. Not only that, but our main print shop was pretty nitpicky about color seps on their ancient 4-color press, and the boss knew nothing about that, so I'd spend so much time having to tweak shit.

Good graphic design has always been a tough field. Everybody thinks they can do it better. Before AI there was "Fiver" taking our work. It is what it is. Ya just gotta shrug, do what you can do, and move on.

I'm out of that grind now and just paint and fuck around with AI all day (my wife hate it). But most of my social circle is still in the industry.

typographers probably said the same thing about desktop publishing

They did. I had an older guy in our office bitch about how we didn't know how to use wax roller, or strip color negs by hand. He also refused to use a digital camera, and insisted on using a high-res scanner to scan in his photos from film. All fun stuff, but when you gotta get shit to the print shop by noon, that ain't gonna fly.

I guess what I’m saying is that there is value in expertise that is lost with AI generated work.

But that comes with any technology in any field. Back when I was using Quark Xpess and InDesign, most common plebes couldn't design a magazine because of the costs of the software and printing. Then layout became easy. Then online. Then apps. Now AI. It's always been a race like this.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Most of my stuff is based on my own AI model reinterpreting my own sketches, paintings, and ideas. I sketch out an idea on paper. Then I photograph it, take it into GIMP and Inkscape, where I bold the outlines and throw in blocks of color and lines, etc.

Then I put that into my own locally run AI generator. It creates reinterpretations based on my reference drawing, combined with my previous "real life" paintings for texture. Sometimes I go through at least 50 reinterpretations before I find the one that fits my mood.

But most of Lemmy will still call it "slop." That's fine. Yesterday, one guy on here went to the effort to tell me that my wife (who he then said was imaginary anyway) should leave me because I used AI. Then he said he was going to block me, but he wanted to "annoy" me and raz me before he did. All because he didn't like my image.

One man's slop is another man's art, and one man's art is another man's trash or treasure. I don't see the tools I use as any different from Andy Warhol using silkscreen printing. Warhol came from commercial art and used commercial techniques and imagery in his own work. At the time, it was pretty controversial. Many still think it's not art. Many now think it is.

I don't value art or anti-art based on how much work went into it. I value the finished product. If I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't.

Not every artist finds art difficult to create. Some people have the money, tools, or skills to create something easily. Other artists are poor, work with whatever they can find, and may never have anyone see their work. And if people did see it, maybe they'd think it was terrible. Does any of that make someone more or less of an artist?

Why does Lemmy seem to think art has to be a product of suffering or years of effort? Some people are naturally gifted at art, math, programming, or anything else. If something comes easily to them, does that somehow devalue what they produce? I don't think difficulty is a measure of worth.

I've had my "real life" work displayed in local galleries. Some of it sold, some of it was returned to me. I have a bunch of my shit hanging in my garage now. None of those things changed the value of what I created. A gallery wall didn't magically make it better, and my garage wall doesn't make it worse.

The biggest difference to me? I was stressed out as fuck at my gallery showings. I hate them. The only time I ever feel like I'm losing my mind is when my shit is on a wall, under good lighting, and having people mingle and talk about it. I doubt I'll ever do that again. I fucking hated it! I don't know why that freaks me out so much, but I don't think I'll ever put myself through that again. lol

I create because I want to. But even that doesn't automatically make what I create valuable. At the end of the day, I choose not to live or die, create or not create, based on the validation, or lack of validation, of other people.

But I'll post my stuff here on Lemmy to see how many get pissed off about it. People have told me to kill myself. The fuck?! lol Then I laugh, and get back to sketching and fucking around with AI all day. :)

I appreciate your pointed thoughts though. I was a graphic designer too. My first professional job was designing ads for junk mail flyers (company was called MoneyMailer, out in theSan Francisco area). Was fun. And paid well. Maybe that's why I'm used to people hating my stuff. My first job was designing junk mail that annoys people!!

So thank you. This is all an interesting conversation to me.

[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I take a broad view of art. If the creator says it's art it's art. Suffering certainly isn't a requirement, but I believe intention is. If an artist starts with a vision of what they want to create, I think you're right in that it doesn't really matter how they get to a final piece.

The struggle for me though is how trivial it is to make images with AI. You train it on your own work and clearly have the expertise to know what is or isn't what you were going for. But not everyone trying to make art with AI is. Using a massive model trained on the work of countless artists can generate endless derivative without context or intention.

If you thought your boss's nephew's photoshoped designed were annoying imagine the kid's gallery show of AI artwork. I understand that AI is a Pandora's box and now that we've opened it, it's not going away, but where does it take us and how will it change art in the future?

Artists don't need to suffer to create art, but they do need to know what they're doing and why.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Good points. I used to think a lot like this. Then I read The Andy Warhol Diaries (fun read, by the way!) and started digging into Dada, Duchamp’s readymades, and later conceptual art.

Then I stopped caring about what supposedly counts as “art.”

I started to actually love shit like Duchamp’s Fountain or Cattelan’s banana taped to a wall. They came from different movements, but both challenged the idea that art has to be made a certain way to count.

I’ve posted traditional paintings before (on Lemmy and on Reddit) and got accused of using AI. I made the mistake of trying to argue and show proof. I showed the sketches, progress photos, and pictures of myself painting it on canvas. Some people just said those were AI too!! The whole “Methinks thou dost protest too much” thing kicked in, so the more I tried to prove myself, the more suspicious people got.

So I thought: what am I actually trying to prove? What's the point of what I do?

I like painting. I also like feeding my own drawings and paintings into my local AI and seeing what comes out. I can spend hours doing either.

So what do we do now that anyone can push a button and make an image? Nothing. If pushing the button makes someone happy, cool. If someone glues newspaper to cardboard and leaves it outside for a year, also cool.

For me, the fun is fucking around with a bunch of shit and and seeing what happens. It can be easy or difficult, fast or slow. If I like the result, great. If not, I throw it away and make another.

Creative work has never been a guaranteed career anyway. AI creates real problems for commercial jobs, but cheap outsourcing w offshore countries did too.

If I’m doing it for fun, who gives a shit whether everyone else thinks it counts? That's how I came to embrace it all.

[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It makes a lot of sense that Dada is an inspiration of yours, when I read the manifesto that was my first thought. Also Fountain is a piece I think about a lot.

You bring up one of my own struggles about art with a lowercase "a" or an uppercase one. The trouble you've mentioned with the audience for your work is interesting because it sort of intersects with a few issues. I have nothing useful to say about the futility of defending your work against accusations of AI generation, but it poses an interesting question. If the ideal is art for it's own sake with no other motive, why show it in the first place.

Most people who consider themselves artists never have much of an audience for thier work in their lifetime or after. Fundamentally art is intrinsic to the human experience from cave paintings and pottery to kinetic sculpture and street murals. Some of us are hardwired to make art. But given how ubiquitous it is most art is only ever appreciated by a small number of people. It makes me think of Goya's Black Paintings. They were never intended to be seen by anyone, he painted because he needed to.

I dunno, maybe I'm too hung up on the metaphysics. The intention is probably too navel gazey to be anything substantive. But I do wonder often about my own paintings and drawings why I'm putting so much work into something no one but me will ever see.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

If the ideal is art for it’s own sake with no other motive, why show it in the first place.

For me, on this platform, it's mostly for the interest in seeing the hateful insults I get (maybe that makes me sort of a troll though?). And hopefully to inspire others to fight against the tide of hate that I see becoming the norm on here. The fact that I've had people tell me to kill myself or that my wife should leave me, just because they are unhappy I used AI, says a lot. They get lots of upvotes when they say stuff like that too.

So I post for fun. Definitely not for validation, since I would not get any here. BUT it brought your conversation here, so it's already paying off, as I think this is a fun topic! So thank you for this!

It makes me think of Goya’s Black Paintings. They were never intended to be seen by anyone, he painted because he needed to.

I've thought a lot about this too. I'm not sure I have a need to create. Sometimes I go months without the urge. Then I will go several months doing it nonstop. But for enjoyment more than need. I've been this way all my life, so when I was a professional artist, that was difficult, as I usually just work when "I'm in the mood" to. Deadlines were horrible for me. lol

But even when I painted professionally, I felt strange calling myself an "artist." I'm not sure why. And when other people call me that, I feel weird. When my wife introduces me to friends I cringe when she refers to me as an artist. I usually just say I'm a painter, and that I paint ugly little paintings or that I am best known for designing junk mail that people threw away.

I've recently taken to calling myself an anti-artist and it's been great fun.

As for your stuff, I hope that none of this has caused you to stop. Stop only if you feel like stopping. Continue only if you feel like continuing. Don't get lost in the weeds of contemplation. People like us tend to overthink stuff. Once I stopped doing that, I have much more happiness in doing what I do.

Probably best not to listen to me though. After all, I did post a picture of a mans head screaming while stuck in an icky strawberry amongst a field worms today. So...

[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't paint or draw as much as I'd like to for sure. But what keeps me from picking up my brushes or pencils is not really a question of purity of intention or some other high minded ideal. It's mostly perfectionism. I have a hard time doing things badly and I get very frustrated when I can't execute an idea to way I envision it.

I know intellectually that the only way I can get to the point where my work reflects my vision is to make a lot of stuff that doesn't first. It's hard for me to practice it though. There are other factors at play too that are only tangentially related to the practice of art, but they're not worth mentioning here.

The older I get thought the more frustrated I am by the seemingly impossible to be rid of need for perfection. If I had spent every second I've wasted on perfection on making art, I'd be a master able to create anything I could dream up. Instead I am perpetually trapped as an intermediate artist constantly trying to relearn everything from scratch.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

Brah, perfection is the enemy of creativity! Go start sketching right now! lol

[–] sanitation@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So brave 👏👏👏🤲 I don't understand it at all but I'm sure it's just me. Does this mean you refuse to recognize copyright? Works for Facebook I think

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

I do refuse to recognize copyright, but there are very few hard copyright things I really go for anyway. I try to base most of my stuff around public domain, open sources, copyleft, etc