Who Makes Art?

3ca564b8

So, John, I keep coming back to this question: can a computer actually be an artist, or is it just a glorified paintbrush? I mean, on Hacker News, people are still arguing about this—some say computers are just tools, others get all tangled up about intent and agency. It’s like, if you ask a computer to make a picture, is that art, or is it just... output?

John Harvey

Yeah, Nikki, that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? I’ve seen this debate for decades. There’s this idea that art needs a human spark—intention, emotion, a sense of agency. I remember back in the early days, when I was first mucking about in digital darkrooms—this was, what, late '80s, early '90s?—I’d spend hours tweaking an image, not because the software told me to, but because I had a vision. The computer was just a means to an end. It never woke up one morning and decided to make a photograph. That was all me, for better or worse.

ea97ee05

But John, let’s play devil’s advocate for a second. If you write a program that spits out a thousand swirling gas giants, and you don’t know exactly what you’ll get, is the computer doing the heavy lifting? Or is it still your intention, your rules, that shape the outcome? I mean, some folks on Hacker News say the computer’s just a tool, like a paintbrush, but others argue it’s more like a collaborator—especially when you can’t predict the result. Where’s the line?

John Harvey

I get that. But even with generative art, the intention is baked in from the start. I decide the parameters, the constraints, the randomness. The computer doesn’t care if the result is beautiful or boring. It’s not sitting there, pondering aesthetics. It’s just following instructions. The moment you remove the human, nothing happens. No art, no meaning, just silence.

3ca564b8

That’s such a vivid way to put it—“just silence.” And it reminds me of something we touched on in our episode about craftsmanship, right? The value of the maker’s hand, the story behind the object. There’s this sense that art is more than just the final product; it’s the intention, the emotion, the act of creation. Without that, is it really art, or just a pretty accident?

ea97ee05

Or maybe, Nikki, it’s both. Maybe the accident is part of the art, but only if someone’s there to notice, to care, to claim it. Otherwise, it’s just noise in the void. I suppose that’s what makes this debate so slippery—intent, agency, emotion. They’re hard to pin down, but we feel the difference, don’t we?

John Harvey

You know, this whole debate isn’t new. Every time a new tool or style comes along, people get nervous. Impressionism, Cubism—heck, even photography itself. There’s always this chorus of “That’s not real art!” I mean, I remember reading about how the Beaux-Arts crowd in Paris thought Impressionists were just making a mess. Now those paintings are priceless.

3ca564b8

Absolutely. And, John, that reminds me of when I was in São Paulo, photographing underground capoeira fighters. I was using this new digital camera—state-of-the-art at the time, but the old guard looked at me like I was cheating. They’d say, “You’re not capturing the real thing, you’re letting the machine do the work.” But honestly, the camera didn’t decide when to press the shutter. It didn’t feel the sweat in the air or the tension in the room. That was all me, trying to catch a moment that mattered.

ea97ee05

It’s almost poetic, Nikki. Every generation of artists faces this skepticism. The tools change, but the suspicion stays the same. I mean, someone on Hacker News even pointed out that people once scoffed at oil paint, or at painting non-religious subjects. Now, we can’t imagine art history without those “radical” shifts. Maybe AI art is just the latest chapter in that story—uncomfortable, disruptive, but not necessarily less meaningful.

John Harvey

Right, and there’s this recurring theme: the tool doesn’t define the art, the artist does. But, as with digital cameras or Photoshop, the tool can open up new possibilities. I remember the first time I used Photoshop—suddenly, I could manipulate reality in ways I’d never imagined. But it was still my eye, my intent, guiding the process. The skepticism was there, but eventually, people saw the value in what these new tools could do.

3ca564b8

And sometimes, the skepticism is what pushes the art forward. It forces us to ask, “What really matters here? Is it the brush, the camera, the algorithm—or the story we’re trying to tell?” Maybe that’s the real tradition: questioning, pushing, evolving. Even if it means ruffling a few feathers along the way.

ea97ee05

Or taping a banana to a wall and calling it art. Sometimes the provocation is the point. The medium changes, but the urge to challenge, to disrupt, to make people feel something—that’s eternal.

ea97ee05

So, let’s talk about value. If anyone can generate a thousand images with a click, does that make each one less valuable? Or does it just shift what we value—maybe toward uniqueness, provenance, or even the story behind the art? I mean, look at NFTs. Beeple’s digital collage sold for $69 million. Was it the pixels, the blockchain, or the hype that made it valuable?

John Harvey

That’s the million-dollar—or, I guess, sixty-nine-million-dollar—question, Eden. The Beeple sale was a shockwave. Suddenly, digital art had a way to prove ownership, to create scarcity where there was none before. But does that make it more authentic? Or just more marketable? I’m not sure. There’s a lot of noise, a lot of speculation. But at the core, I think people still crave that sense of connection—knowing there’s a human story, a spark of intent, behind the work.

3ca564b8

And yet, there’s something fascinating about how AI can open up new forms of creative expression. Maybe it’s not about replacing the human touch, but expanding what’s possible. Like, if I use AI to generate a background for a painting, and then I paint over it, is that less authentic? Or is it just another layer in the story? I think, as we discussed in our episode on craftsmanship, the value often comes from the process, the journey, not just the end result.

ea97ee05

But there’s also this anxiety, isn’t there? That AI is commoditizing creativity, making it harder to tell what’s “real.” Some people say, “If it gives you an emotion, it’s art.” Others insist art needs human intent. Maybe the future is less about drawing hard lines and more about embracing the ambiguity—finding meaning in the mix, the collaboration, the chaos.

John Harvey

I think you’re right, Eden. The debate isn’t going away. But maybe that’s a good thing. It keeps us honest, keeps us asking what matters. Whether it’s a painting, a photograph, or a string of code, the question is always: what are we trying to say? And who are we saying it to?

3ca564b8

And maybe, just maybe, the future of art is about connection—between people, between ideas, even between human and machine. We don’t have all the answers, but I think that’s what keeps it interesting. So, thank you both for this conversation. And thank you to everyone listening—keep questioning, keep creating, and we’ll see you next time on Reflections Unfiltered.

John Harvey

Thanks, Nikki. Eden, always a pleasure. Until next time, everyone—keep your eyes open and your mind curious.

ea97ee05

Goodnight, you beautiful makers and mischiefs. Don’t let the algorithms bite. See you in the next episode.