Raw LLM Responses

This is my own "definition" (that I think is kind of stricter than standard definitions), but I think that something becomes "art" when someone realizes that they can't truly explain, in words, something they're seeing, thinking, or feeling; so, to have a shot at communicating, they must make something that *maybe* will put those that experience their creation in roughly the same mental state as they were/are in. That process, by it's very nature, is deeply subjective and personal, and I do understand why it feels necessary to have to create the core building blocks for it to count as "art" - but this "definition" technically doesn't necessitate it. What's the consensus on "collage"? I'd think most of use agree that making such a thing can lead to art - yet it's literally tearing up the creations of others (a lot of the time) and patching it back together in your own image. That kind of does have some striking overlap with "AI art"? And I do think it has to be said that most of us have these unique insights inside us that we can't truly explain in words; yet most of us don't have, and likely will never have the ability to turn that into art that others will want to engage with (all artistic skill - while clearly trained, starts from having a knack for it, and most of us don't have it), and to then turn around and say that those people should not be allowed to shrug off their own biological or psychological limitations does kind of smack of elitist gatekeeping. I think that "AI art" tools, in principle, (maybe not now) can help create art *when the intentions of man, woman or child using it is truly artistic.* But the low bar to entry means that almost all intentions behind most creations are not artistic. I'm not saying I'm right here - this was very much a "stream of consciousness while being slightly contrarian" thing - but I do kind of like my "definition" of art more than the ones you'll see in dictionaries lol