> Are there any humans that can produce artwork without ingesting inspiration from other art? Logically, the answer to this is (almost certainly) yes, so you’l

> Are there any humans that can produce artwork without ingesting inspiration from other art? Logically, the answer to this is (almost certainly) yes, so you’ll need to discount this argument. If the answer were no, then either an infinite number of humans have lived (such that there was always a previous artist to learn from), or it was true in the past but false in the present, which seems unlikely given humans brains have generally become more and not less sophisticated over time. I presume what you’re missing here is that the brain can be inspired from other sources than human art. For example: nature; life experience; conversation. Not making any other comment about what machines can or can’t do, just wanted to point out this argument is invalid as it comes up a lot and is probably grounded in ignorance around the artistic process. It’s such a strange idea to suggest that the artist process is ingesting lots of art to make more art. That’s such a weird world view. It’s like insisting every artist is making art the way Quentin Tarantino makes films. I’ve spent a lot of time with artists, I’ve worked with them, I’ve been in relationships with artists, and I can tell you the great ones see the world differently. There’s something about their brains that would cause them to create art even if born on a desert island without other human contact. Some of them don’t even take an interest in other art. In fact, those artists that _do_ make art heavily based on other artists’ work as suggested are often derided as “derivative” and “unoriginal”.