As an artist, which gives me the purview to elevate non-art (as the non-artist of this non-art piece self describes it), my analysis is thus: this is a non-piece mockingly combining the myopic obsessions of this website's worst clientele - the white, chauvinistic, USAmerican fandomite liberals who have never done an ounce of critical thinking in their life - into a mean spirited parody. It's jingling keys at them and calling them babies. "Is this what you dumb fucks like? You clearly don't have the cognition for serious, genuine engagement with the ideas and principles that have gone into the conversation of art for centuries, so here's a white bitch in a navy uniform getting fucked while holding a burger. Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand it?"
If you exist outside that purview, you can take the non-piece as an observation of how the coddled ignorance of the privileged imperial core shapes the face of global art by its incessant demands to simultaneously never be challenged and to be taken seriously as not just a, but the, voice of what art is and gets to be.
I would be remiss to overlook the fact that the non-artist has used image generation for this task. Image generation has been chided by very many people, for very many reasons. Obviously among those are some good reasons, which the non-artist is not addressing. What the non-artist is addressing is specifically the erroneous, fascist assumption that lies underneath the assertion that AI "isn't real art" because "[AI has no soul][it's stealing from real (ensouled) artists][you just typed in a prompt instead of spending hours drawing it by hand]".
These are obviously, fundamentally reactionary arguments against AI art, deriding it on grounds that art is a designation that has specific and definitive characteristics of being created by humans (it is generally agreed by christian dogma, the only one these people are likely to be acquainted with, that only humans have souls), taking effort, or simply looking a certain way. AI image generation has done considerable damage to that conception by throwing into jeopardy the value of the 'skill' required to pump out pinups of glossy eyed, doll faced anime girls getting fucked via being able to do so at a pace no artist can possibly match.
Though it does this with a marked reduction in things like consistency or anatomical knowledge or 'quality' (whatever you define that as), AI image generation is nonetheless popular specifically because a lot of people consume such pieces thoughtlessly, instantly, and voraciously; taking it in as nothing more than a pretty picture to beat off to, then discarding it - if it even garners the time out of their day for that before being lost in a sea of other functionally identical pieces made by other self proclaimed artists.
The non-artist is specifically calling into question whether such art was ever truly art under such a definition, if indeed anything ever made for mass market appeal and consumption can be considered art, blurring the lines and tearing down the pretenses between art making and content creation. She is doing this for the explicit purpose of brute forcing philosophically constipated morons into realizing that, indeed, all dogshit is art, whether penned by humans over weeks or generated via machine in seconds, because the process of art is not one of effort or divine imbuement of Meaning into a canvas, but of curation and communication.
By choosing to present this gallery of sloppily generated images to us, she has made non-art into art. By interacting with it, by critiquing it, by validating its existence and profundity, we have immortalized our reactions to this piece as part of the piece; as art.
