If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me,
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.
The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me, and instead argued against a complete strawman.
So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.
OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.