In 1859, Charles Baudelaire proclaimed that photography represented the most deadly foe to the true spirit and practice of artistic endeavor. He condemned it as a mindless contraption and a haven for untalented artists who had failed in painting, devoid of any true creative spirit. Modern rejections now label AI-generated output as “slop,” mirroring that 1859 scorn for contraptions that seemingly lack genuine creative or revolutionary fervor. When a tool arrives to empower the many, the privileged classes frequently withdraw into a secular, mystical dogma, opposing the dialectics of material progress. To truly grasp the AI revolution, one must apply a materialist analysis of the links binding tool, maker, and society.

The argument that AI lacks a soul is fundamentally an idealist mistake. Art is a material social bond between maker and audience, not a spiritual abstraction. To claim the apparatus lacks direction is to disregard the human steering its course, who supplies both the creative vision and the necessary impetus. The prompt, the seed, and the iterative refinement of a LoRA or a complex ComfyUI workflow are the modern equivalents of the brushstroke—the material force applied by the artist’s hand. Let us be clear: the creator’s purpose in these workflows is to guide the apparatus with tangible intent. This dismissal of automated art based on its medium is as historically blind as the early scorn for the photographer’s camera.

Material circumstances, disciplined study, and direct experience give rise to human ideas, not a ghostly soul. The artist’s path to mastery is paved by rigorously examining and then synthesizing the techniques and forms of past traditions. Generative models, similarly, blend the collective output of human culture. While authentic creation born of specific material hardship resists substitution, AI will not “replace” traditional art any more than the synthesizer replaced the piano. Both forms shall persist together, and automating commercial art could spark a renaissance where art is pursued purely for its own purpose. Freed from capitalist relations, the masses will create from a deep biological need to give form to their inner visions. Thus, artistic worth is determined by the creator’s intent, not the instrument. A corporate advertisement, however human-made, possesses far less artistic merit than an image generated by an individual’s sincere impulse to give shape to a dream.

This leads us to the “Luddite trap,” the notion that artificial intelligence is a “theft machine” endangering the laboring masses. In the materialist view, automation represents the socialization of labor, evident in historical shifts like weaving and tilling. The contemporary anti-AI movement often descends into a petty-bourgeois defense of artisanal exclusivity, failing to grasp the progressive nature of technological development. Reactionary thought manifests in this futile opposition to an instrument of socialization. This movement should further be condemned for idealizing pre-industrial craft to uphold a hierarchy of expression. Insisting visual artists must be a shielded class immune to the tides of technological change is the height of reaction. The real foe is the capitalist system, which deploys automation to dispossess the workers rather than free them; thus, the struggle must be to commandeer these instruments for the common good.

The rhetoric takes an even darker turn when AI aesthetics are branded as “fascist slop.” This rhetorical trick fails to see that malevolent forces exploit every instrument, from digital networks to the printed page; the essence of any tool is shaped not by its form, but by the class character of those who command it. Ironically, the most strident calls to ban AI come from corporate giants—Disney, the old media empires, and the Copyright Alliance. Their opposition stems not from a supposed lack of soul, but from AI’s threat to their exclusive control over productive forces. By dramatically lowering entry barriers, AI empowers an individual with a simple computer to rival a studio commanding hundreds of millions. This sweeping democratization allows those with physical limitations, scarce resources, or little leisure to at last realize their imaginings, translating a fleeting thought into a finished composition.

Like Photoshop before it, AI represents no substantive change, only a quantitative leap in mechanized capability. To treat it differently is arbitrary gatekeeping—a bourgeois formalism. The claim that viewers are “deceived” by AI ignores the material reality of aesthetic experience, which is forged in perception, not in the superstitions of a reactionary elite fearing the masses’ command of new productive forces. Emotional responses arise from neural connections reacting to perceived patterns in the brain. When art provokes a meaningful thought, it has fulfilled its social function. We impose our own interpretations onto art, often unaware of the creator’s true intent, revealing how meaning emerges from our material conditions. By eliminating the specialized obstacles that hinder broader participation, AI empowers the proletariat to command new forces of production in the cultural struggle.

There is, however, a valid concern: these tools are currently concentrated in the hands of corporations who dictate their parameters. Yet, the obsession with proceduralism—whether through consumer boycotts, electoral politics, or state regulation—represents a liberal error. It replaces meaningful struggle with symbolic resistance, substituting futile gestures for the necessary confrontation of core contradictions. These protests fail because the masses have already embraced such instruments. When the genesis and command of a tool rest with capitalist enterprises, any opposition mounted solely from the consumer ranks becomes a hopeless diversion from the true material forces at play.

The correct path is not one of withdrawal but of embracing development led by the masses, wherein artists are integral comrades in the struggle and the fruits of collective labor. The emergence of open-source models, such as DeepSeek, has shaken the foundations of the proprietary systems held by Silicon Valley’s titans, proving the formidable strength of this mass-driven methodology. Let these breakthroughs stand as evidence: true advancement is forged in the furnace of collective work—a socialized technology wrested from the hands of monopolists. To halt the imposition of capitalist designs upon the coming age of AI, we must engage in active fabrication rather than passive grievance. We must commandeer the apparatus of digital manufacture through the application of liberated, open-source models to yield implements dedicated to expressive liberty, not shareholder value. Art is born not from the toil of the hand but from the vision of the mind. To truly revolutionize culture, we must ensure this vision is not hoarded by a few but made available to all.