Technology

60130 readers

2750 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

377

Redditors Vent and Complain When People Mock Their "AI Art" (futurism.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

253 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because I make a distinction between art and craft. You can produce extraordinarily impressive pieces of craft that have no artistic content at all, no intent nor capacity to convey a message or transform mind or anything that resembles it, you can produce extraordinary pieces of art with zero recourse to craft. Like putting a urinal on a pedestal, as I've mentioned quite often in this thread.

Speaking about protractors: Engineering drawings can actually be art. There's a difference between a drawing that's merely conveying technical information and one that is both technical and at the same time is arranged, presented, such that it does not have to be deciphered, it is capable of transforming a mind by merely being looked at, instead of having to be pondered. It's the difference between a court file and a thrilling detective story.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you're claiming any image that must be deciphered isn't art?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nah not like that. Art is something on top of the mundane and with technical drawings it happens to be that kind of stuff.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that Rothko's works are anything but mundane considering the effort that went into them.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There's also tons of effort in merely technical drawings.

As said: Things can be absolutely impressive for their craft content alone. I'm not discounting that. But art is something on top of that. Art is something which works without craft. Which works with nothing more but a urinal out of a factory.

I'm not married to the word "mundane" in that comment btw it's just a suitable word to use for the baseline I contrast the "art on top" to. If you want to use it for "basic craft, fulfills its purpose" vs. "extraordinary craft, exceeds even the wildest dreams" then be my guest, I do the same I simply didn't happen to use it that way in that specific sentence.