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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    if someone creates a perfect color gradient fill in Photoshop nobody is going to be impressed but make it with colored pencils and people may regard it as stunning

    Funnily enough, that was what Mark Rothko was doing with paint. Exploring color to get the perfect shade of something. Looking at color at its most basic. That’s why those of us who understand what Rothko was going for often really love his paintings while most other people say, “I don’t get it, it’s just rectangles.”

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh I do get it but it’s still just rectangles. If the only people who like your stuff are other painters, not other artists in general but other painters, then I think it’s fair to say that what you’re doing is 99.99% craft and maybe 0.01% art.

      That kind of stuff also exists in an AI context, btw, people doing things for the heck of getting it to work and showing off technical aspects. Like absolutely a milestone when it comes to video2video, absolutely at a stage where it’s usable for artistic expression if you’re willing to work within some limitations, though the video here is much more dicking around than art. You’ll also find gazillions of AIified tiktok dances from the same crowd as tracking limbs isn’t exactly trivial.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        But it isn’t “just rectangles.” That’s the point. They were slowly and meticulously constructed by layering oil paint in a way that explores the idea of what colors and color contrasts mean.

        He didn’t just take a broad paintbrush and paint a rectangle.

        He also suggested viewing his canvases up close, maybe a foot away, so you could see it the way he saw it.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          With less skill in painting but the same artistic intent I can take a sample book of unicolour fabric with different weaves from the local textile store and put it on a pedestal: Exploring the idea of what fabric texture and texture contrasts mean.

          And I’m sure clothing designers all over the world will be ecstatic… or would be, if they didn’t have store rooms full of sample books.

          It is a valuable and thorough exploration of the craft is all I’m saying. He’s a Paganini, not a Ravel.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            But why isn’t such an exploration a form of art?

            If someone does a complicated abstract painting but uses a ruler and a protractor to achieve it, is that art?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

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

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

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