52
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

People want to have it both ways.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago

I didn't like blue curtained thought termination tendencies among Redditors in years past.

I also don't like watching the planet burn down at an increasingly faster rate so pretty much those same Redditors can get hyped over regurgitated data scrapings and maybe even fool themselves into seeing the treat printers themselves as sapient beings.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago

"death of the artist" only makes sense in-so-far as you want to look at a text how it exists rather than the artist's own interpretation. It's more a thing with books, "death of the author", cause the author might say it means one thing but you can look at the text and question what it's actually saying, infer new meaning etc. Cause artists'/authors' intent may not actually have come through in the text. Like "You intended this but this is what it comes across in the book as".

But I think for the most part, there's no need to dismiss the artist/authorship completely cause it gets away where this thing has come from in the first place.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago

It's more a thing with books, "death of the author", cause the author might say it means one thing but you can look at the text and question what it's actually saying, infer new meaning etc.

Like Tolkien insisting that his books contained no allegory. The amount of accidentally allegorical content in LotR is staggering.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

Yeah you can look at it as the result of someone's trauma from WW1/WW2 and dealing with Industrialisation. Hobbits are a reflection of Rural Britain and no one can say different

[-] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

Tolkien said that his works didn't intentionally contain any specific allegories. In other words, Gandalf is not supposed to be a direct stand-in for Christ for example. But that doesn't mean that there aren't Christian influences on Gandalf that the reader can infer, along with other types of influences, or read into Gandalf futural aspects that didn't even exist at the time of writing. There is complexity to Gandalf.

He just didn't like simplistic meaning like that because it kills the depth and layers of interpretation to the story. Instead of saying "Gandalf is a fully fleshed out, independent character" people say "Gandalf is just Christ!" and either leave out or don't need or want the Gandalf character development because they already know he's just Christ.

I use that example specifically because he disliked how C.S. Lewis (close friend of Tolkien, by the way) made the Lion in Chronicles of Narnia a literal and direct allegory for Christ, like the Lion is literally Christ, which Tolkien found to be lazy and hated allegories for this reason.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Certain Tolkien nerds are so obnoxious about this, it's like a mantra. In a lot of online spaces if you ever try to talk about allegory in Lord of the Rings you'll get a dozen of these people responding purely to tell you Tolkien hated allegory. As though everyone isn't already aware.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Not only that, but artists absolutely embue elements from their subconscious into their work. When we talk about the author's intention, what we're really talking about is their ego's contribution to their work. They can give their works meaning that they didn't consciously intend or even that they disagree with.

[-] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago

i dont think u understand what death of the artist is. Also what makes post modern art art is that it was made to be art, the process of creation MAKES it art, the art IS the display, and creation of it regardless of the piece itself thats kinda what the whole fucking movement was about, I despise post modernism but fuck atleast criticize it from a point of understand not from a point of complete ignorance.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago

I don't understand why you gave the crying wojak the right opinions. It makes for a confusing meme.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

I would say yeah, art is about human connection, though also heavily about politics and culture. I'd venture to say that notions of separating art from those heavy hitters, politics and culture (which are arguably not even separate things in the first place, but I digress...), is largely a liberal capitalism thing and as unrealistic as most things about capitalism. Which, incidentally, is part of why it's so weird when people are like, "Stop making art political!!" Like it never wasn't political. It's just a question of how obvious it is to any given person or group.

In my experience around image generation tech, it appears like it's the sharing of cool generations among other people and the resulting human connection that is more attractive in the long-term than the "generate whatever" in private, which can be fun, similar as eating candy can be fun, but can get old fast if you overdo it. There's a lot within that subject to unpack, but I've seen others point out something that appears to be true to an extent, which is that people don't tend to be all that interested in others "AI art" and are more so interested in their own, which makes a kind of sense to me because the end result is usually shlocky flashy fast food "art" that might feel more meaningful to the person who spent hours experimenting with prompts to get to it. This might seem like a contradiction to the idea of sharing in "cool generations," but it seems to me that such sharing is in part about the sharing itself, not entirely about the perceived quality of the art. Similar to how people can go to a movie together and maybe they're critics about it or maybe they aren't, but either way, they have that knowing that they shared the experience of seeing it simultaneously and can talk about what that experience was like.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

ai art is art because people are mad about it.

jokes aside, i think that machine art is going to basically just replace clip art and the like. it's like what happened to pottery. there are still artisinal potters (i love handmade pottery and the craft itself) but for everyday dinner plates you don't seek the connection and craftsmanship. you just need a plate.

some art has use-value as decoration (easily replaced with machines) and other art is about personal, emotional, or political communication (even if it could be replaced, it wouldn't be.)

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

ai art is art because people are mad about it.

Most persuasive point here haha

Also seems useful to separate the economic impacts of AI art (on artists, on the environment, etc.) and larger criticisms of how AI is currently used (destroying the usefulness of search engines) from the question of whether AI art has artistic value.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

Death of the artist mfers on their way to interpret art in the most dogshit way possible:

[-] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I found this article a really interesting read (52 min), it is a well-written dialectical take which one may find useful if not already read:

Artisanal Intelligence: What’s the Deal with “AI” Art? (2023)"

https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/

Original from: https://polclarissou.com/boudoir/posts/2023-02-03-Artisanal-Intelligence.html

The same author has also written (which I have yet to read): https://polclarissou.com/boudoir/posts/2022-01-20-To-save-the-arts-we-must-kill-the-artist.html

[-] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

This was very very interesting

I realized that those fucking petit bourgies tricked me into being ableist and a liberal

I would have been right had I not been tricked

Fucking grifters, I knew it (before I was tricked)

NOOOOOOOOOO

From now on "art" bourgies shall face my RAGE

[-] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

People want to have it both ways.

anarchista-chad

[-] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

There is no amount of posting that will make me like Rothkos work

[-] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Have u seen the broken obelisk tho it kinda slaps.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's absolutely ok, but have you gotten the chance to see one of them in person? I think it makes more sense then. Pictures don't really do the paintings justice.

I think the Rothko chapel is neat too.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The painting in the meme isn't Rothko's, it's a Newman.

Also Rothko's paintings (and Newman's for that matter) are more complex than they seem to be. Their use of color is really amazing, which was highlighted when some of them had to be restored because right wing nutjobs vandalizes them (Rothko is Jewish). The conservators had a really hard time capturing the exact same color scheme

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
52 points (78.9% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2402 readers
39 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS