Comment by soulofmischief
4 days ago
Does a camera give away a photographer's "voice" just because he doesn't have to draw his art by hand, but can simply press a button?
Does a sculpture artist who uses aides to carry out his will give away his "voice" just because he didn't do the physical labor himself?
Does a game designer give away his "voice" just because he has a team under him that independently executes on all manner of creative work surrounding the his central thesis and incremental feedback?
Don't be preposterous! My voice is whatever I decide for it to be, how arrogant to decide that for me! If you aren't into it, great: you weren't the intended audience and your critique is irrelevant.
I don't think you get to decide as much as you think you do, and I don't think the examples you provide are accurate enough analogies to offer the moral clarity you think they do.
Fortunately this isn't a moral issue though, just like thinking a piece of art is garbage is not a moral issue. I have the freedom to judge you, and in this case I'm judging because I think the primary legacy of slop machines is are sucking life out of people who put in blood and sweat -- who put their soul and themselves into their art because it is how they define themselves.
So many artists meet that basic bar of struggling with self expression that I see little point in engaging with anyone who can't or won't start with the premise that they have something unique to say
> I don't think you get to decide as much as you think you do
Art is subjective, and I will say one last time: No one should be so arrogant as to assume that they have any business dictating the relationship between an artist and their patrons.
> I'm judging because I think the primary legacy of slop machines is are sucking life out of people who put in blood and sweat
So you admit that you are operating from a position of bias. At least you can recognize that, but it means that there is very little use in attempting to have an earnest, healthy conversation with you on this topic.
> who put their soul and themselves into their art because it is how they define themselves
I also define myself as an artist, and I put my soul into it, but apparently I have to get conartist6's permission before publicly calling myself an artist if I happen to use generative techniques. How tiring.
> I have the freedom to judge you
Yes, you do. Judge away. Meanwhile, I have art to make and share with others who appreciate my creative expression.
The most salient irony of this conversation is that you think you are protecting and appreciating some kind of sacred art, when from my perspective you are simply gatekeeping and seem to have an incomplete, narrow appreciation of what art is.
I appreciate art and expression of all forms, both familiar and strange. I don't base my appreciation of art on how hard the artist worked on a particular piece. I have intricate, original pieces hanging on my walls that I bought for several thousand dollars, right next to two-minute doodles that I bought for five dollars. If you truly appreciate art and human expression, you will reconsider why your argument comes off as judgemental and hateful.
It sounds like a lovely collection of art curated by someone with an eye for creative expression.
My intent was to be judgemental and by doing so to make you uncomfortable. I hope you appreciate the reasons why this technology is a steamroller to those on the receiving end of it, who will create backlash in self-preservation as they are facing an existential struggle against an opponent with trillions of dollars of incentive not to stop steamrolling
1 reply →