3 ms·
It absolutely happened with the advent of photography that was certain to destroy the lives of hard working painters. Those painters at the time were mostly em
by luma 4y ago
It absolutely happened with the advent of photography that was certain to destroy the lives of hard working painters. Those painters at the time were mostly employed to paint pictures of rich people and something that could "easily" perform the same task to create images of mere commoners was a clear sign of impending doom.
What happened instead is, free of the requirement to appease rich people, what we now call "modern art" was created.
- causi 4y agoThat's an excellent point. There are many parallels between criticisms of AI art that call it "just typing in a prompt" and calling photography "just aiming a camera". Does the fact that anybody can point their phone and create an image subtract from the "art-ness" of a professional photographer?
- luma 4y agoMany people in the art world at the time argued exactly that, just like they are doing today. From the photographers side it took lobbying, an act of congress, and a supreme court decision to finally grant copyright protection to photographs.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago> free of the requirement to appease rich people I don't believe this is the case now and it probably hasn't been for a long time, at least since the popularity of modern art exploded. Maybe it was true when the genre was still underground or generally reviled?
- causi 4y agoYou know he's talking about the invention and proliferation of photography, right? AKA two hundred years ago.
- luma 4y agoCheck your timelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art The thing you are implying is explicitly what I am claiming in the post.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]