3 ms·

Counterpoint: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp

• Waterluvian 4y ago
  “An insult to artists.” Oh boy. This is going to be one of those thinly veiled arguments about “authenticity” and how the method is important, but is really just “old man yells at cloud” isn’t it? I don’t care about your process. If it takes all kinds of esoteric stuff to create a Miyazaki masterpiece, then great! But if we can make the same masterpiece in a fraction of the steps, even better. If artists feel that the market cares about process and authenticity then they shouldn’t feel threatened. They have a strict advantage there.
  • kridsdale1 4y ago
    The value of a masterpiece is quantified in the human ingenuity and labor (aka craftsmanship) that it took to produce. Michealangelo’s David is a masterpiece that took one of the greatest marble workers and masters of human anatomy to carve. A completely identical David produced by a machine, or a 3D print of it, based on a model derived by a GAN, is worthless.
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      And if that matters to the audience, then the 3D print won’t fare well in the market. People won’t want to see it if the real value is to sit and admire how a human could have done that to a slab of marble. But oftentimes people are happy to buy a print rather than the original because they just like the end product. Trying to assign value to art is perilous. Who cares if my print that I admire every day isn’t an original? I’m not trying to launder money.
• drewcoo 4y ago
  Wow! Does he have the same vitriol for Ralph Bakshi or anyone else who's done rotoscoping? I know . . . I know . . . the first rule of animator fight club is . . .