2 ms·
> What actually chills my blood more than anything is the thought that a lot of people think this all looks pretty good. You see this mindset at work whenever a
by shadowgovt 3y ago
> What actually chills my blood more than anything is the thought that a lot of people think this all looks pretty good. You see this mindset at work whenever an AI fetishist posts a stable diffusion image of a woman with 13 fingers, 40 incisors and comically huge breasts. There’s an entire portion of the population that takes overt pleasure in the over-smoothed, perverts that prefer all media to be fast, high frame rate, and scrubbed squeaky clean.
This appears to really be what this post is all about, and to the extent it's what it's all about, the author is fighting a losing battle against taste itself.
People's enjoyment of something comes and goes. Art has had its pointillist movement, its cubism, its dadaism. If the people are comfortable with, or even enjoy, this style, and it's cheap to do, it's going to happen.
- jiggawatts 3y agoI enjoy both film grain, and the "creamy" tones that only a modern DSLR or comparable digital movie camera can produce. I like both HDR with the garish lights right behind the actors' heads, and the artistry of a well-exposed negative processed through painstaking effort in a dark room to look good when printed. Why can't we have both? Why do I have to pick a side and declare my love for one style or another?
- op00to 3y agoOne is clearly the true form of the art, and the other is mere drivel. Not sure which though!