4 ms·

Yep, you're right. But idk why you phrased that like it's a rebuttal to my criticism. This is another failure of our economic system, for incentivising the owne

Yep, you're right. But idk why you phrased that like it's a rebuttal to my criticism. This is another failure of our economic system, for incentivising the owners of art production to churn out literal mindless slop to cut costs, instead of safe guarding artists and creators for the sake of their intrinsic value to society and humanity. Since, of course, they must eternally seek to reproduce capital to the detriment of everything else.

spywaregorilla 2y ago
Well your argument is admonishing tech bros as if they don't get it, but generally they do get it completely in this context. The goal here is not replacing great art. It's replacing art assets. Comes off as naive and distracting to me.
- monadINtop 2y ago
  The distinction is philosophical. Tech bros consider "art assests" or consumer oriented products as art. In their eyes its capibility as a tool for profit is a downstream effect. My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profit. When people post 3d versions of the Mona Lisa or a shitty remix of Monet's water lillies with breathless praise, it's because in their eyes the stylistic reproduction or reinterpetation of the literal shapes and colors on a flat screen is all there is to art, not merely because it demonstrates utility in replacing already exploited sectors of creative workers. I don't think we disagree about any of this. I think that I'm just making a tangential point to the article in response to a dumb comment, while you are talking about the subject more directly. Otherwise I fail to see what you think is naive, if only because I've seen so many examples of this rot of understanding around the essence of artistic expression from the mouthpieces of silicone valley and our wider, increasingly corporatized, culture.
  - spywaregorilla 2y ago
    > My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profit And I think that's grossly missing the point. The vast majority of people making art are just trying to make something look aesthetically nice within some sort of provided communication framework. And that's perfectly fine. Frankly I think elevating artists to the pedestal of the illuminating the human condition is very damaging to their actual interests
    - monadINtop 2y ago
      Is creating things of aesthetic quality not of value with respect to the human condition? Is not some subset of that aesthetic quality derivative of the intuition and intention of a human mind? Sure, if you want to build some tehchnology to make designing packaging for dog food more effecient go ahead, as long as it isn't the previous dog food packaging creators that are being made to absorb the economic cost of the new technology (which they are). But I hope at last some subset of human art strives to do more than that, and I think it's a bad thing that the incentive to increase revenue at the expense of quality has now expanded past being a tool to improve efficiency of laborious tasks and is now instead cutting costs via cutting artistic value.

spywaregorilla 2y ago

Well your argument is admonishing tech bros as if they don't get it, but generally they do get it completely in this context. The goal here is not replacing great art. It's replacing art assets. Comes off as naive and distracting to me.

monadINtop 2y ago
The distinction is philosophical. Tech bros consider "art assests" or consumer oriented products as art. In their eyes its capibility as a tool for profit is a downstream effect. My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profit. When people post 3d versions of the Mona Lisa or a shitty remix of Monet's water lillies with breathless praise, it's because in their eyes the stylistic reproduction or reinterpetation of the literal shapes and colors on a flat screen is all there is to art, not merely because it demonstrates utility in replacing already exploited sectors of creative workers. I don't think we disagree about any of this. I think that I'm just making a tangential point to the article in response to a dumb comment, while you are talking about the subject more directly. Otherwise I fail to see what you think is naive, if only because I've seen so many examples of this rot of understanding around the essence of artistic expression from the mouthpieces of silicone valley and our wider, increasingly corporatized, culture.
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  > My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profit And I think that's grossly missing the point. The vast majority of people making art are just trying to make something look aesthetically nice within some sort of provided communication framework. And that's perfectly fine. Frankly I think elevating artists to the pedestal of the illuminating the human condition is very damaging to their actual interests
  - monadINtop 2y ago
    Is creating things of aesthetic quality not of value with respect to the human condition? Is not some subset of that aesthetic quality derivative of the intuition and intention of a human mind? Sure, if you want to build some tehchnology to make designing packaging for dog food more effecient go ahead, as long as it isn't the previous dog food packaging creators that are being made to absorb the economic cost of the new technology (which they are). But I hope at last some subset of human art strives to do more than that, and I think it's a bad thing that the incentive to increase revenue at the expense of quality has now expanded past being a tool to improve efficiency of laborious tasks and is now instead cutting costs via cutting artistic value.