4 ms·

One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of millions, and has no intended audience (because

One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is incapable of consuming art). I also want to emphasize the "banana sticked to a wall" complaint is an often right wing stance to devalue art. Art can be emotional, but not everything that creates emotion is art. In time I think we will work out a better definition of what constitutes art. One that excludes generated images and videos and emphasizes the human connection of artwork.

ivape 1y ago
First, I’m going to upvote you because I’m tired of this grayed out censorship bullshit that goes on in this site. I really wish there was a way to set a setting that makes it clear idgaf about downvotes, don’t gray shit out. Second: One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is incapable of consuming art). There is something that fits that definition, which is nature. Some actually believe it’s a divine expression and does indeed have an intended audience (us). That’s a weird belief, but your argument is actually quite sound if you believe in God. If you don’t, then your argument falls apart because so much of nature is art, so much so that art is often based on it. If the Grand Canyon is randomness, yet it appears clearly beautiful to us, and is the source of inspiration for Art, then we can say that this new form of random pattern generator is also another source, one we can take inspiration from. There will be sticklers that will create a delineation between nature and art, which ultimately is quite arrogant because it will apply one specific characteristic to art, that being art is a specifically human creation.
- strken 1y ago
  Download the Stylish extension, open your browser's console, check out the classes in the HTML, and change the CSS. You can make your own setting in about five minutes unless you're using a locked down platform like iOS that doesn't let you run your own code easily.
- zzzeek 1y ago
  > I’m tired of this grayed out censorship bullshit that goes on in this site. I really wish there was a way to set a setting that makes it clear idgaf about downvotes, don’t gray shit out. but that would interrupt my tech bro flow with uncomfortable things I've decided nobody should read. that simply wont do, sorry
- mossTechnician 1y ago
  One need not apply a "human" characteristic to define something as art, only the characteristic of intent. Perhaps that's better suited for GP's definition, which I otherwise find agreeable.
  - ivape 1y ago
    So what's the intent behind a flower looking beautiful? You see you will have to make the argument that a flower isn't art or ... that other explanation (something intended it be beautiful).

ivape 1y ago

First, I’m going to upvote you because I’m tired of this grayed out censorship bullshit that goes on in this site. I really wish there was a way to set a setting that makes it clear idgaf about downvotes, don’t gray shit out. Second: One is made by a human for other humans. The other is a randomly recognized pattern built from the stolen art of millions, and has no intended audience (because it itself is incapable of consuming art). There is something that fits that definition, which is nature. Some actually believe it’s a divine expression and does indeed have an intended audience (us). That’s a weird belief, but your argument is actually quite sound if you believe in God. If you don’t, then your argument falls apart because so much of nature is art, so much so that art is often based on it. If the Grand Canyon is randomness, yet it appears clearly beautiful to us, and is the source of inspiration for Art, then we can say that this new form of random pattern generator is also another source, one we can take inspiration from. There will be sticklers that will create a delineation between nature and art, which ultimately is quite arrogant because it will apply one specific characteristic to art, that being art is a specifically human creation.

strken 1y ago
Download the Stylish extension, open your browser's console, check out the classes in the HTML, and change the CSS. You can make your own setting in about five minutes unless you're using a locked down platform like iOS that doesn't let you run your own code easily.
zzzeek 1y ago
> I’m tired of this grayed out censorship bullshit that goes on in this site. I really wish there was a way to set a setting that makes it clear idgaf about downvotes, don’t gray shit out. but that would interrupt my tech bro flow with uncomfortable things I've decided nobody should read. that simply wont do, sorry
mossTechnician 1y ago
One need not apply a "human" characteristic to define something as art, only the characteristic of intent. Perhaps that's better suited for GP's definition, which I otherwise find agreeable.
- ivape 1y ago
  So what's the intent behind a flower looking beautiful? You see you will have to make the argument that a flower isn't art or ... that other explanation (something intended it be beautiful).