Source (Via Xcancel)
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
420 points (96.7% liked)
Fuck AI
4080 readers
1642 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How can you be "left behind" in art? I can make a cave painting right now and there would be nothing wrong or inherently bad about it.
Those people don't understand art. They think if it's faster to produce, it's inherently better. That's why they aren't artists, they are producers. And they don't produce art, they produce content marketed as art. Which is a totally different thing.
Which is obvious because they call AI images "art." They're not. AI images are patterns to fit a mathematical probability. It's the difference between calling a Jackson Pollock and a QR code art.
I honestly don't know which one you are calling art. My first thought was the Pollock, but maybe the art in this case is the QR code, because there is something it is intended to convey whereas the Jackson Pollock is random splatters?
Pollock's art is splatters and swirls and whatnot, but his process wasn't just random splatters. He knew when his art was done because it felt done to him.
Likewise, a QR code isn't random splatters, either. Both are intentionally created to have meaning. One as a work of art that should make the viewer feel something at an emotional level, and one to tell you that the restaurant you're in hasn't updated their menu since COVID.
AI art isn't art because gen AI is trained on art without the ability to feel or sense the emotions it's trying to convey. If I take a picture of an artwork and try and copy it at home, I haven't created art. I've copied someone else's art. I've made a picture, a copy of the original. If the AI hasn't been trained on, let's say, cubism, I can't show it ONE image of cubism and hope it can go from there and be creative and reach the same point. I can't describe cubism and expect it to achieve the same thing. The best it can ever manage is to copy an original work it was trained with.
Funny you mention Jackson Pollock, I recently read an article about how art traditionally delivered very political anti establishment messages; modern abstract art was heavily funded and supported by the US establishment because it didn't contain left or progressive ideologies.
https://www.historicly.net/p/the-jazz-beats-of-a-coup
Which is funny to me, in the "if we don't laugh we'll cry" sense.
Because whenever I go to a museum and look at modern art, abstract art, and so on, I see all sorts of curators notes explaining how this mix of shapes and colors and designs actually has some sort of profound, inspirational, generally leftist or anti-establishment, message.
But people don't see the message or understand the message right away. From a casual look, it's just pleasing colors and shapes. You have to believe it matters and put in the effort to understand it in order to get those inspirational messages.
In other words: if you oppose the establishment, and you are looking for modern art that opposes the establishment, you will find it. But if you're an average person that anti-establishment message will mean nothing to you. You won't even think to look for it.
So it's not that modern art doesn't contain left or progressive ideologies. It's worse. Because it does contain left and progressive ideologies in a self censored form. All the power and energy of these left and progressive artists has been captured by the establishment and harmlessly redirected into pursuits that "support" left and progressive causes but pose no threat to the powers that be.
And I'm thinking more and more this makes it bad art.
Think about advertisements. If someone in a car looks out and sees a billboard passing, they should understand, in the few seconds they see that billboard, what product it's advertising and why they should buy that product. A billboard that doesn't get those two points across in a matter of seconds has failed at being a billboard.
And a piece of visual art that doesn't get those same two messages across in a matter of seconds - what message it's sending and why you should care - has failed at being visual art.
Edit: whether you agree with the message or not, this is art with an incredibly clear message - and the attempt at government censorship made it even clearer -https://slrpnk.net/post/27304084
I would say that it's bad propaganda, not necessarily bad art. Which can still be a net negative, of course; I am pro lefty propaganda.
Well said, and it's insidious, isn't it? A deft bit of sleight of hand that defangs the work while appearing to support it.
you gotta see Pollocks in person. photos don't do them justice
the ai can't jizz on a canvas.
They produce bullshit nobody cares about. I love to check how many ppl engage with it, and untill it's a plastic jesus doomerbait nobody cares.
Imagine making cave paintings after a master like Klarg..
Reminds me of that guy that drew a sexy dragoness on a flat rock with a stick to flex on the AI bros.
https://pawb.social/post/18266064
Financially. It's always about money. That's why they care about it. They see in AI an opportunity to get rich quickly. But for that they need people to actually enjoy AI slop and thus we get posts like these.