630
Rule
(ani.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
630 points (100.0% liked)
196
17446 readers
681 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you need to feel a love connection with every artist? If not that response is not really relevant isn't?
It is literally the same. If I put it side by side you will not be able to distinguish them. If you cannot distinguish between two things they are the same.
If you were a future archeologist and found those two scripts. Your job as an archeologist is to catalogue the arts and crafts of past civilizations. How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash while taking the Shakespeare script and put it into a museum, when the two of them are exactly the same, and you have no evidence on who wrote it?
If you need to know that something was made by an human to be considered art then you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts. For me that's an inconsistency. Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.
Again all this is subjective. If we want an objective truth we need to do some science. Thus an experiment. We could try to define art by the physiological responses that individuals have perceiving certain things, those which share the same physiological response can be considered art. Or even if we want to add the axiom that art NEEDs to be made by humans, we could look and measure the physiological responses of individuals making different things, and catalogue those with the same physiological response as art makers, or artist and the products of those actions art. It would be interesting to do these experiments and add traditional and AI art into the mix, don't you think?
Why would I throw a marvelous statistical anomaly into the garbage?
It can. It does. "Welcome to the neighborhood!" from your neighbor and from a local Internet Service Provider inherently mean different things, even if they're "identical."
For most of human history, I've been able to assume that something that looks like it was built by people was built by people.
The existence of LLMs has made me more cautious, yeah. Seems like a societal net-negative.
God, this is why stem majors need to take humanities.
Just curious and for a good laugh.
Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities? Do you think studying humanities make you a superior being? A better human? Do you think the study of humanities is what gives people morals and people that had not study humanities are all sinners that would go to hell? I've heard it all.
But I'm curious to hear one more. What way do you think truth about nature can be approached that it is not the scientific method?
I know that some people approach truth by dogma "this is true because I (or someone I like) say so" but I must never agree on that.
I can have all opinions about art that I want, same can you. As long as they are internally consistent probably both will be true. I think "art is what make people feel they are perceiving art" is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world gives the rank of artist and that it was not made by a technology based on neural networks generation text-to-image as it was presented in the year 2021". But both are still opinions, if you want something more solid you need the scientific method and experimentation.
The fact that you would even ask this. Do you even know what they study in there? Speaking of rejecting knowledge, my guy, there is so much out there to learn. You have trapped yourself within the smallest box.
Mine is actually "art is communication," but if being dishonest makes you feel better, go for it, buddy.