Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
Going to be honest with you, your art is fine.
Just fine.
Not great though. Not exceptional. Not really new or exciting.
Just what anyone with a weak prompt and an llm can do.
It’s ok.
I’m glad you are enjoying making it.
I never said it was great.
And what art is new or exciting these days? Everything is derivative of everything else.
I take it you spend time going to galleries or the theatre? That you engage with art at the source…
Because if you said something as fucking stupid as “and what art is exciting these days” whilst only consuming media through a screen, that’d make you look and sound really daft.
I listen to music, read stories, watch movies, play games, etc. Art is so much more than galleries and theatres.
It’d be daft to assume that the only art that matters is the bougie shit. Luckily I’m not some pretentious fuck who thinks that and looks down on what the average person enjoys.
But hey go stare at some Jackson Polack scribbles and discern the deep meaning in a banana stuck to a wall or whatever passes for high brow these days.
I don’t look down on any of that art. I’ve read transformation novels written in the last couple of years. I’ve heard the most amazing original and articulate music. I’ve played games that have pushed storytelling and visceral experience.
I consider it art too. It’s the product of human endeavour, often driving to make something wonderful through effort and skill. It’s often an attempt with communicating at an audience.
To denounce it all as “derivative” misunderstands creativity.
That’s like saying that language is derivative because someone has already said all of the words… It’s not the words that matter but the context in which they are used. This is true of all art. The context of work provides the newness that stops it being derivative.
Sorry, I’ve got to ask though, can you give me an example of “bougie shit”?
(I’m not the one you replied to)
That banksy getting shredded at the art auction. It was beautiful. A gazillion bougie fucks smelling their own farts about the artistic value of getting shown a middle finger, thereby devaluing the finger. A truly bougie understanding of art and banksy called it, made the bougie shit his medium.
Derivative is not bad, it’s simply a matter of fact. Our creations and ideas are based off that which inspires us. Things don’t need to be unique or revolutionary to be enjoyable and that’s the most important quality, that we enjoy what we consume.
Bougie shit is that which takes itself too seriously. Its a teacher going on about the meaning in a book the writer says was never intended to be anything more than an enjoyable story, the critic raving about the depth of a jar filled with piss and a crucifix inside of it, the stage performer that thinks themselves better than the garage band made up of 2 kids and an old laptop, the Scorsese‘s going on about how their film is better than a Nolan and raging people aren’t watching his shit,etc.
It’s the part of art that isn’t creativity, but self wankery.
I call this, “Derivative is not bad, it’s simply a matter of fact. Our creations and ideas are based off that which inspires us. Things don’t need to be unique or revolutionary to be enjoyable and that’s the most important quality, that we enjoy what we consume.”
I’m enjoying our collaboration.
c’est un canard