(OC) AI 'art' and the future

[u/SylvieXX]

Could be controversial but I'm just gonna say it... I don't like AI... and for me it was never about it not looking good. There are obviously more factors to this whole thing, like about people losing jobs, about how the whole thing is just stealing, and everything like that but I'm just focusing on one fundamental aspect that I think about a lot... I just wanted to draw what I feel...! 🥲🥲 Sorry about the cringe but I actually live for cringe 💖

[u/opinionate_rooster]

soapbox thud

I don't consume art to connect with the artist. Honestly, I don't care who makes the art I enjoy. It could be a world-class artist with a villa the size of a small country or it could be an unknown hobo painting with vomit. If the art makes me feel something, I like it. If it doesn't, I don't care for it, even if it is Mona Lisa itself.

Honestly, the rich artist probably made fame by drawing boobs. Or furries. Or both.

I believe that for the art to be truly enjoyed, it has to be anonymous.

There are studies that showed people rate art by their knowledge of the author. They'll like something on the virtue of its author alone, even if it is the shittiest piece in the world. There was even a study where they falsely attributed authors - and the participants highly rated the misattributed pieces, proving the author bias.

Connect with the art, not with its author.

Edit: Might I add, this philosophy also applies to politics. People will accept anything as long as it comes from their favorite politician. How would the politics look like if our leaders were anonymous and we picked them based on policies?

[u/somethingrelevant → u/opinionate_rooster]

this is such a weirdly limiting way to look at art though. lord of the rings is more interesting when you know its author survived the first world war, not less so. van Gogh's art is more interesting for knowing about his life and struggles than it would be if it were just contextless paintings. the human on the other side of the creation is a vital part of its story

[u/pizzabash → u/somethingrelevant]

lord of the rings is more interesting when you know its author survived the first world war, not less so

My lack of knowledge of Tolkein's past didn't stop me from being obsessed with it as a kid. I don't really give a shit about it enjoying it now as an adult. LotR as the exact same story and exact same lore written by some random nobody would be just as enjoyable to me as it is now. There are how many amazing authors out there that were just nobodies before their book that I enjoy.

[u/somethingrelevant → u/pizzabash]

but... it... it wouldn't be the exact same if someone else wrote it. who Tolkien was as a person defined how and what he wrote. it's like that because of who he was.

and like, I'm pretty sure Tolkien was also a random nobody before he wrote lord of the rings. he became noteworthy because of the book he wrote. I don't really understand

[u/opinionate_rooster → u/somethingrelevant]

It is part of the art. And honestly, it is not that special. There were many survivors of the first world war at the time. Do you know who also survived a war?

No, no, not invoking the Godwin's Law. I am talking about Pablo Picasso. His painting, Guernica, evokes a far more powerful message than any of Tolkien's works.

I mean, so many Tolkien fans are gushing about masses of men and beasts (or is it the same thing?) throwing themselves at each other. Almost like Tolkien didn't convey the horrors of the war properly - nor is it apparent if he even intended to.

Take the author out of the picture. Guernica still tells the same gruesome story. Lord of the Rings? You only think the book conveys the author's war experience because of your knowledge of Tolkien's circumstances. If you take Tolkien out of the story, suddenly that sympathy is gone. It is just a fantasy story with lots of violence. There is no feeling in it.

That is what the author bias means. Your knowledge of the author taints your perception of their piece.

[u/LoopDeLoop0 → u/opinionate_rooster]

Have you read Lord of the Rings?

[u/opinionate_rooster → u/LoopDeLoop0]

Yes. But there is no way to verify that, is there? Everyone can pretend to have read the books by quoting Tom Bombadil. What is the purpose of the question? To put my perception of Lord of the Rings under scrutiny?

[u/LoopDeLoop0 → u/opinionate_rooster]

I am putting your perception of Lord of the Rings under scrutiny, actually, because it seems to be flawed and incomplete. The books aren’t trying to convey the horrors of war, they’re trying to convey anxiety about industrialism, the power friendship born of adversity, the necessity of action in the face of conflict, they’re trying to say that even after the war is finished, it follows you home, and leaves you irrevocably different to the way you were. All of those could be interpreted from the text without knowing a lick of who Tolkien was or what he lived through.

You’re pitting two artists with extremely different goals against one another, then ignoring basically any value out of one of their work, in order to discredit the idea of analysis that includes any kind of context about when, where, or by whom artwork was created. It’s a genuinely terrible opinion.

[u/opinionate_rooster → u/LoopDeLoop0]

That's the thing about art - everyone has own interpretation of it and it will be very difficult for you to change my interpretation of it.

You support its anti-war messaging, but the glorification of epic battles (Helms' Deep, Pelennor Fields etc.) is paradoxical. Admittedly, the film adaptation didn't help much in that regard; these films reinforced the glorification of battle, war and heroes.

To me, LotR always felt distant, detached from the reality of the war. I still claim that the anti-war messaging is only because of the author bias - because the author fought in WW1, the LotR must therefore convey anti-war message.

I've read little to support that statement and much in opposition.

But then again, everybody develops their own interpretation.

[u/Martial-Lord → u/opinionate_rooster]

You support its anti-war messaging, but the glorification of epic battles (Helms' Deep, Pelennor Fields etc.) is paradoxical.

Violence against oppression and slavery is glorious and a moral good, even if it would preferably avoided. Tolkien does decry the horrors of war, but unlike the braindead pacifist takes of his generation, he acknowledges that evil is only surmounted through violence. That's still an anti-war message, but it rightfully glorifies the martyrs of freedom and calls to arms against the forces of tyranny.

[u/SmegmaSupplier → u/opinionate_rooster]

Reminds me of a video essay explaining why Night Fishing by Picasso is so great by giving his life backstory as context. No. Art should stand on its own, it shouldn’t require I read a manual explaining it. I consume it and I either like it or I don’t. I don’t care that Picasso lead some interesting life and his experiences as a boy lead to this painting or something. I still think it looks like crap.