Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn’t experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn’t need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.
If AI slop is a text in the absence of subtext, it is still a text. Comes with death-of-the-author built in. And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves… as you’re doing right now.
Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn’t experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn’t need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.
I’m suggesting people can communicate with images regardless of who made them. What they’re communicating does not have to resemble what an artist originally intended. Surprised Pikachu face.
You could pick ten nature shots out of some catalog, and tell a story just by arranging them in a certain order. If you later found out one image was generated - how would that change your story?
Can you imagine how funny it would be, if that ‘I don’t want your slop’ image turned out to be made in Midjourney? Not one pixel would change, but half the people celebrating it would declare it never meant anything to them. How could it? It’s not art. Anymore.
Meanwhile, Duchamp put a toilet in a museum. He didn’t make it. He just signed it.
That’s nice.
Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn’t experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn’t need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.
If AI slop is a text in the absence of subtext, it is still a text. Comes with death-of-the-author built in. And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves… as you’re doing right now.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040
Are you seriously suggesting that sharing something made by somebody else is the same as it being made by nobody at all?
I’m suggesting people can communicate with images regardless of who made them. What they’re communicating does not have to resemble what an artist originally intended. Surprised Pikachu face.
You could pick ten nature shots out of some catalog, and tell a story just by arranging them in a certain order. If you later found out one image was generated - how would that change your story?
Can you imagine how funny it would be, if that ‘I don’t want your slop’ image turned out to be made in Midjourney? Not one pixel would change, but half the people celebrating it would declare it never meant anything to them. How could it? It’s not art. Anymore.
Meanwhile, Duchamp put a toilet in a museum. He didn’t make it. He just signed it.