> A film student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks destroyed another student’s allegedly AI-generated display piece by physically eating it out of protest.
The cool thing about art schools is that even the protest movements are art.
Because just like Disney+, Netflix, Prime without ads, Apple TV, ... I'm not paying for a whole ass subscription just to look at 1 thing maybe once or twice a year. Especially when the majority of content isn't their reporting but rewriting others' work (also why output of models trained on public data should never be copyrightable).
And this just comes down to gatekeeping in the art world, something that they've always been very good at. Anyone can Pollockurbate over a blank canvas, but it takes credentials to make it "art".
And let's be honest, the negative reaction to AI is for art as a career (which has been long dying), not art for the sake of art. The few that are more concerned with the latter are the true gatekeepers.
If I was in art school, I would make a program that prints a generative image as fast as it can. Maybe add a few of those large ink printers that can print thousands of pictures. Add a fan to blow the paper around. Then watch as it completely fills up the room, make the slop visible.
hmmmm, a stutter of derivitive noise that is harvested by marketing assistants and sold forward, and finnaly the chance to criminalise human creativity as disruptive and uncomfortable to witness
> A film student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks destroyed another student’s allegedly AI-generated display piece by physically eating it out of protest.
The cool thing about art schools is that even the protest movements are art.
https://archive.ph/Dyrxz
Because just like Disney+, Netflix, Prime without ads, Apple TV, ... I'm not paying for a whole ass subscription just to look at 1 thing maybe once or twice a year. Especially when the majority of content isn't their reporting but rewriting others' work (also why output of models trained on public data should never be copyrightable).
And this just comes down to gatekeeping in the art world, something that they've always been very good at. Anyone can Pollockurbate over a blank canvas, but it takes credentials to make it "art".
And let's be honest, the negative reaction to AI is for art as a career (which has been long dying), not art for the sake of art. The few that are more concerned with the latter are the true gatekeepers.
If I was in art school, I would make a program that prints a generative image as fast as it can. Maybe add a few of those large ink printers that can print thousands of pictures. Add a fan to blow the paper around. Then watch as it completely fills up the room, make the slop visible.
To be fair that would probably count as art in the eyes of most people.
I believe that’s the intent.
It was the intent. Studied art for a while too.
The nickname dyauspitr is interesting, student of proto mythology?
Amateur enthusiast
hmmmm, a stutter of derivitive noise that is harvested by marketing assistants and sold forward, and finnaly the chance to criminalise human creativity as disruptive and uncomfortable to witness
Nice word jumble, you'd make an LLM proud. But it doesn't make what you've said profound.
It's doggerel and it's evocative.
Sorry, let me put that in a way you're comfortable with.
It's not just language — it's a creative medium
- sometimes precision is not as important as evocation, or "vibes"
- at least one other reader "got it" immediately
- the rigid, mechanical one is you
In English please :D