• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    A ten year old child can do that with no foreknowledge whatsoever.

    Yes, that’s the idea.

    Anyone can now transmit ideas through your eyeballs, and that’s awesome.

    They could also put in effort, and use the tool to finish a sketch they drew, or combine a render and a photograph, or simply rearrange and overwrite generated parts until it looks like what they imagined. How much labor can go into a text that communicates an idea, and still not be art?

    At what point does a definition exclude Koyaanisqatsi?

    • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      My point is that it’s not art. That it is being called and considered such, is NOT awesome. It cheapens the craft that many spend their lives to perfect. And it dehumanizes the process.

      Make all the slop you want. Just don’t call it art, and don’t call yourself an artist.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        If I paint a landscape by hand, and generate one flower, does it stop being art?

        The craft of Koyaanisqatsi was editing. People have recreated it using stock footage, as a complicated joke, and frankly the message still works. The whole original movie is an arrangement of uncoordinated b-roll. There are no actors. There is no dialog. Any individual part is almost meaningless, but the gestalt is an award-winning cultural touchstone.