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.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nah not like that. Art is something on top of the mundane and with technical drawings it happens to be that kind of stuff.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I would argue that Rothko’s works are anything but mundane considering the effort that went into them.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s also tons of effort in merely technical drawings.

        As said: Things can be absolutely impressive for their craft content alone. I’m not discounting that. But art is something on top of that. Art is something which works without craft. Which works with nothing more but a urinal out of a factory.

        I’m not married to the word “mundane” in that comment btw it’s just a suitable word to use for the baseline I contrast the “art on top” to. If you want to use it for “basic craft, fulfills its purpose” vs. “extraordinary craft, exceeds even the wildest dreams” then be my guest, I do the same I simply didn’t happen to use it that way in that specific sentence.