No.12452
My brother spent an entire summer rigorously studying and practicing art, this allowed him to draw and create incredibly realistic portraits on paper, with barely visible flaws. But afterwards, he completely abandoned art and decided to follow another career.
Anyone can learn how to draw and create, drawing has a process and people can get good to create truly beautiful artworks. But not everyone can add deep meaning to those artworks.
The rise of AI has shown the clear difference between artists and "artists".
Artists (music, art, etc…) are people who can utilize their craft to make the consumer think, they generate new ideas which stick with their followers who continue to ponder about their work for the foreseeable future. Whenever their art is brought up, it is met with deep discussion that can change people's minds on important or minor issues, not just "oh it looks really good".
"Artists" on the other hand, are workers. They only make art for profit and lack knowledge or a will to inspire others to think deeper. Their artworks lack a meaning, a mere drawing with no deeper reason that's designed to appeal to the lowest-thinking people. This is why I don't consider porn artists to be artists, their creations oppose knowledge by allowing and promoting humanity's most primal urges.
AI is the ultimate boogyman for "artists", able to replicate the quality seen by experts at art, this renders the regular artist who only draws for money useless. But one key factor is that none of those artworks have deeper meaning, they are merely made to look as appealing as possible to the human eye, they do not make us think deep but rather remain surface-level with how we perceive art.
I originally thought about becoming a graphics designer, but after my realization of what it truly means to be an artist, i decided to do art now as a hobby and passion, not as a job. Art, the practice itself, will inevitably get taken as a job by AI, but not true art, art that causes critical thinking, art that finds itself in the minds of critically thinking people who are able to use the lessons learnt to improve themselves or the world.
I see people complain about how AI art is too high quality, that it's going to inevitably take over their jobs. Good, art made to be appealing as possible to the low-thinking masses (art without meaning) will always be less valuable than art that's made to inspire and get people truly thinking about the world around them. I'm not saying that people should be forbidden from drawing for fun, I'm saying that we should not make drawing meaningless art our job, because it is replaceable. "Artists" can be replaced by other "artists" like how factory workers can be replaced by other factory workers.
Real artists are like philosophers, real philosophers are one of a kind and are rightfully remembered for their critical thoughts about the world and humanity, this should be the same for art.
90% of the artists you see on sites like Twitter or DeviantArt are not real artists, they are akin to factory workers who follow instructions, they are commissioned meaningless art that caters to the lowest-thinking. Real artists are people who have the will to make a change rather than to make ends meet.
This is just what I've gotten so far from critically thinking about art in the modern era and my definitions for art. With how industrialized art itself has become, it's important to differentiate art and the shallow recreations of it that are wrongfully labeled as art.
No.12453
Xitter trannies don't understand two things:
1. AI is fundamentally unable of originality, it's trained on what already exists
2. AI executes ideas that come from outside, even if its execution was perfect and not sloppy (it's not), you stll have to have the right vision of what you want to be done and express it clearly.
Also interesting how you never see programmers screaming
>AI code not real code, get a keyboard, free Palestine!
It's just another tool in the toolbelt.
No.12454
>>12453Drawtrannies are beginning to realize just how replaceable they were from the beginning. People say to value drawtrannies always, but those people are as valuable as a factory worker, they churn out useless slop that can or can't get them a lot of money, but they'll never be in any meaningful discussion and will be forgotten.
I thank AI for showing more people like myself the trvth, but I'm afraid of letting AI into the hands of inferior people, the people that drawtrannies desperately cater to.
No.12455
Read every single word, nothingburger.
No.12458
>>12457You're not supposed to reply to the person you're oppositefagging
No.12460
Read everything, including the image wall of TRVTHNVKE
So what does this say about agugu edits?
No.12465
>>12452Please do post some of his portraits anon
No.12469
>>12458that was not a oppositefag you dumbass nigger, i DO say and look like that i'm so fucking tired of niggers trying to make themselves look better by saying
>muh no arrow or you're not supposed to do x and yFUCK YOU
No.12473
Read every single word, it seems kinda pretentious. This idea that "real art" is something that "challenges people and makes them think" seems kinda gay. In what way is mona lisa thought provoking? In what way does anguished man challenge your worldview? I think it's a narrow view of art, probably spawned out of a desire to counter signal trannies (keyed albeit).
I think art exists to be appreciated. For observers to appreciate it's ability to evoke emotions, convey ideas, or challenge the viewer (not exclusively that).
I do agree that a lot of todays art is just about appealing to the lowest common denominator and that's why almost all of it is pornographic. I don't mean literally pornographic/erotic but there's a reason why women seem so ever present in art. Women ARE the lowest common denominator, that's why so much shovelware tier slop is centered around women, because that's the easiest way to appeal to the masses.
I also do agree that artistry as a minimum wage job is kinda gay. People like that are less like artists and more like draftsmen.
No.12477
>>12473Art is another way of spreading ideas, just like music, books etc. It just uses mainly visual signals to tell its message. I do agree that not all art should be really deep in terms of meaning (i hate it when there's a lot of esoteric symbolism that you need to learn in order to understand even a fracture of the message; most of the time the message is useless and you have wasted your time). But at the end of the day, art can still be used for spreading ideas (simple or deep) one way or another.
Even the Mona Lisa, given the proper context, can tell you about Leonardo's ideas for good coloring, good anatomy etc. Compare him to say Picasso, who has different opinions on what beauty is, and you have a form of a debate between worldviews.
Thinking that AI will replace drawing, composing etc. is a way of thinking that misses the point of such craftsmanship. AI can only imitate already existing creators (it feeds on data to produce) and is not creative (as
>>12453 said). People want to see what (you) have to say about certain topics and the way (you) will share your opinions.
No.12479
>>12452>Read every single word, it seems kinda pretentious. This idea that "real art" is something that "challenges people and makes them think" seems kinda gay. In what way is mona lisa thought provoking? In what way does anguished man challenge your worldview? I think it's a narrow view of art, probably spawned out of a desire to counter signal trannies (keyed albeit). >I think art exists to be appreciated. For observers to appreciate it's ability to evoke emotions, convey ideas, or challenge the viewer (not exclusively that).I have no problem with art that has no meaning and is purely to be enjoyed for entertainment. But that form of art has been industrilizated so much and like the latter half of your statement, it's made exclusively to make profit. I just think that valuable art should have meaning. Art is a powerful tool of expression and yet it's been curated by mass media to only express what people like to see instead of what they need to see.
The artists back then worked on improving their talent, that's why most of the good artworks you see from back then were high quality. Things like the anguished man like what you said was clearly made to invoke some kind of idea, it's not completely meaningly, I can't really say that for the mona lisa since it's more of a showcase of the artist's skills rather than to express an idea.
Someone made this great comment about what I said on the sharty:
>It all comes down to Pygmalion. If you don’t know the story- a fool tries to make his art works come to life as living beings and gets rebuked by the Gods (greco-roman) for his foolishness. >The spirit of this dreadful mockery of human ability, this bullshit soy myth perpetrated by mindless last-men is well and alive in any lesser imp that ‘just draws for fun’, while letting their own art suffer; their own art becomes unrealized because they don’t respect the ‘life’ of the thing they brought in.>Japan, for all her problems and failings, still tries. It had the exact opposite myths- possessed objects, paintings that came to life, and for every failed bugman that creates horrific fairies and unnerving anime distortions, there are at least five more with the capability to rise above and make meaningful works- all because of the love and care they place into craftsmanship; the love and care they hold drives them to infuse their things with meaning.>Any artist who holds that they are making ‘dead’ things is blind to the power they hold. A failed pygmalionist makes dust that is forgotten and passes away, a failed rejector of pygmalion makes coal that possesses and controls people.>>12465Sure
No.12481
>>12477>>12479I don't necessarily disagree, I didn't say art is or should be meaningless or aimless. I just felt there was undue elitism in the OP that I didn't share.
No.12482
>>12481>I didn't say art is or should be meaningless or aimlessI know, but when I typed, my thoughts started going places. I am sorry.
<warning: SNCA ahead
<I just hate that people dont realize art can in fact be as meaningful as a small text, when it comes to sharing knowledge or ideas.
<Leonardo, for example, could have simply written "I like detailed anatomy and i think its important" and nobody would have bated an eye. But he made an eye catching drawing and everybody lost their minds. He chose that type of an expression to make the viewer stop and listen to what he has to say.
<I guess people dont realize the power of art that much because they usually connect it with media that was meant to be consumed at the moment and forgotten about after a few minutes. Something shiny to look at in order to stimulate some need at the moment (for example porn).
<bla bla bla i can babble for ever about this topic, so i will stop here.