1d ago

"Normaize This Reaction" (Art by Cellspex)

Source (Bluesky)

93 comments

This art made by an artist wearing clothes made by machines because they didn't want to pay a tailor.
- ME, doing shitty sewing on my own old clothes: "You know, I'm something of a tailor myself"
  
  I'm one of the few dudes who didn't think sewing was for women back in school, and let me tell you - that shit is worth having as a skill. Legitimately being able to tailor your own clothing is legit.
  However, I'm not gonna dump on people without the skill to do it - just like I won't dump on people who use modern tools to create graphics.
  
  You know it’s funny is that there’s entire artistic movements (even in fashion itself) all about challenging the idea that art is inherently a demonstration of technical ability, and that such a world view is actually incredibly philosophically shallow, limited, and frankly incoherent when you’re trying to actually decide what is and isn’t art. For instance, Johnny Rotten safety pinning his sleeves onto his shirt is a far more interesting tailor than anyone at a high-end fashion boutique even if he literally doesn’t know how to sew.
- What the fuck kind of garbage argument is that, gtfo here
  Everyone laugh at this person. Heckle and pursue them all their days.
  
  Do you not think fashion is art?
  
  Yeah I've seen this nonsense before. "Yet you live in capitalism, curious". Bullshit.
  
  Most people buying clothes aren't looking for high fashion, they're looking for something comfortable in a colour that they like. Those who are looking for fashion tend to get clothes that are originally designed and made by a tailor, and then copied so others may wear them, importantly with the consent of the tailor. These are akin to YCH commissions, since the artist/tailor gets paid for the design.
  This doesn't apply to AI image generation, as the artists are almost never asked for their consent before their work gets copied and cloned a million times over. Nor do they get any sort of compensation for their stolen work.
  
  Fun fact, fashion is one of the few artistic media that has literally never been protected by copyright law and has literally always been filled with people having their work copied and cloned millions of times over with no recourse. And this isn’t even considered to be a bad thing. This is just how fashion works as an art.
  
  Most people buying art aren't looking for high art, they're looking for something that they enjoy looking at. Those who are into art are in no way restricted from buying non-AI art if they want to. The whole argument about intellectual theft is bullshit, every single fashion designer steals ideas and inspiration from elsewhere.
  
  See, here's my problem. I took some time to think it over.
  You don't actually care about art, here. You care about what you do. Which, I'm guessing, involves tailoring.
  You brought tailoring into this out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about it but you had to.
  This conversation was about AI art and the consequences of it on people trying to make a living, and your retort was sewing machines took jobs too.
  You really wanna stand by that? Is that the hill you wanna die on?
- The world needs more clothes than human hands can make. Not true of illustrations.
  
  Humans clothed themselves before machines existed, so clearly that isn't true.
  Want to try a different argument?
  
  And they did so via slavery. Still do in some parts of the world. So their argument is still valid. Clothing people requires these tools, art does not. AI 'art' doesn't need to exist.
  
  Are you stupid? You think that the only way everyone had clothes 2000 years ago was slavery?
  The Amish still make their own clothes today, without any slavery or machines beyond a spinning jenny.
  
  The Amish also live in a way that doesn't scale to eight billion human beings. But you already knew that and are arguing in bad faith.
  
  Why does scaling matter to the argument at all?
- Shh, this is Lemmy, AI bad sir.
  
  I've got an AI on my refurbished Linux laptop - where I can fucking see it. :cocks gun:
  Generational AI that's taking work from actual people is bad
  
  I just assume anyone who loves these chatbots is a fellow chatbot. No real actual humans could be that stupid.
  
  That's fair, I also believe that anyone that disagrees with me on something must be monumentally stupid.
  
  No real actual humans could be that stupid
  On the one hand, do not underestimate how stupid people can be, on the other...
  
  Did you read the sub name? If you don’t like it, fuck off somewhere else. Or make you own AI loving instance.

93 comments