The more things change, the more they stay the same

I'd say that's not what "abnormous" means, but I like your implied definition better.

I didn't know it was a real word and assumed OP made it as a combination of abnormal and enormous. Just looked it up though and you're right.
- I feel like with enough usage, we could force the definition to shift.
  
  I'm going to try and make fetch happen!

You like it?

It's very generous.

I just think they're neat

Yes yes, “ah tah.”

Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that the figurines may have been created as self-portraits by women.[12]This theory stems from the correlation of the proportions of the statues to how the proportions of women's bodies would seem if they were looking down at themselves, which would have been the only way to view their bodies during this period. They speculate that the complete lack of facial features could be accounted for by the fact that sculptors did not own mirrors.

Water
- Yeah, I saw that rebuttal and it seemed pretty strange to me.
  
  They couldn't have been sculpting from their own perspective, because they technically had access to viewing themselves from a third-person perspective?
  
  We technically had access to drawing with linear perspective all along, but somehow until only a few hundred years ago, this is the best we could do:
  
  It just seems like a very modern-biased way of thinking about depiction. Mapping objective reality (rather than subjective perception) into art is a relatively new concept.
I mean, that lady's crotch is bigger than her tits, she's not exactly proportional from any perspective. I'm gonna go ahead and say that maybe we have no idea who made it and any argument concerning authorship is pure speculation.
- Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that...
- I mean, that lady’s crotch is bigger than her tits
  
  Seriously, have they searched that box canyon for any sign of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370?

I've always liked me a big woman, but those ancient boys may have liked too big of a woman. Who am I to judge, though? Probably sign of a real good harvest, and I bet that made everyone horny back then.

Up until just a few decades ago the hardest thing for people to get was food, not housing as it is (for most of the people on Lemmy) today.

Because of this, being fat was seen in various societies as a sign of wealth or beauty, sometimes both. As late as a hundred years ago the US and Great Britain had "fat man societies". Here's an article on that:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/07/469571114/the-forgotten-history-of-fat-men-s-clubs

We can't really know why the "fertility idol" sculptures look that way, but if you're an early human spending your life going through cycles of feast and famine as you follow prey animals sticking around with the fat person you ran into was a good way to stay alive.
Maybe women used to be more gigantic back them and we're nerfed across time or something. I unno. I am no xenobiologist
They were most likely made by women, the proportions make sense when you think of a woman looking down at herself. It is just that when the first men to uncover the artifacts looked at them they said "wow, these were obviously made by men and are ancient porn!"

There are ones that have been found at various stages of pregnancy so were likely an educational tool.

Our biological weakness for an ample bosom transcends the ages.

Big booba good

Permanently Deleted

I'm using abnormous from here on out

I've just found it in the dictionary! Shut my mouth!

"art"

“what knockers” scene from Young Frankenstein

Motif*

Your turkey appears to be missing it's head

The carving just looks like a whole chicken with lemons under the breast skin. 🤤

I had to look up the word adnormously. Idk if that word fits nothing irregular about big ole titties

Aint technology great?

AI generated images are not art though. Image =/= art.

Define art? I once saw a piece of fruit in a cage that was supposedly art. All seems like bullshit to me.
- It's not art if it's not handmade by a human
  
  /s
- Been thinking about it quite a bit
  
  I've come to the conclusion that to me, art is a play on your senses.
  
  A painting plays with your sight
  
  Music plays with your hearing
  
  Food plays with your taste
  
  Dance plays with your sense of balance
  
  Poems plays with your mind
- It's art because it's intentional.
  
  The point is to make you think it's bullshit. That was the artist's intent.
  
  AI has no intent. The person prompting it might... But usually it's not intent so much as "I tried until this was pretty"
  
  Which is still art - just not noteworthy.
- Art is the conscious use of imagination to create something with the intention of it to be appreciated, experienced, and/or evoke an emotion in the observer. It requires one or two way communication between the creator and the person experiencing it.
  
  AI generated images aren't art because there is no conscious creator who intends to create an experience for the viewer. If a future AI is conscious and self aware enough to have a will of its own, and will use it's own creativity to create something to be experienced or appreciated by the viewer, we would have AI art, but until then these aren't art.
  
  Also, the banana taped to a wall or a fruit in a cage is art, though it doesn't mean it's good or not. Art that sucks is still art.
I bet you a urinal that you’re wrong.
- That's funny. The fountain is a perfect example of why AI" art is not art
I've seen stable diffusion images better than most art.
- 🤮
They're absolutely art. The fact that we're arguing over it at all is proof enough of it. It's a new medium.
Absolutely agree. No human made, not art.
- I'm open to the idea that should a sentient AI be made in the future, with complex emotions and desires, then that AI could create art. As it is right now, it is completely artless.