I’ve always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it’s trying to say.
I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art… presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you’ll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.
I don’t think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don’t think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it’ll be for different reasons and in different scales than I’m… eh… moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I’m impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.
Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren’t trying to replace humans with programs, weren’t causing huge environmental impact, and weren’t trained on stolen content. It’s the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more. A good gen AI artist would also be a good prompt engineer, which would also mean an expanded skillset. Game developers, architects, engineers, could also speed up their work to hit the ground running instead of doing a bunch of repetitive stuff.
Everybody has to adapt to AI. Adapt or die, it’s quite simple.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more.
You’re presenting the scenario of an artist using a tool to create more art. I think the concern is someone who would have hired an artist uses the tool themselves to make art instead of hiring the artist. Hence the comment @cm0002@lemmy.world made that GenAI won’t kill art, but it will kill the ability to make money from art.
This isn’t a new thing that just started with GenAI though. Entire professions of commercial art evaporated with the introduction of computers. How many typesetters were employed by major newspapers around the world 50 years ago? With the introduction of computers the number has drastically reduced. This is also true of graphic artists that used to work all day over a light box, waxer, and Exacto knife. Now all of that is done with far fewer people in a computer. I don’t see how GenAI different from those technologies and how they impacted artist jobs.
If 1 person can make 10x the art, then 1 person can do the job of 10, meaning 9 people are out of work.
Or it means 10x the art in the world.
If a process that takes 10 weeks for producing an animated movie/show now only takes 1 week, that’s a significant reduction in production timeline meaning more can be produced, or that time can be used to improve other production tasks
Not under capitalism. It means 10x the poverty for artists, which was already made fun of as an underpaying career path…
You ignorant lot are truly pathetic. Educate yourselves on the Luddites and the guilded age for starters… An increase in productivity is not as black and white under capitalism.
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
Someone doesn’t understand the Luddite movement what so ever… Sad. Really really sad to see this level of ignorance blindly defended on Lemmy. Genuinely, pitiful. Educate yourself on the history of … everything. The Luddites and the guilded age would be excellent places to start.
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
Objectively incorrect. The actual costs of AI “art” are astronomically higher than the costs of hiring artists. When was the last time an artist needed a fission reactor and enough potable water to supply a moderately sized city over the course of their lives, much less for the completion of a project?
The corpos running the scam just haven’t made the financial costs to end users align with reality yet. They’re trying to destroy livelihoods and get businesses stuck in vendor lock-in first so that they have no competition when they open the valves of the real costs. Generative AI under this hyper-capitalist regime is a net negative for the species.
You’re thinking of art in terms of a product. It’s not. Art is an expression of creativity. People drawn to it will do it just because they can. They make money from it because capitalism doesn’t give them many other opportunities to provide a basic living.
“Adapt or die” is a cute phrase when it’s not being applied to yourself.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not? Some people use paintbrushes, some people use computer aided design and let it be printed or built by others, some people use AI. Why aren’t those expressions of creativity?
Adapt or die is a fact of life. We all have to adapt to change, if I didn’t have to, I’d be perfect. I’m nowhere near perfect. Neither are artists.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not?
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Adapt or die is a fact of life
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
We do decide that. Because progress will not be stopped. If we’d let people’s jobs stand in the way of progress we’d still be picking berries naked in the woods.
Progress does not at all require an “adapt or die” mindset. Not at all. And it’d still be barbaric if we did. More barbaric than picking berries naked in the woods.
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
I didn’t decide anything, it’s just life. Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works. That’s just evolution. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
Maybe ask artists who have their work stolen to feed AI models that then take their job. Again, this is a problem because capitalism made it one.
Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works.
We are not nature. We can make different decisions besides brutal evolutionary pressure.
I think the argument is that an AI “artist” is incapable of creating art. Their “tool” does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.
This pretty well encapsulates my feelings, except for the issue of training the models. AI is cool tech, but the fact remains that people are making money off of scraped content. Not to mention the environmental aspect.
Honestly I find it difficult to reconcile.
In a perfect world, we would have open source models trained on public domain and properly licensed content.
I don’t think AI is going to replace artists any time soon. On the personal side, people create for the joy of it, whatever that means to them. On the professional side, people have a hard enough time communicating what they want to an actual person, much less a computer.
As someone that likely has moderate aphantasia, I really struggle with describing what I want. Being able to tell an image gen to make so many variations of X, and then commission a friend to take inspiration from Y and Z to make something original is really freeing for both sides, imo.
I’ve never gotten exactly what I’m looking for, but it almost always gives me something to point to, without doing a bunch of test drafts. I suppose that’s technically taking work away from the artist, but so does having an ‘undo’ button in procreate.
Idk, it’s a more complex issue than many make it out to be. I’m still further on the fuck ai side than not, just due to its current implementations.
End rant.
I mean Adobe firefly addresses the properly licensed dataset issue and afaik it’s all viewable (though I’d much prefer something anyone could use offline locally). Environmental impact will always be an issue unless we see some evidence of mitigation either from direct green energy use or at least creating additional green energy generation from any organization doing the base model training.
There’s a good amount of research going into reducing the compute needed for training and inference, as well as a ton of R&D going into making far more energy efficient hardware for training and inference
Just like how 3D rendering has gone from dedicated $40,000 workstations and render farms to something that’s just done for funsies on your phone, the capabilities of these really powerful models will eventually be squished onto the cheapest, lowest power mass market computers of the day
The biggest long term challenge will be the training data and licensing of outputs. If AI outputs are stuck in a legal state where you simply can’t use them commercially, the whole industry will collapse and return to the most ignored corners of university computer science programs. If models aren’t required to get licensing for all training data we’ll probably just keep seeing companies hoovering up data in the most unethical possible ways to train their big models
Environmental impact of gen AI pales in comparison to the environmental impact of alternatively making all the generated pieces manually. Let’s say Shutterstock switches purely to genAI images trained on their own licensed stock images. Do you think their total carbon output will go up or down now that they’ve stopped doing photoshoots of people and objects in seemingly random situations?
The thing is, an AI ‘artist’ isn’t making art. They are generating images with no real meaning or effort put into them.
That depends on what they’re doing. If they’re entering a prompt and rolling with what they get out of it, then sure.
If they’re inputting a prompt and refining it with solely AI tools then meeeh, that starts to fade a little. I’d ask why someone is spending hours going back and forth with an AI instead of doing some of it manually, but it’s hard to tell one way or the other from the final output.
If they’re inputting a prompt, refining it with AI tools and heavily editing what comes out in image editing software that’s approaching some strange digital mixed media weirdness I don’t think we have particularly good intuitions for.
If they’re inputting a prompt and using the output as some building block like a texture on a 3D model or for a content aware fill in photo editing or for a brush or a stamp I genuinely have no mental model for what impact that has in my assessment of the “meaning” or “effort” going into a piece, if I’m being perfectly honest.
Reductionism isn’t serving us particularly well on this one. Makes the pushback feel poorly informed and excessively dogmatic.
Typing a prompt still isn’t making art. If you look at art, everything has intent behind it, nothing is random, everyone has their own style that evolves. Like if you’re drawing a meadow, there are lots of choices you make in the progress, like what plants you draw, in what style, in what stage, are any of them damaged for example. Art isn’t just about the end result, it’s the process itself.
Typing a prompt is describing an image, not making it.
You did not read the whole post you’re responding to, did you?
It’s not often that you can see the exact moment an actual human brain ran out of token space, but here we are.
Finish Him!
Dragging a mouse isn’t making art. Dragging a live mouse could be, PETA wouldn’t like it though.
In the absence of needing to use skills to make a living, I have no problem with AI art. In a hypothetical anarchist mutual aid society, people could make art with whatever methods they prefer. Some might create AI models to make art because they’re interested in that sort of thing. Others will make art in the traditional ways, also because they’re interested in that sort of thing. There doesn’t have to be tension between the two, and their basic needs are all there.
When people have to use their skills to make a living, though, then there’s a problem. So many of the places that were paying artists are now whipping something out with an AI model. That leaves artists without a way to cover their basic needs at all.
I don’t know how much that logic tracks, at least long term. And I don’t know that I’m going to be more inclined to be on the side of human labor over automation now when I wasn’t for garments, car manufacturing and other commodities. The John Henry of visual arts I am not.
I do have a couple of seemingly opposing but not contradictory points to add to that, though. One is that historically anti-automation, anti-industrialization movements have a pretty bad track record at succeeding. The other is that I think you’re giving “AI art” way too much credit. Small and medium-sized commissions may get impacted (I am on record saying that AI is the new “cousin who knows Photoshop” and I stand by it). For anything an actual professional needs to book and hire based on quality? Nah.
There may still be an impact on that high end, because I expect that generated elements will become a tool in an artist’s toolset more than anything else. That may speed work up and require fewer people, but not “leave artists without a way to cover basic needs” necessarily. Just like photography, just like CG, just like Photoshop and so on. There was doom and gloom around all of those as well, and hyperbolic claims from tech peddlers, too. Go look up some of the claims of early photography entrepeneurs about what the technology would eventually be able to do, some are hilarious.
I also expect sooner or later people will get good at spotting telltale machine-generation quirks and put additional value in organic, human-looking creative products. People are already misidentifying human art as AI art, artists will likely lean into that. Think vinyl into CDs back into vinyl or the premium on less processed foods more than… I don’t know, cars that don’t have rattling doors or whatever.
That’s a guess or a forecast, though. We’ll see where it goes.
When people have to use their skills to make a living, though, then there’s a problem.
Progress leaves many professions behind. It’s lamentable, but a price worth paying.
Which is nice to say when your profession isn’t the one on the chopping block.
I’m a programmer. It is.
I’m also a programmer. No, we’re not at risk.
Right now AI is just about useful enough to refresh my own knowledge or do some advanced copy paste. You think that’s where it stops?
This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
Archaeologists:
Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
Around the 2000’s a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.
Although we studied this acient relicts in great detail, we can not make sense out of the high representation of fertility related dieties in comparison to other typical deities i.e.war or hunting gods. A possible explanation could be a crisis of reproduction caused by the cost of living during this period of time.
ahaha the irony of them understanding the socioeconomic problems but not understand social subcultures like furries.
… actually, as big of a problem as social inequality is, I could see that.
Wanking: The Ritual
New on Steam!
And the movie will be called The Wankening with Mahk Wahlberg.
arouse
Art is inherent in us. Just like the need to put boobs on mythical lizard creatures.
Drawing boobs is second only to the instinct to draw cocks.
If that Heavy Metal episode of South Park has taught me anything, it’s that everything looks better with boobs.
Furries: “I would like to purchase this rock.”
*Scalies
I wouldn’t purchase this without nipples at least
Yes add the mouse button please
“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”
Exactly. AI images are not going to eliminate art. They just make it more difficult for artists to compete under capitalism.
The solution is to abandon capitalism. Not stop tech development.
Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
How do you believe the idiom applies here? They’re not shitting in their hands. They’re actually building it.
I meant in response to your solution of abandoning capitalism. Not that I wouldn’t be overjoyed that we’ve done so but we’ve shown no real effort to impede it’s continuous infection.
I’d rather we not fuck over artists in the meantime.
Fuck over artists vs fuck over artists and everyone. How about some simple regulation and laws to cope with the new technology maybe?
The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin…
Relevant Oglaf (NSFW but not nearly as NSFW as this comic often gets): Dimorphism
If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently, then every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist and every performance or installation artist who can’t draw is not an artist.
I don’t like AI slop, but this argument against it just doesn’t make sense.
If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently
I think you are miss-understanding the argument.
Pro-AI folk say that being anti-AI, as a digital artist, is hypocrisy because you also used a computer. Here it is shown that, despite not using a computer, the artist is still able to create their art, because there is more to the visual arts than the tools you have to make it. This puts rest to the idea that using digital art tools is somehow hypocritical with being against AIGen.
The argumentor is not saying that not knowing how to draw proficiently excludes being an artist. They are just saying that real artist do not need a computer program to create their arts, much like performances or installation artists you mentioned.
It isn’t saying that drawing is the only art form, just that having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist. Drawing was an example, performance art, music, and other forms of art are also criteria for being an artist.
Hell, you don’t even have to be proficient if you are able to create art that conveys something.
every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist
Yes, they are an artist if they are able to create art although the label only matters in reference to the things they create. It doesn’t mean everything they do is art.
Using AI prompts is like using a web search to find art someone else created, it isn’t creating art. Does writing down an idea for a book make someone an author? No, it does not.
the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
What is “scratch”?
That’s the whole argument against AI art.
Did you make spaghetti with pre-made noodles?
Did you make your own noodles?
Did you grind up your own wheat?
Did you make easy mac in the microwave?
Which one is a true chef?
Maybe
Probably
Definitely
Probably not
Does the AI make the “art” or does the artist use AI as a tool.
The chef creates the easy mac. A person cooks the easy mac.
Having AI create the “easy mac”, then trying to claim cooking the “easy mac” makes you a chef is what’s wrong
But if you get the AI to create the noodles, sauce, meat ball seasoning, etc. And you put it all together well. Then you can claim you’re somewhat of a chef.
That is another good example. Using a text prompt of an AI is like microwaving a premade meal.
But tech bros using AI who can’t create anything without the AI aren’t artists just like someone who can only microwave premade meals isn’t a chef.
Hell, adding some additional cheese or making informed substitutions and maybe a tiny bit of some seasoning is being a chef.
But if you use the AI to create the meal entirely you aren’t choosing the noodles, sauce, meat balls, or anything else. You are picking items from a menu at best and hoping for random chance to spit out something you like.
Intentionally applying an AI filter to something intentionally chosen with an expected outcome could be used to create art just like algorithm based filters. But the meme is referring to people who can’t actually create anything without an AI text promp.
deleted by creator
You are overthinking the details by taking examples far to literally and applying them too broadly.
Just like if I used text prompt of an AI and created some art (assuming it doesn’t make it goofy). You’d believe that I was a great artist.
I would think the same thing as I would if you used google search and presented some artwork someone else made as your own. Typing a text prompt into an AI generator is the same thing as typing words into a search engine.
Passing off someone else’s work as your own might fool someone into thinking you were a great artist, but that doesn’t make you an artist.
Would cover bands be artists or musicians? If all they could do was follow the “recipe”? If they add some additional cheese.
Cover bands can also play other songs beyond what they choose to for the cover band, because they are musicians. Do you think they are limited to only that one band’s songs?
having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
This implies photographers aren’t artists though. They rely on a specific tool - the camera - and utilize it to create art. This ranges from “just” taking pictures to setting up elaborate scenes.
Another example - for which I have forgotten the name - is art utilizing computers. Not in the sense of anything digital but rather electronic calculating machines built to beep, boop and blink. I’ve been to an exhibition which featured this type of art by one artist. Some were interactive, some weren’t, some were (partially) broken after decades of age and some were still functioning. Most were built during the 60s to 90s by the way. I believe the artist never did created any other art, at least publicly. He was an artist nonetheless.
I’d say AI art is art. Any definition of artistry which attempts to exclude AI art must also exclude other unconventional art forms.
The question shouldn’t be what art is or isn’t anyways. Such questions often lead to gatekeeping or nazis. Rather, it should be about the meaning of art. And most of AI art has the sole meaning of looking decent. AI art cannot ever replace more meaningful art as it alone lacks much meaning. It may at most supplement it, with some artists perhaps using AI deliberately as part of a work.
This implies photographers aren’t artists though.
I mean if you think it is necessary for the person who works with sticks to grow the plant from a seed first to count as ‘from scratch’ that would make sense.
It isn’t about which tools are used, but the process. A photographer, without a camera, can still block off a shot and consider lighting and what exposure they would use if they had the tools handy. It is extremely likely they could do a bare bones sketch of what they would take a picture of. They are considering details and how it would impact the way the picture turns out and the feelings that might be invoked in whoever looked at the photo down the road.
A tech bro using AI is just throwing words into a blender and seeing if something comes out. We aren’t talking about possible AI refinement tools, we are talking about AI tech bros who throw shit out with shitty and inconsistent lighting, terrible textures, and other bland shit that is rehashed crap vomited forth from the AI system that is no more art than doing a web search, saving one of the results, and saying “I made this”.
A photographer without a camera cannot produce art though. They can imagine it, explain it and even make a rough sketch - but the end result isn’t art. It’s a concept for art that is not yet made reality.
Similarly, there are differing levels of effort in order to create AI art. For instance, someone using an LLM to create an AI picture has approximately as much artistic merit as someone using their phone to take a selfie. It requires roughly the same amount of effort as well.
But for other AI art, it can take a lot of time to get everything right. I’ve dabbled with Stable Diffusion two years ago and there is a lot of finetuning and parameters you had to set to get anything worthwhile. My attempts roughly looked like taking a photo with random brightness, contrast and exposure settings: like utter trash. With some time and practice one could likely get adept at manipulating whatever model one is using and generate plenty of images with purpose.
Most AI generated images have little to no artistic merit, just like most pictures taken with a smartphone camera. But you cannot conclude that any and all art with either of those tools is therefore impossible.
Similarly, there are differing levels of effort in order to create AI art. For instance, someone using an LLM to create an AI picture has approximately as much artistic merit as someone using their phone to take a selfie. It requires roughly the same amount of effort as well.
That is correct.
Photographs that simply document something existing are not art. The photos I take of something that catches my eye are not art if I don’t bother with a minimum of framing or any kind of composition. Those are just snapshots of something existing, which is also the case with most selfies.
But you cannot conclude that any and all art with either of those tools is therefore impossible.
I sure can!
A camera can be used to make art and just document things. A paintbrush can be used to make art or just paint a wall a single color without any larger context that would make it art. Tools used to make art are also able to be used to make stuff that isn’t art. Even art that might look random, like Jackson Pollock’s splatter paintings, were intentional with composition and purpose.
A LLM is a randomizing copy blender. It has a vague idea of what the person is going for, but it is just mashing together stuff that was pumped into it without intent or purpose. If it gets lucky and is what the person wants, cool. It still isn’t art and can’t be due to just being a randomized mismash of things other people created like fancy copy machine.
deleted by creator
Now, if I told you that this picture was taken with a remote camera?
I would call you a liar because that is clearly hand drawn based on some reference images being combined or in a very unlikely case it could be staged. There is absolutely zero chance that it was a random image from a trail cam.
While it is possible that it could be an AI regurgitation of someone’s artwork, that is far less likely because it doesn’t have the weird AI artifacts that are common in something with that much detail.
Photographers frequently make art. They can also just take pictures that are documentation. Documentation via pictures can be visually appealing without being art.
You looking at that photo makes you feel a certain way. It has beauty. It is art.
A lot of art is ugly and doesn’t communicate the same feelings to all viewers. Some art needs to be explained for anyone to understand the intent and meaning behind it. Even unclear and bad art is still art.
It’s the work and effort that gives the art the feeling.
On this we agree! AI slop can be turned into art with additional work and effort. The direct results from a text prompt are not art. People who can only create images using an AI text prompt are not artists.
having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist.
But in that case all AI artists are artists because all humans can create art from scratch. Everyone draws in the dirt.
I’m happy considering all humans artists - I do think that - but again that means that burning a stick and drawing on a rock is just not a valid metric for being an artist.
You are completely missing the point and unfortunately I cannot explain it more clearly.
I’m getting flashbacks to when people, during the man vs. bear debacle, started arguing about bear muscle strength.
You realize you just said photographers aren’t artists, right?Edit: Someone already pointed this out. Ignore this comment. I don’t delete it because Lemmy is weird about deleting comments.
The other person was also wrong.
According to your own delusions?
Supreme Court: that’s not art that’s pornography. I cant exactly define pornography, but “you know it when you see it.”
:P
Also, if you stick a stamp on it and mail it… straight to jail.
that generally criminalize the involvement of the United States Postal Service, […] in conveying obscene matter,[1] crime-inciting matter, or certain abortion-related matter
How specific. We know who perpetrated this law.
i say this as nicely as I can, you dont need expensive and exploitative algorithms to make art. i dont really care if you say you cant make anything, put a pen to paper and draw. your terrible scribble has infinitely more value than anything a tech company’s software can generate using stolen data. and after you crumple that up and throw it away, get another sheet of paper and do it again, and again, until your wrist snaps apart, and I guarantee you will not only have learned something about yourself but you will be more of an artist than any tech bro using chatgpt
People use AI for making “art” not because of their lack of ability to create art per se, but they use it rather as a way to cut costs in their commercial projects and skip contracting real artists. This is why it’s malicious. I wouldn’t care if somoeone uses it for pure, private leisure.
Haven’t seen this on here yet
I’ve seen it 3 times already.
But why give a lizard boobs? They don’t have boobs!
That’s where the fire is stored
Warm cushions when not breathing fire
Non-mammals lacking mammary glands?! Say it ain’t so.
And the first thing that came to mind after typing that? Lobster-titties
Would they come in their own armoured bra?
I would pay to see Snake-tits.
Have you ever seen a giant, flying, fire breathing dragon IRL that didn’t have boobs?
It’s not a lizard.
It’s a dragon.
Dragons could have boobs, I’ve never seen one.
Because it’s hot
Because they don’t need no AI to sexually objectify women’s bodies!
That’s not a woman, that’s a dragoness.
“real art”. Gatekeeping art now, are we?
Yes.
Art is made by living things. Until AI is alive it cannot make art. Current models don’t fit the bill. That’s not saying that a far more advanced future AI couldn’t make art, but at present AI can’t make art.
And by what definition would an advanced AI be “alive” enough to create art?
When it can be proven to think for itself and not regurgitate what it thinks you want to hear. When it steps past lines of code, not as a façade or fascimile, but as its own being with its own goals and its own sense of realised existence.
If I may rephrase it: Art can be created by an AI only if it has agency and self-awareness (or, more general, conciousness).
Is that necessary though to create art?
Quite a loaded philosophical question, but an important one if we want to talk about the essence of art and the beings – either natural or artificial – that create it.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
By that definition, those without a (known) sense of self-awareness or conciousness, couldn’t. And yet, we can see behaviour that we would call “art”. Be it a bird, which mimicks sounds or invents a dance to impress females, or a fish that draws patterns into the sand for similar reasons.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s dolphin poetry. Most animals simply don’t seem to be able or interested, though, the development of art as a reflective practice (as in: the science of subjective choice) requires a lack of pre-programming, reliance on self-reprogramming, that’s mostly limited to humans as far as we’re aware.
Cats seem to like music in pretty much the same way as we like purring, as in: It resonates with them, but so far there’s no cat composers out there, reflecting the thrill and joy of the hunt in terms of music. I’d totally listen to that.
Removed by mod
Lemmy users are notoriously delicate. They cannot survive outside heavily moderated and curated online spaces.
Hence, gatekeeping is a needed tactic to ensure these spaces were they thrive keep a metastatic state.
In fact, a common practice in Lemmy is to gatekeep subjective experiences, like humor, art, memes, taste in music, movies or games.
You name it, you will have dozens of users telling you that “no, in actual fact, your subjective experience about <THING> is wrong, and has to conform to mine, or else”
BEEEG DRAGOM TTS
