It’s a rhetorical technique applying the things you say to closely related topics, to form a contradiction, and indicate you should not believe those things. Like getting Graham Linehan to rigidly define ‘chair’ and then showing him a picture of a horse.
If “you didn’t draw that” means something’s not art, what about all the other art people didn’t draw?
If “you didn’t draw that” means something’s not art, what about all the other art people didn’t draw?
Yeah, that’s what’s disingenuous here. You took the individual words in my comment absolutely literally when it obviously isn’t meant to be absolutely literal. I’ve already said that literature and music are art, so obviously I meant something else.
So here’s a fun argument. What’s different about AI?
Yeah yeah yeah, you didn’t draw that
Is it possible that what I meant was that the difference is that the person claiming to be an artist after sculpting a fountain is an artist because they sculpted a fountain, but a person claiming to be an artist because they made a machine draw a picture isn’t an artist because the machine drew the picture? I mean, that’s a valid interpretation of my statement, and it’s consistent with literally everything else I’ve said in this thread. Maybe try rereading it with that interpretation.
And then study and memorize the Wikipedia article on the cooperative principle before you ever write a comment on the internet again
What a high-minded defense of two pull quotes and ‘get a load of this guy.’ You’re winding yourself up over “my statement,” when your statement was a dismissive scoff.
And speaking to everything else you’ve said - CGI is not the part an artist did.
You’ve drawn razor-sharp distinction between a prompt and an image, between score and music, between art and… pictures. Modeling and rigging and posing and framing are not what an audience looks at. They only see the render. A computer did that part. An artist did all that underlying work… but the picture is something else.
Yet obviously we’d both say CGI is art. That specific image only exists because of the effort put in by people. They used tools that make some things easy and other things trivial. We would not say real art requires creating perspective manually, and letting the machine do it is cheating. The technical details barely matter when someone puts feelings in your brain.
Except here, this new thing is different, so they faked it and it doesn’t count.
Are you actually understanding the question though? Do you understand that Duchamp did not sculpt the urinal, but literally just bought one already made and signed it?
This is literally just people speculating. He definitely made replicas of it later but the official story is the original piece known as Fountain (which eventually was lost) was a standard urinal purchased at a New York hardware store (J L Mott Ironworks).
And whether or not he actually made it is kind of besides the point. Like the whole point of Fountain is it demonstrates that it doesn’t actually matter who the specific individual is who made the physical manifestation of the object which represents the artwork. Like even if he never made replicas of it, even if we knew with 100% certainty that he literally just bought a urinal and submitted it to an art show that “accepts all submissions” just to see if they really would accept it, it would not diminish its quality as an artwork at all. On the contrary, it would only better serve the point it’s trying to make.
I love when people answer their own question
CGI isn’t art, then.
This is an incredibly bad-faith interpretation of my comment
… it’s a counterargument.
It’s a rhetorical technique applying the things you say to closely related topics, to form a contradiction, and indicate you should not believe those things. Like getting Graham Linehan to rigidly define ‘chair’ and then showing him a picture of a horse.
If “you didn’t draw that” means something’s not art, what about all the other art people didn’t draw?
Yeah, that’s what’s disingenuous here. You took the individual words in my comment absolutely literally when it obviously isn’t meant to be absolutely literal. I’ve already said that literature and music are art, so obviously I meant something else.
Is it possible that what I meant was that the difference is that the person claiming to be an artist after sculpting a fountain is an artist because they sculpted a fountain, but a person claiming to be an artist because they made a machine draw a picture isn’t an artist because the machine drew the picture? I mean, that’s a valid interpretation of my statement, and it’s consistent with literally everything else I’ve said in this thread. Maybe try rereading it with that interpretation.
And then study and memorize the Wikipedia article on the cooperative principle before you ever write a comment on the internet again
What a high-minded defense of two pull quotes and ‘get a load of this guy.’ You’re winding yourself up over “my statement,” when your statement was a dismissive scoff.
And speaking to everything else you’ve said - CGI is not the part an artist did.
You’ve drawn razor-sharp distinction between a prompt and an image, between score and music, between art and… pictures. Modeling and rigging and posing and framing are not what an audience looks at. They only see the render. A computer did that part. An artist did all that underlying work… but the picture is something else.
Yet obviously we’d both say CGI is art. That specific image only exists because of the effort put in by people. They used tools that make some things easy and other things trivial. We would not say real art requires creating perspective manually, and letting the machine do it is cheating. The technical details barely matter when someone puts feelings in your brain.
Except here, this new thing is different, so they faked it and it doesn’t count.
Dumbest comment yet
Are you actually understanding the question though? Do you understand that Duchamp did not sculpt the urinal, but literally just bought one already made and signed it?
…he did make them. It shows the variations between them in the pictures in the post.
This is literally just people speculating. He definitely made replicas of it later but the official story is the original piece known as Fountain (which eventually was lost) was a standard urinal purchased at a New York hardware store (J L Mott Ironworks).
And whether or not he actually made it is kind of besides the point. Like the whole point of Fountain is it demonstrates that it doesn’t actually matter who the specific individual is who made the physical manifestation of the object which represents the artwork. Like even if he never made replicas of it, even if we knew with 100% certainty that he literally just bought a urinal and submitted it to an art show that “accepts all submissions” just to see if they really would accept it, it would not diminish its quality as an artwork at all. On the contrary, it would only better serve the point it’s trying to make.