• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Ah, yes, because the disagreeing with you means “infatuated by the random picture machine”, right? No room for someone to think that it’s, I don’t know, another tool a person can use in the creation of art? Kinda like how not every cellphone picture is high art, but you wouldn’t say you can’t use a camera to make art.

    But no, clearly you’re the arbiter of knowing how stuff works and, what art is, and how others appreciate it.

    object permanence is beyond infants but by your logic that would also be pretense

    Yes, because developmental psychology is exactly the same as “art critique”.
    It’s pretentious because you’re responding to someone who disagrees with you by asserting that either they don’t understand the subject technically, or their entirely subjective experience of art is somehow lesser than yours.

    • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      There is definitely room for that. I have encountered several of the people you’re describing in this thread. They were rather nice.

      If it seems like I’m being arbitrarily harsh on you and that one other guy, it’s probably because 12 hours later you’re still in this thread reply-guying everyone who disagrees with you into exhaustion. If I go “hey great point man” another master debate lord is going to come along and demand my time to do it again for his petulant take.

      Kind of like how you’re doing now when somebody more well adjusted already got me to reconsider. Release me from this thread, I’m out of energy for AI debate bros