this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
576 points (96.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

8468 readers
2459 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] huppakee@feddit.nl 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You can hate al you want but if you follow that line of thought paintings are just 'painted images' and photo's are just 'photographed images'. There is a lot of paintings that have 0 artistic value (like when done by children) and photographs that have 0 artistic value (like pictures of holidays and vacations etc). There being a lot of AI with 0 artistic value doesn't mean there can't be such a thing as AI Art.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Generated images in themselves cannot be art. Generated images could be used to create art, and I would say that falls into what you call "AI art", but it would be still better described as "generated art."

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

ai generated art didn't create itself. someone typed in text and uploaded an image that they wanted manipulated. Movie directors only give instructions to actors. They don't create the sets/costumes. They don't write the words. They only give instructions and they get awards for being artists.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what a director does. Though, I see what you're trying to say with that exceedingly off-the-mark analogy. That just had to be said.

Ultimately, due to how subjective the idea of art is there's nothing I can say to convince you that this perspective is wrong. As long as people want something to be considered art, they will find a way to craft an interpretation that makes it work.

Just as I was able to take your meaning with your analogy and not dismiss it because it's so incorrect, I expect you and others to understand the meaning of art being "created." Instead you decided to leverage the broader concept of what is created in order to manipulate the idea to encompass generated images. I don't think this discussion could possibly turn out as anything but a frustrating and negative experience, so I will step away from it. Suffice it to say that we will simply always disagree on this subject.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

That is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what a director does.

Then explain where my analogy fails.

Ultimately, due to how subjective the idea of art is there’s nothing I can say to convince you that this perspective is wrong.

You can change my mind by explaining how a director is different than what I've seen in hundreds of behind the scenes commentaries and documentaries on movie creation. To be more specific, some directors are also writers, storyboarders or cinematographers. But those are additional jobs that not all directors do.

because it’s so incorrect,

You need to explain why it is incorrect.