Do We Need To Discuss What Is 'Art' And What Isn't?

[JustTeasingU]

@JustTeasingU Mods are under no obligation or expectation to alert individuals, warn them, when we are removing posts. I removed over 100 posts this weekend and certainly didn’t have time to argue with every person who thinks they were well within their right to post whatever it was they posted.

Did you take the photograph you were sharing here? Your description suggests that it is a well-known image and that it’s not yours. If you don’t own the rights to it, don’t post it here. (Also, it sounds as though it was an image of a child… other sensitive issues aside, why would you think it’s appropriate to share an image of a child on an erotica site?)

@ToPleaseHim
I never thought it would be inappropriate to share here a photo that is posted on Wikipedia. In fact, it is an award winning photograph. I don't put the link here because apparently it is forbidden, but I put the description for you to find it.

"The Vulture and the Little Girl, also known as The Struggling Girl, is a photograph by Kevin Carter which first appeared in The New York Times on 26 March 1993. It is a photograph of a frail famine-stricken boy, initially believed to be a girl, who had collapsed in the foreground with a hooded vulture eyeing him from nearby. The child was reported to be attempting to reach a United Nations feeding centre about a half mile away in Ayod, Sudan (now South Sudan), in March 1993, and to have survived the incident. The picture won the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography award in 1994."

Well, that has been my crime. Sharing a public photo, worthy of a Pulitzer Prize that anyone can see on Wikipedia.

Are you really telling me that a Pulitzer Prize-winning picture is going to be censored in a thread about art here?

Seriously?

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for someone to ask me about what kind of images I am referring to when I say that here, in this very forum, really disturbing pictures are being published without anyone doing anything about it.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Did you take the Pulitzer Prize winning photo?

Have you reported the disturbing images? Please use the built-in tool for images like that.

 

[JustTeasingU]

Did you take the Pulitzer Prize winning photo?

Have you reported the disturbing images? Please use the built-in tool for images like that.

No, I did not, but if that is the reason why my message was deleted, why is the message I posted with the image of Marcel Duchamp's urinal still active? (Second message in this thread)

The real reason why I was censored is because the person who deleted the message did not have the delicacy to consult before deleting, not only the image in question, but all the messages related to the debate that was generated about it.

And no, I have not reported the disturbing images. That's what you guys are for, right?

Because if you have time to censor an ultra low resolution image of something that is posted on wikipedia, I think you can dedicate yourselves to remove those images that no one in their right mind could classify as appropriate. At least, here in Europe, they would be totally unacceptable.

In any case, you can easily find them. I'm not talking about something lost in the dark depths of the forum. I don't even want to think about what might be out there.

Have a good time.

PS I'm sorry for the harshness of my words, but I felt especially bad that in a veiled way you insinuated that I had posted the inappropriate photo of a child here. That's horrible and hurts greatly.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

No, I did not, but if that is the reason why my message was deleted, why is the message I posted with the image of Marcel Duchamp's urinal still active? (Second message in this thread)

The real reason why I was censored is because the person who deleted the message did not have the delicacy to consult before deleting, not only the image in question, but all the messages related to the debate that was generated about it.

And no, I have not reported the disturbing images. That's what you guys are for, right?

Because if you have time to censor an ultra low resolution image of something that is posted on wikipedia, I think you can dedicate yourselves to remove those images that no one in their right mind could classify as appropriate. At least, here in Europe, they would be totally unacceptable.

In any case, you can easily find them. I'm not talking about something lost in the dark depths of the forum. I don't even want to think about what might be out there.

Have a good time.

PS I'm sorry for the harshness of my words, but I felt especially bad that in a veiled way you insinuated that I had posted the inappropriate photo of a child here. That's horrible and hurts greatly.

To the bolded words specifically, please refrain from complaining about moderators failing to take action about images you claim are extremely disturbing if you can’t even be bothered to report them. The report function exists for members to report. Moderators take action on the reports.

If you are posting other art you didn’t create, then that should be removed as well.

And no need to apologize, your tone hasn’t had any effect on me. I’m simply stating facts. (Posting images of children here is a bad move, regardless of your intent.)

 

[JustTeasingU]

To the bolded words specifically, please refrain from complaining about moderators failing to take action about images you claim are extremely disturbing if you can’t even be bothered to report them. The report function exists for members to report. Moderators take action on the reports.

If you are posting other art you didn’t create, then that should be removed as well.

And no need to apologize, your tone hasn’t had any effect on me. I’m simply stating facts. (Posting images of children here is a bad move, regardless of your intent.)

I have not published images of children here. I have published a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, published at the time in the New York Times, in which a child appears. It is not the same thing.

It is alarming that you keep insisting on that. I think you're already doing it in very bad faith.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.

 

[THROBBS]

Somewhat off track. Though very much related to what is allowed and what is/isn't Art.
The evaporated photo was used as an illustration of photography being art.
Pulitzer prize or no, the photography itself was alright (there are better photos for focus, framing, depth of field etc... Extra tough for photojournalistic photos). The story it told was the "Art" not the technique.
It would have been very good with just the child, but having seen and captured the vulture too is what "made it".

ANYWAY — we were talking more about appropriated (stolen?) photos, manipulated photos, digital images, A.I. ( artificially homogenized stolen images).

As some of these are nascent processes, LIT has to define what will be acceptable or not. Even after defining — policing is huge undertaking.

 

[Llehlla]

Somewhat off track. Though very much related to what is allowed and what is/isn't Art.
The evaporated photo was used as an illustration of photography being art.
Pulitzer prize or no, the photography itself was alright (there are better photos for focus, framing, depth of field etc... Extra tough for photojournalistic photos). The story it told was the "Art" not the technique.
It would have been very good with just the child, but having seen and captured the vulture too is what "made it".

ANYWAY — we were talking more about appropriated (stolen?) photos, manipulated photos, digital images, A.I. ( artificially homogenized stolen images).

As some of these are nascent processes, LIT has to define what will be acceptable or not. Even after defining — policing is huge undertaking.

THANK YOU SIR!

 

[gsnowpainter]

On the subject of art, we can opine and wring hands until eternity puts an end to the argument. It is a very personal viewpoint and will never be resolved. VanGogh's Sunflowers are NOT worth $40 million, neither is a "balloon" sculpture of a poodle. Their values are in what the purchaser is willing to pay. I have politely canvassed the public at art exhibitions and discovered a huge amount of opinions why one piece of art will sell and another doesn't, but this is not news to anyone. The point of it all is: does it speak to you? Some like a very detailed representational , some prefer an impressionist work. Who is right ? there is no answer. I paint illustrations that my publisher asks for and do what I can to deliver what the customer wants. I paint landscapes etc to show and sell at shows and that seems to please my supporters.
When Vincent did not sell much, was it NOT art or was it because hist style was not in demand. Round and round we go.

 

[PublicDominion]

Question: if I spend several hours drawing a picture using traditional media, then feed it through an AI to enhance the original, have I created a new image? Please answer yes or no and explain your reasons.

Traditional Media.
AI version.

 

[RamseyMacDonald]

A key facet of this definition is often overlooked — "skill"

I've harped on this before.

Many say, "everyone is an Artist" (or something along those lines).
I say that undermines the definition. For example — I dance, but I am not a "dancer". I can plink our a tune on a piano, but I am not a pianist. I "sing" (awfully), but I am not a "singer". I can cook a meal, I am not a chef.

Who is the arbitrator of "skill" or "mastery"... I dunno.

I like this explanation and extension to the definition. Though it might exclude some deliberate and much loved 'naive' works of art?

 

[RamseyMacDonald]

Question: if I spend several hours drawing a picture using traditional media, then feed it through an AI to enhance the original, have I created a new image? Please answer yes or no and explain your reasons.

Traditional Media.
AI version.

Yes. Of course.
You just said you fed it through an AI to change it. So you naturally created a new image. Whether it is 'art' is impossible to say.

 

[OffNSFW]

Question: if I spend several hours drawing a picture using traditional media, then feed it through an AI to enhance the original, have I created a new image? Please answer yes or no and explain your reasons.

Traditional Media.
AI version.

What you are talking about is a problem of identity, and it is something philosophers have been arguing about probably since there were philosophers. (What makes a thing what it is, that differentiates it from other things? How much change, and what kind of change, must it undergo before it's a new thing? Etc.) I'm not trying to be evasive here, but I don't think there's an answer to this question, and certainly not from a bunch of horny knuckleheads like us.

But hey, I'll take a crack at it!

This isn't the answer that most creative people want to hear, but adding stuff or changing things about a thing that already exists makes it a new thing. This is something artists do all the time. Think about Ed Sheeran writing a new song using Marvin Gaye's chords. It's not Marvin Gaye's song anymore--no matter how hard his estate would argue otherwise.

If we do it enough, the original thing becomes a part of our shared vocabulary, a foundation that we all build upon. Is it right or fair? Who's to say? But we'd run out of new art we could make pretty fast if it were otherwise.

 

[000zing]

Nobody needs to discuss the ungrammatical what is art.

Everybody needs both to discuss the correct what art is...

... and get an education, maybe, before attempting higher things such as writing erotic stories.

The comment does not, of course, apply to artists who do not attempt to write stories, except in so far as they might wish to appear educated. Silly notion, I know...

 

[blurhead]

Question: if I spend several hours drawing a picture using traditional media, then feed it through an AI to enhance the original, have I created a new image? Please answer yes or no and explain your reasons.

Traditional Media.
AI version.

Upon encountering this question, my initial reaction was to ponder its underlying purpose.
While the straightforward response would be an affirmative confirmation that indeed, it is a new image, I couldn't help but wonder if there was a deeper motivation behind its inquiry.
Perhaps the intention was to discern whether the AI-generated version of the drawing could be deemed suitable for posting within this artist community, given its origin from the author's drawing rather than a prompt.

If this was indeed the case, then the answer would unequivocally be negative.
Regardless of whether the image was generated by inputting a drawing or crafting a prompt for the AI to interpret, it remains an AI-generated image.
(Please accept my apologies if my assumption is incorrect.)

 

[tastethewine]

Collage has long been a legitimate form of art. *shrug*
That entails using imagery combined with other imagery to create something new.

Appropriating someone else's imagery into one's own work in a new form is one of the issues here.
It is a grey area. For the purposes of LITerotica, I suggest that folk be upfront on their methods.

My opinion on taking someone else's photograph and mucking about with it is not a legitimate form of Art.
That includes; flipping, cropping, adjusting values & hues, and applying filters (no matter how "artsy" the name of the filter) or even applying digital "brush" strokes.

"A.I." is imagery generated through typed prompts — HOWEVER... the result can still be manipulated "by hand" (digital hand) to refine it.
Never-the-less it is largely bullshit — the AI image is the result of harvesting the hard work and creativity of others.

CGI (DAZ and Poser for example) is the precursor (hahahhah cursor) of AI and is largely the work of the programers who wrote the software. HOWEVER... the user ("artist"?) can use this tool to generate figures, pose them, clothe them, light them and put them in settings... this takes some imagination and, like any art form, some skill to be any good.

Suppose the photo is your own and the 'filters' your own original invention written in your own script?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Suppose the photo is your own and the 'filters' your own original invention written in your own script?

That means you're capable of writing your own AI language, certainly, but it's still AI in terms of this site's policy. The filters and script still require a machine to enable them, regardless who wrote the program.

Another question here might be, did the hypothetical programmer train their script on someone else's content, or was the training content entirely their own (in this case) photography?

 

[tastethewine]

That means you're capable of writing your own AI language, certainly, but it's still AI in terms of this site's policy. The filters and script still require a machine to enable them, regardless who wrote the program.

Another question here might be, did the hypothetical programmer train their script on someone else's content, or was the training content entirely their own (in this case) photography?

The effects were done manually until I learned how to script them. The work you removed took me hours and hours to do. There were automated components and manual components. Look you are not required to show any works in my opinion but I find your arguments as applied to my works to be ignorant. It would also seem obvious to be able to remove the whole thread. But whatever I didn't come here for the visuals.
If your title wasn't so sarcastic, I would not be either.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The effects were done manually until I learned how to script them. The work you removed took me hours and hours to do. There were automated components and manual components. Look you are not required to show any works in my opinion but I find your arguments as applied to my works to be ignorant. It would also seem obvious to be able to remove the whole thread. But whatever I didn't come here for the visuals.
If your title wasn't so sarcastic, I would not be either.

I removed nothing. I'm not the forum moderator.

I took your comment as a hypothetical question, and expressed a view that it's still AI because it's machine assisted. Your debate is not with me, it's with the site's policy - and a site policy is a site policy. You either adhere to it on this site or you go elsewhere.