Wanna Bicker about/discuss Digital Art vs digital "art"?

[THROBBS]

Rather than hijack folks' threads we can discuss the validness or invalidity of various mediums.
Obviously (I hope) any image view on Literotica is "digital" — However it was originally created, what we are viewing is a bunch of pixels.

I hope to focus primarily on erotic works featuring human subjects.

Pencil renderings.
Pen and ink.
Paintings (oil, acrylic, watercolor)
Photography (film, digital)
Digital painting/drawing (by hand with a stylus using software like photoshop, gimp, procreate...)

Many works go through multiple processes.
Hand drawn/painted works are scanned then can be manipulated further with digital software. Photos can be digitally augmented, painted/drawn into with.

We also have digital imagery that utilizes human facsimiles (wireframe bodies, that can be posed and lit) using software like Poser, and DAZ...
These can be made quite "believable" with some skill and knowledge (and add-ons). They can also be made to look more hand-rendered via some digital painting/ touch-up.

There are also images which are photos (culled from the internet) and run through filters to appear to be hand painted/rendered.
Photoshop has quite the library "artistic" filters: ARTISTIC: colored pencil, cut out, dry brush, film grain, fresco, neon glow, paint daubs, pallet knife, plastic wrap, poster edges, rough pastels, smudge stick, sponge, underpainting & watercolor. All with multiple sliders of variables.
AND- Brush strokes and various sketch options...and

And more recently AI imagery (Artificial Intelligence). These images are generated via typed prompts. The software (not actually "intelligent") gathers from a data base of stolen digitally published imagery which corresponds to the prompts, then via the programming mushes the data together in order to create a "new" image.
Sometimes the result is quite interesting, exciting or pleasing. HOWEVER it is not the work of the prompter.


That's kinda brushing the surface. AHahhaahAhhahhAHAha!

Ok, have at it.

 

[SteelPoint]

Sometimes the result is quite interesting, exciting or pleasing. HOWEVER it is not the work of the prompter.


That's kinda brushing the surface. AHahhaahAhhahhAHAha!

Ok, have at it.

Nothing to "have at". You've summarised things very neatly. Where there is no originality, there can be no art.

Of course, simple logic like that does not go down well with the poor, deluded gushers who equate uncritically the terms "modern" and "good"...

 

[THROBBS]

THROBBS are you the full euro, l myself am not hi-jacking anyones thread. I am supporting, standing up if you wish to call it that for anyone whom is involved in that kind of art. So, wake up and smell more than the coffee.

Yep,

Jildildo​

You ARE hijacking that thread, even if you are defending digital "art".


It's his picture thread.
I asked him a question about HIS technique and it devolved from there.

 

[Prudence_Art]

...can't see this as a discussion worth having, shallow and entrenched positions will always be some peoples default setting. My own definition would be that once a creation is made and distributed publickly it becomes art but the creator should be aware that not everyone will like it and that they are allowed to say why. i think prejudiced/unfair criticism can also be called out in the same way.

 

[THROBBS]

...can't see this as a discussion worth having, shallow and entrenched positions will always be some peoples default setting. My own definition would be that once a creation is made and distributed publickly it becomes art but the creator should be aware that not everyone will like it and that they are allowed to say why. i think prejudiced/unfair criticism can also be called out in the same way.

That makes for a very loose definition of art. Shouldn't there be some measure of craftsmanship?
Interesting that you have the qualification of public distribution. hmmmm...
Kinda like the tree falling and no one is there — does it make a sound?
Art is about sharing, then?

That would mean that my drawings (paintings) which have not been seen are not art. Could be.

 

[Prudence_Art]

That makes for a very loose definition of art. Shouldn't there be some measure of craftsmanship?

absolutely not, thats elitist... especially if you insist on craftsmanship which excludes half of the population

Interesting that you have the qualification of public distribution. hmmmm...
Kinda like the tree falling and no one is there — does it make a sound?
Art is about sharing, then?

...for the purposes of this thread yes imho, because in the o.p you specify 'any image view on literotica'. things are going to get very complicated if we include irl.

That would mean that my drawings (paintings) which have not been seen are not art. Could be.

if you think they are they are, im not going to get into gaslighting you, but this changes when you share them so irrelevant whataboutery imv.

 

[000zing]

...can't see this as a discussion worth having, shallow and entrenched positions will always be some peoples default setting. My own definition would be that once a creation is made and distributed publickly it becomes art but the creator should be aware that not everyone will like it and that they are allowed to say why. i think prejudiced/unfair criticism can also be called out in the same way.

And that is precisely where the problem lies... I steal Michelangelo's work of genius and run it through my photocopier, liberally adding metallic green and vomit yellow.

And voilà!, runs your argument, it's now MY creation, owing nothing to Michelangelo. I'm the "artist". Yes... right... as if.

Allow me to say this "publickly", whatever that means...

... you poor, poor thing.

 

[Prudence_Art]

And that is precisely where the problem lies... I steal Michelangelo's work of genius and run it through my photocopier, liberally adding metallic green and vomit yellow.

And voilà!, runs your argument, it's now MY creation, owing nothing to Michelangelo. I'm the "artist". Yes... right... as if.

Allow me to say this "publickly", whatever that means...

... you poor, poor thing.

...you dont understand my point of view, fair enough.
but theres no need for the aggression....

 

[THROBBS]

absolutely not, thats elitist... especially if you insist on craftsmanship which excludes half of the population

You can call it elitist, I'm ok with that. It seems to me there IS a distinction. I can call myself a "dancer", because I dance (after a fashion), but there is an implication with the term — that I am professional? That I am worth watching? That I have some expertise.

So, I do insist an a degree of craftspersonship. (your emphasis on the man, is somewhat silly).

...for the purposes of this thread yes imho, because in the o.p you specify 'any image view on literotica'. things are going to get very complicated if we include irl.

It's ok with me to expand the discussion beyond Literotica. It DOES get complicated, if one is to define "Art", which I. feel should be done.
For now, my focus is on what is posted here, and specifcally erotic imagery. It seems that no one has (yet) been posting digital generated landscapes (fractal) and claiming the as their own art. Heck, I have not seen any, and that's fine by me.

if you think they are they are, im not going to get into gaslighting you, but this changes when you share them so irrelevant whataboutery imv.

I don't feel gaslit. You can just defend your view. Or modify it. *shrug*

 

[THROBBS]

And that is precisely where the problem lies... I steal Michelangelo's work of genius and run it through my photocopier, liberally adding metallic green and vomit yellow.

And voilà!, runs your argument, it's now MY creation, owing nothing to Michelangelo. I'm the "artist". Yes... right... as if.

Allow me to say this "publickly", whatever that means...

... you poor, poor thing.

Not sure that is a convincing analogy.
Artists often borrow from, or are inspired by other artists. I feel strongly that if you were create this hypothetical piece that you should give credit to Michelangelo. Likely in this instance it would be obvious.

In AI generated imagery ~ the source visuals are not always "open source"/"public domain", they are culled (stolen) from the internet. The end result is most frequently not even amended by the "prompter" , therefore the prompter has no real hand in the outcome. AND the image is claimed as their own work. (no work involved)

 

[000zing]

...you dont understand my point of view, fair enough.
but theres no need for the aggression....

Believe me, I do. I also understand the mentality, which is par for the course on Lit.: Ah, you don't accept my argument? Why, therefore obviously, as it is Holy Writ, you don't understand it.

Aggression? No. Total disagreement? Yes.

 

[000zing]

Not sure that is a convincing analogy.
Artists often borrow from, or are inspired by other artists. I feel strongly that if you were create this hypothetical piece that you should give credit to Michelangelo. Likely in this instance it would be obvious.

In AI generated imagery ~ the source visuals are not always "open source"/"public domain", they are culled (stolen) from the internet. The end result is most frequently not even amended by the "prompter" , therefore the prompter has no real hand in the outcome. AND the image is claimed as their own work. (no work involved)

Influencing is one thing and totally legitimate. Computer clickery where all of the original imagery is created by others (even computer programmes) first is entirely another. End of.

 

[THROBBS]

Influencing is one thing and totally legitimate. Computer clickery where all of the original imagery is created by others first is entirely another. End of.

But your scenario is different that "computer clickery", there was artistic ( ? ) action and intent ( ?) . was it good? was it valid? was it Art?
I kinda doubt it. There was a time 1960s and 70s where something like that may have some validity in the art world — as a statement, a reaction. Today, nah, it's just derivative. Jackson Pollock did his thing. Andy Warhol did his.

Art- Craftspersonship, intent, message.... *edited to add> imagination

Not the "end of"

Beginning of another era of visualization.

 

[Prudence_Art]

just for clarity a well known member of the so-called YBA's just sold an
a.i creation for a lot of money at the Royal Academy of Arts summer show
think it was Gillian Waring, will have too check....

Believe me, I do. I also understand the mentality, which is par for the course on Lit.: Ah, you don't accept my argument? Why, therefore obviously, as it is Holy Writ, you don't understand it.

Aggression? No. Total disagreement? Yes.

theres a lot of anger in those posts,
my opinion is 'loose' as stated by the o.p.
im not shutting the door on anything....you are.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

But your scenario different that "computer clickery", there was artistic ( ? ) action and intent ( ?) . was it good? was it valid? was it Art?
I kinda doubt it. There was a time 1960s and 70s where something like that may have some validity in the art world — as a statement, a reaction. Today, nah, it's just derivative. Jackson Pollock did his thing. Andy Warhol did his.

Art- Craftspersonship, intent, message....

Not the "end of"

Beginning of another era of visualization.

Disagree. Presenting anyone else's prior creativity as in some way your own is plagiarism. The fact that OOOzing gave a stark example is neither here nor there. The law does not accept that criminality somehow becomes legitimate when it is less stark.

And we are talking the law. It will certainly be going down that route.

Take it from me... we haven't yet had even a whiff of what's heading our way litigation-wise.

 

[THROBBS]

Disagree. Presenting anyone else's prior creativity as in some way your own is plagiarism. The fact that OOOzing gave a stark example is neither here nor there. The law does not accept that criminality somehow becomes legitimate when it is less stark.

And we are talking the law. It will certainly be going down that route.

Take it from me... we haven't yet had even a whiff of what's heading our way litigation-wise.

There really is something called "public domain".
There have been hundreds (probably thousands) of variants of the Mona Lisa.
Are any/all of them "Art"? Perhaps. Are they legal? yes.

It IS here and there.

As for legal issues - Look at how James Cameron ripped off Roger Dean for the Avatar movies.
Sadly, Cameron did not acknowledge or compensate Dean... AND Dean lost the litigation.

These issues are not cut and dry, black and white (hell, Roger Dean's work is vivid color)

 

[THROBBS]

There have been some wonderful visuals coming out of AI software. I HATE that the prompters are claiming it as their own work/art, it is neither. I still like to see it.

There is rarely any DAZ generated imagery that I like, even when touched up and worked into.

There are folk who can very tightly reproduce erotic photos with colored pencils (or whatever) - those just leave me cold. Though there IS a great measure of craftspersonship involved. Perhaps what is missing (should add up above) is imagination.

 

[SteelPoint]

There really is something called "public domain".

And there really is something called "copyright".

Care to take a guess at which carries the greater legal weight..?

It's going to be a litigation fest. I personally wouldn't like to be on the wrong end of one of the first suits.

 

[THROBBS]

And there really is something called "copyright".

Care to take a guess at which carries the greater legal weight..?

It's going to be a litigation fest. I personally wouldn't like to be on the wrong end of one of the first suits.

True.

I am speaking of actual, legal "public domain", which is NOT what many assume is public domain, just because it has been "made public" by posting on the internet (those images are, in fact, under copyright)

I am not advocating for appropriating the work of others. However, one can now, legally use Steamboat Willy (original Mickey Mouse) in your own work. That doesn't mean that you invented Mickey Mouse or that it is ethically right to. Just legalities.

I am not worried. I create my own work.

 

[SteelPoint]

just for clarity a well known member of the so-called YBA's just sold an
1. a.i creation for a lot of money at the Royal Academy of Arts summer show
think it was Gillian Waring, will have too check....
im not shutting the door on anything....2. you are.

1. Yes, it was the a.i. that did the creating, not anyone with human DNA.
2. And rightly so. Some people simply will not see what's in front of them, especially when it involves their new tech toys being taken away from them... you know: the ones that make 'artists' out of what were previously no-talents. People are often stupid and blind when it's a matter of inconvenient truths...

... just for clarity...

 

[SteelPoint]

I am not worried. I create my own work.

Good for you. Just make sure none of it gets online and becomes mining ground for the non-artists.

 

[THROBBS]

Good for you. Just make sure none of it gets online and becomes mining ground for the non-artists.

Too late.
Much of it is out there.

Lucky for me, I am not "gold" nor "silver", it'll be a while that I am mined.

One can hardly BE a visual artist without publishing online.
You only show in galleries? Bah, someone will take an instagram shot, the gallery will have a website.
The way of the world.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

A good, charitable attitude towards the plagiarists and their new weapons. I can chalk you up as being the non-complaining type whenever push comes to shove, then.

 

[Prudence_Art]

1. Yes, it was the a.i. that did the creating, not anyone with human DNA.

nonetheless it was featured in the Royal Academys summer exhibition
and attributed to a named and successful artist
....which is accreditation enough for most in the art world.

https://se.royalacademy.org.uk/

2. And rightly so. Some people simply will not see what's in front of them, especially when it involves their new tech toys being taken away from them... you know: the ones that make 'artists' out of what were previously no-talents. People are often stupid and blind when it's a matter of inconvenient truths...

... just for clarity...

sarcastic and passive aggressive....why are you people so angry.

 

[SteelPoint]

Oh, and the RA has never been given to bouts of faddism, right? Most people would believe a rejection from the RA to be quite a feather in the cap, to judge from what I've heard, almost a mark of distinction.

You can use whatever cool-sounding newspeak terms you like. As long as I can manage it, I shall refuse to look at the inventions of machines masquerading as human creations.

I personally feel let down when I discover that the 100metres sprint champion got to the finish line first by virtue of stuffing himself full of chemicals. Presumably you cheered him on, beyond his fellow athletes, in the full knowledge of the deceit..?

Do these 'artists' not have even the slightest feeling of remorse or shame when they claim it's 'all their own work'..?

Do you not see why this should be a cause for concern, or are you like the climate change deniers... bury head in sand/hope the crunch doesn't come in their lifetimes..?