(an ask from my retrsopring)
Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh.
'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a human. A computer can't think. A computer can't feel. A computer can't experience. A computer can't learn. To equate a computer's ability to copy and regurgitate data to a human's ability to communicate through art is so existentially offensive as a premise that it's inherently bad faith, even if you yourself aren't asking it in bad faith. You may as well be asking me what's the difference between a plagiarist and a writer, because if that difference between those two things is even entertained as a debate, then either you're being made an idiot or you are indulging idiots. At worst, both.
No one seems to debate this when it comes to the idea of, say, athletes. A machine can ostensibly produce the same results as a basketball player, throw a ball in the hoop and score points against other machines. But that's patently ridiculous, isn't it? People don't watch sports for the concept of throwing balls in hoops, people watch sports for human spectacle and physical ability.
It's a mistake to think art is only about the results, that's capitalist thinking in that only the end conclusion of the process has any value (fiscally or otherwise). Propaganda made by mediocre people who think being an 'idea guy' is the only important part of any project. Art is about ability, it's about expression, it's about making history. It's about human labor and craftsmanship. It's about being alive.
That a creator who is too lazy to respect their own art doesn't have the imagination to be good at it, and also they hate the planet and want humanity to die, ostensibly.
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
janainaart
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
areudirty
