Not An Android

Eastern Quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus), family Dasyuridae, order Dasyuromorphia, Canberra, Australia

Ostania's normalest family

The next day, at a hastily thrown together birthday party at the Forger residence:

bitch I might be

do she got the booty ? she doooooooooo ! 

swiggity swag

the D

wen u mom com home and make hte spagehti

“ hello______, im dad “ 

AYYY LMAO

W R I T I N G  I N T E N S E  W O R D S  L I K E  T H I S 

 perfect _____ don’t exis-

And now, the weather

at least 2 potato

we’ve come full circle ! 

life hack :

[ __________ INTENSIFIES]

so many

such doge. much wow. very smile. 

mahogany 

*sweats nervously*

same. 

spooper hot choclety milk

Guillermo Del Toro on AI "art"

Let's say you were outside, painting a canvas blue. You go inside and a bird or two hop in your paint and on your canvas. Well when you come back, if you like what was done, that's art.

Also there are lots of automated art programs that make tons of shortcuts or even bypass things that previous artists had to learn as skills to make art. You can press a button and fill in a large space with a single color. Where vefore you had to paint it or whatever with strokes and slightly uneven colors and other things that gave it "personality".

Plenty of artists arent educated. They didnt go to school for art. They can be complete ametuers, and what they make is still art. You cant gatekeep art behind "knowledge" either.

You dont have to lile AI art (just like people who prefer practical effects over CGI), but you need a real reason for it. Call it out for using other people's art for reference without permission. Call it out for not being as polished (yet). Call it out for using up too much energy. But dont pretend like art isnt art unless someone is a talented professional. Dont pretend like art needs to be based on your current emotions or your personality to count as art. Anything can be art. Regardless of the effort, regardless of your understanding of it, regardless of how you felt making it (of you even felt anything).

A banana nailed to a wall is art. A blank canvas (literally no effort) is art. A broken toilet is art. Me playing on my phone behind a display case is (performance) art. Someone's dropped watch that's mistaken for art...is technically art.

There are literally artists who get paid to make copies of famous people's art. And that's art too.

I can use my phone right now to combine two gifs to make a funny joke. I can take screenshot of a cartoon character and give them a frowny face. I can try and take a picture and mess up, but end up with a pictire of a pretty smear of colors and the end result is technically art.

Who are you to say it isnt?

Edit:

No, art isn't subjective, you're confusing the saying with beauty. BEAUTY is subjective, not art.

The point is that art requires a human element in it. That's what Guillermo is saying. He isn't saying you need to be a professional.

Yes, there are shortcuts that allow you to bypass steps, but no, they aren't a replacement for skill? Like, as an artist, I have no clue what you're talking about. You still need to draw what gets coloured, and filing areas with colour automatically has existed since MS paint has been a thing.

Guillermo didn't say you need an education for art. You completely misinterpreted, in complete bad faith, what "personality, knowledge and emotion" means in regards to art.

You very clearly have no clue what personality, knowledge and emotion means in regards to art, and your insistence on being so loud on a subject you know so little about that you misuse basic terms of the hobby might suggest you should at least TRY doing a minimum amount of research before blowing up.

Many of the things you stated are either just straight up not art as they do not even fit the definition of art, or lack the context of what makes it art. The fact all your examples are restricted to contemporary art (which I don't have an issue with) is one thing already, but the fact you don't even realise the profound irony in how every single thing you mentioned requires the exact things Guillermo mentionned is incredibly sad. The context given to a blank canvas is the conscious decision to make it represent something. A blank canvas by itself it not art. That's not how that works.

Yes, art forgers are highly regarded artists? Because to be able to make forgeries, you need an incredible amount of artistic skill? That's not even being debated, what are you talking about?

No, not "anything" is art. By literal definition.

Art is: "The *conscious* use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words."

The ONLY word that is up to interpretation here is the word "beautiful", which is what is up to the eye of the beholder.

Without consciousness, a broken toilet is not art. Without consciousness, a phone playing behind a glass case is not art. Art is not art unless there is the conscious decision and the human element within it that makes it art.

Combining two gifs is not art unless you are consciously making it as a piece of art, rather than it just being a joke. Changing a character you didn't draw's expression can be art if there is a reason for you to have made that as a ARTISTIC DECISION and not just because you just wanted to. It also doesn't really work that way btw, as many times, colours and body positioning are also taken into account when expressing emotion. Ignoring this is a very typical non-artist or beginner mistake.

2. Art absolutely is subjective. For example much performance art is under controversy for being bad or lazy or not really art. You digging a hole can be considered art to some and just...recreation to others. Cooking being art is considered controversial.

I'm a chef. I make complex recipes and plating arrangements. I balance flavors for peak enjoyment by customers. Am I an artist? Many traditional artists say no.

How about graffiti? Lots of people dont consider it art. Rather, they merely see it as vandalism. Isnt that subjective?

3. Art definitely doesnt require a human element.

In fact humans dont even need to be present for something to be seen and praised as art.

4. Ever made your own paint? Ever heat soot and oil together? Ever grind beetles or precious stones into a powder with oil and repeatedly alter it to produce a specific color? You know, a thing that required specialized skill for thousands of years? Ever painstakenly and carefully fill in a space with a color medium without crossing borders or ruining the canvas? Ever pay close attention to brush strokes and moisture content and refuse to let it dry in the wrong way, lest you euin the enrire piece?

Now then...ever just go on your computer and pick a color and just fill in a space on your screen? Just like an app, a computer program can allow for shortcuts.

Believe it or not, there was controvery on whether art made on a computer program counted as "real" art. It didnt require the work of trained artists to make the paint or to make an appropriate canvas. You dont create your own colors via mixing methods. You dont need to pay attention to brush strokes to fill in a space with a color on the computer. You merely need to make minor clicks based on predetermined colors and a program that takes a ton of the work and skill out of the task that past generations needed far longer to create.

There was a time where these shortcuts were legitimately argued to invalidate art. Now theyre the norm for arguably millions of artists.

5. As shown with the mention of accidental art and literal animals making art, "personality, knowledge, and emotion" isnt needed to make art. Again, I can spill some tea on a piece of paper and decide the dried splotch looks nice and frame it as art. Who are you to say it isnt? A literal baby can just splash in water colors like they do with puddles and make art. They dont need any concious understanding of what theyre doing for the result to be art.

6. Forgeries were brought up because the topic of AI art includes stolen art, stolen techniques, and stolen ideas. Forgers need not ask permission to copy a piece. They can take your work and make an exact copy or alter it in any way they want without permission. And on top of that, they can sell it on their own. They can sell what is essentially your piece, produced with your techniques, and ideas for profit. If you or anyone else is fine with forgeries being made or sold without explicit permission from the source artist, then you actually dont have an issue with art being stolen/copied without permission.

7. Actually, yes, "anything" can be art. A banana taped to a wall can be art. A blank canvas can be art. Sitting silently in the middle of the floor can be art. Graffiti can be art. Me splicing two gif together can be art. Coffee art (swirling milk and coffee foam around) can be art. Sidewalk chalk can be art. Music can be art. And by that logic, any arrangement of sound can be art if presented that way. Art made by an ignkrant baby can be art. A cat leaving footprints in concrete can be art. you plating your dinner can be art. I can go on and on, but the perception of what is and isnt art is entirely subjective.

No need for "concious" anything. It's more about how it's perceived than how it's made. Now, you personally can give something more value based on the intent of its creation, but again, that's subjective. You persanally can attribute set to human intention, but bird watchers observing a bird create a fancy mating nest from specific rocks, twigs, and human trash would say different.

8. "Beautiful" isnt the only subjective word or phrase regarding art. "Frightening", "thought-provoking", "Ametuerish", "Complex", etc. And, as shown with your own reply, whether or not something is or isnt art is itself subjective.

Art doesnt need "conciousness". Art doesnt need emotion. Art doesnt need skill, education, hard work, understanding, dreams, etc. Art can be accidental. Art can be simple. Art can be boring. Art can be low-effort. It's art if even one person (or animal for that matter) sees it as art. The most famous and expericned artists in the world can see a banana taped to a wall and say it isnt art, and it's still subjective.

I can't believe you of all people are DEFENDING fucking goddamn AI. Accidental natural beauty (found in nature/outdoors) IS NOT FUCKING ART. A banana or "modern" art where it's so childish and shitty looking you can't distinguish it from crap that goes in the garbage ISNT ART.

But I'm also one of those old fashioned people who believes that any modern "artist" isn't an artist and can't paint for shit. I hate modernist block cube greyscale architecture, I hate "modern art" (it isn't art, it's desperation and an attempt to avoid a second Hitler). Modern art is a participation trophy for a child that should have been slapped and told to go invest time in something else because they don't have the talent it takes to succeed in the field, regardless of how much they wish that they could.

Modern art's development and rise in popularity marks the beginning of the reign of liberalism and the destruction of society and intelligence as a whole. Where batshit liberal leftists are, there too was (and is) "modern art".

If art is dependent upon a person looking at it deciding whether or not they think it's art to them, that’s not art. Art should never be subjective. It must objectively remain art—it can be lesser than or greater than, but it must always be art. "Modern art" is nothing short of a social experiment to see how far you can manipulate an individual into saying something nonexistent exists. Modern art is the equivalent of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes; in other words, something NOT REAL. It's not art, it's not beauty—it is a laughingstock: meant to show the masses – by the elite – how gullible they are, and how ignorant they are, and that they will swallow anything the elite tells them to if packaged convincingly enough, to feel that they "belong". (Much like the LGBTQ+ movement and liberal ideology).

Anyone can draw a stick figure tree—that doesn't make it art. Yes, your parents or a child label this as artwork and praise it— Your parents do this in the hope of encouraging you to increase in skill to the point you can actually do art, the child because this is the height of their artistic ability, and they know no better; but that doesn't make it art at the end of the day. Art takes raw talent initially, and training and determination the rest of the way. The old masters were artists. DaVinci is not on the same level as Picasso, Picasso (his modern art) will never be a Rembrandt. And no modern bullshit liberal arts graduate will EVER be an artist capable of creating art—a banana taped to a canvas is NOT ART. A rectangular paper mache box so convoluted and ugly the cleaning woman can't tell it apart from the garbage IS NOT ART, and never will be. Regardless of how much ACTUAL ART is fed into a computer, it will NEVER BECOME ART. Because art – HUMAN ART – takes skill and intelligence and human creativity to conceptualize.

If you push a button and WHOOP! out pops some image made in some particular style because you typed in specifications to the computer, you're not an artist and you NEVER will be.

2. The beauty in nature shown wasnt accidental. The animals intentionally made those beautiful things. A bad argument on your part.

3. You proved my point about the banana on the wall. You may not consider it art, but tons of artists and critics do. To the point that people pay for it. It sold for 6.2 million. Who are you to say it isnt art? This counterargument applies to everything you said about modern art. You personally not liking it or not considering it art while many others do proves that art is subjective.

Same with "a stick figure tree". It's art. You may not value it as art, but it's art. It doesnt have to be complex, emotional, or made with any deep message or understanding (and it very well might for all you know). It's still art.

You personally dont get to decide what is and isnt art and what is "good". it's subjective.

Then he became a huge supporter of AI art seeing it as simply a tool to make art. It's still his vision, still his creation, but the clanker helps save him the time of having to draw it all himself. His next album cover was some AI slop of a robot cowboy or something which didn't invoke any kind of feeling or thought whatsoever. A part of me wanted to let AI sample all his music so it could generate a bunch of songs on his behalf for free.

Artists have a tendency to either not realize or else refuse to accept that ‘Creating Art’ and ‘Experiencing Art’ are entirely non dependent on each other and are entirely different aesthetic processes.

The sentiment in the OP is a description of the necessary elements to self expression through depiction. None of that is required to being effected by an experience with depiction.

An Epstein email exchange where they talk about Jesus returning and a little girl praying in bed about Jesus saving her life.

They are literal demons.

Donald Trump personally called the police chief of Palm Beach, Fla., in 2006 to thank him for investigating Jeffrey Epstein — and told him to “focus on” the disgraced financier’s “evil” accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, according to a newly released FBI document.

According to the summary of an October 2019 interview of Michael Reiter, who served as the wealthy Florida enclave’s top cop from 2001 to 2009, the future president was “one of the very first people to call when people found out” that authorities were investigating Epstein for sex with girls as young as 14 whom he had hired to give him massages.

“Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this,” Trump was quoted as telling Reiter on the call, adding that he “got the hell out of there” on one occasion when he was around Epstein while teenagers were present.

The summary, first reported by the Miami Herald, added that Trump told Reiter he “threw” Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago and that “people in New York knew Epstein was disgusting.”

Trump also referred to Maxwell as “Epstein’s operative,” telling the chief “she is evil and to focus on her.”

Reiter’s name is redacted in the interview summary, but details in the document match up with publicly known information about his role in the Epstein probe.

According to the chief, he met Epstein after the financier reported one of his employees for stealing from him.

Reiter recounted that Epstein donated $40,000 to the department for the purchase of a machine to review security footage, cut a $90,000 check (never cashed) to buy a fingerprinting machine around the time his first victim came forward, and gave “more than others” to a police scholarship fund for children.

When Reiter inquired about Epstein, he claimed to have been told that the financier “supports law enforcement and is an important guy.”

The Palm Beach Police Department began receiving reports about Epstein “[i]n the early 2000’s, maybe 2003,” according to the summary. Eventually, Reiter said, his officers put together a sprawling case against Epstein, including “sexual battery cases against the co-conspirators.”

However, Reiter recalled that state prosecutors “said the victims were not credible and would show their MYSPACE pages and such. They would refute minute details in the probable cause affidavit … This case died at the state level.”

The summary of the FBI interview of Reiter was included in millions of files that have been released by the Justice Department in connection with the case of Epstein, who pleaded guilty to Florida charges of soliciting a minor for sex in 2008 under a controversial non-prosecution agreement that saw him serve 13 months in prison, much of that time on work release.

Epstein was arrested by the FBI in July 2019 and charged with sex trafficking, but was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell the following month while awaiting trial.

The document emerged hours after Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a closed-door virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee.

The 64-year-old UK-born socialite declined to answer questions about her friendship with Epstein or her role in the trafficking of young women and girls.

An attorney for Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence at a medium-security Texas facility, said following the testimony that his client would speak freely if she is granted clemency by Trump.

The White House has said no such action is under consideration, with Trump telling reporters in July that he would “take a look at it.”

@liberalsarecool

@porterdavis

galadriel's been around since the beginning, like, for pretty much all of middle-earth's history you understand, she has Seen it all and despite what you may have been led to believe is at all times this close to snapping. also the reason lothlorien is so chill is she has this magic ring that makes it so the whole place exists slightly outside normal time

i can't emphasize enough how much of a post-apocalyptic horror story thranduil lives in. homeland destroyed and half his people massacred. has fucken sauron in his backyard and the spawn of the primordial beast that eats light puttering about on his lawn. a dragon lives next door. does NOT have a magic ring and is therefore obliged to rule over his murderforest in normal time

just so we're all on the same page here, legolas' day job before joining the fellowship was to hunt the spawn of the primordial beast that eats light and it's not like, a big deal or anything. he just has to do it. he's used to it.

Planetfall

Original Art (1988)