site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 29, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll grant that are can be quite subjective. I'll also note that I'm not educated in art so I dont know if i have the tools to adequately explain this. But there is no doubt to me that there is a universal aesthetic that reflects beauty. This tends to come back to nature. Landscapes and vistas. The human form or even the animal kingdom in general. Fitness in the evolutionary sense. For a long time we became better at expressing this aesthetic in various mediums. Then we took a u-turn with modern art and focused on the most absurd, ugly, and unnatural things the human mind can create.

I dont think we need to turn this into a whole modern art debate, but there is nothing natural or beautiful about that video. In fact seems to optimize for the most unnatural and deranged movement and sound one could imagine.

To answer you question, I perfer whatever art is at the opposite end of the spectrum than what is in that video (modern art).

Then we took a u-turn with modern art and focused on the most absurd, ugly, and unnatural things the human mind can create.

Don't worry. If it makes you feel any better, AI image generation should do a good job in making this kind of art commonplace, thus low-class. To distinguish themselves, artists will need to pivot back to things the AI really can't do very well, and fine detail (along with, well, an understanding of general beauty) is one of those things that AI tools currently struggles with (I think the fact it struggles with placing fingers is indicative of this).