site banner
ZorbaTHut  3yr ago (text post)   Edited 3yr ago   40505 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've been going over Chesterton and Lewis lately and I can think of something from both of them that seems relevant to this matter:

Chesterton, Heretics Ch. 17 ("On the Wit of Whistler):

He was not a great personality, because he thought so much about himself. And the case is stronger even than that. He was sometimes not even a great artist, because he thought so much about art. Any man with a vital knowledge of the human psychology ought to have the most profound suspicion of anybody who claims to be an artist, and talks a great deal about art. Art is a right and human thing, like walking or saying one's prayers; but the moment it begins to be talked about very solemnly, a man may be fairly certain that the thing has come into a congestion and a kind of difficulty.

The artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs. It is a disease which arises from men not having sufficient power of expression to utter and get rid of the element of art in their being. It is healthful to every sane man to utter the art within him; it is essential to every sane man to get rid of the art within him at all costs. Artists of a large and wholesome vitality get rid of their art easily, as they breathe easily, or perspire easily. But in artists of less force, the thing becomes a pressure, and produces a definite pain, which is called the artistic temperament. Thus, very great artists are able to be ordinary men—men like Shakespeare or Browning. There are many real tragedies of the artistic temperament, tragedies of vanity or violence or fear. But the great tragedy of the artistic temperament is that it cannot produce any art.

Lewis, The Great Divorce. (Here we have a conversation between a heavenly Spirit and a Ghost coming from hell, both of whom were artists in life):

"How soon do you think I could begin painting?" it asked.

The Spirit broke into laughter. "Don't you see you'll never paint at all if that's what you're thinking about?" he said.

"What do you mean?" asked the Ghost.

"Why, if you are interested in the country only for the sake of painting it, you'll never learn to see the country."

"But that's just how a real artist is interested in the country."

"No. You're forgetting," said the Spirit. "That was not how you began. Light itself was your first love: you loved paint only as a means of telling about light."

"Oh, that's ages ago," said the Ghost. "One grows out of that. Of course, you haven't seen my later works. One becomes more and more interested in paint for its own sake."

"One does, indeed. I also have had to recover from that. It was all a snare. Ink and catgut and paint were necessary down there, but they are also dangerous stimulants. Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him. For it doesn't stop at being interested in paint, you know. They sink lower-become interested in their own personalities and then in nothing but their own reputations."

"I don't think I'm much troubled in that way," said the Ghost stiffly.

"That's excellent," said the Spirit. "Not many of us had quite got over it when we first arrived. But if there is any of that inflammation left it will be cured when you come to the fountain."

"What fountain's that?"

"It is up there in the mountains," said the Spirit. "Very cold and clear, between two green hills. A little like Lethe. When you have drunk of it you forget forever all proprietorship in your own works. You enjoy them just as if they were someone else's: without pride and without modesty."

Now. Personally, I have already felt the sting of feeding one of my own drawings - one that I had thought was one of my best - into Stable Diffusion's "img2img" and, via the magic incantation "trending on ArtStation," seeing the results come out in some ways better than what I had put in. Not in every way, not yet, and of course there are mangled faces and hands and all sorts of details where, if you asked yourself "so what is that, exactly," you'd find yourself disturbingly unable to answer, but - it could still do much better rendering and textures than I had.

I said that stung, and it did, but how did I deal with it? I had to remind myself why I made art in the first place. Did I do so to make money? Now, if I had, I would have had a material complaint - but ha ha, no, I was never remotely good enough for that to be on the table anyway. The threshold of commercial viability was always out of reach for me - and for most everybody - anyway.

But more dangerously, was I making art to say something about myself? To give myself a self-image, to bind my self-worth to being able to do something others couldn't? To make myself a special person? Well, if so, I would have been doing a pretty poor job of it anyhow, but as both those authors say, that's a corrupting impulse on a person, anyway.

No, the good reason I have for creating is because I have something to say. Because there's some idea or image in my head that I need to get out of it, at the very least because I don't want to forget it, as I would if I left it at the mercies of my own squishy memory. As such, I expect that even if I did drink from that Lethe-like fountain, I'd still have something to appreciate in my own works, because they're about things that I've been interested in anyway.

Well, perhaps that fountain is right before us all now. Perhaps pride in proprietorship is something that's about to be technologically taken from us. But perhaps this isn't such a bad thing; perhaps, while I lose the ability to pride myself on being a More Creative Person than others, I gain the ability to actually get ideas out of my head that I never would have managed before. See all the beauty and wonder that I've hitherto seen only "through a glass, darkly" in much greater detail. So have I lost or have I gained?

(Of course, this doesn't resolve the question of losing one's livelihood, so I note that this analysis is sharply limited!)

No, the good reason I have for creating is because I have something to say.

You can’t see the problem with AI art if you just focus on you, yourself, and your personal capacities and motivations for artistic production.

The problem lies in how AI art alters the nature of art and how we relate to it, at a societal level.

Vaush gestured towards this by attempting to locate the problem in communication - highlighting the relationships between people rather than focusing on individual people in isolation.

I hope to have more to say on these points in a future post.

So there's another good reason to focus on art as expression - you won't have a problem with ai art.

Jokes aside, I think you have been duped, or are duping. The critics of ai art are not concerned about society, they are concerned about themselves. We have had this argument before, and it invariably comes down to insecurity about the future. It is no different here. And we know it is no different because depending on how you look at it Vaush and other ai critics have had at least 5 years - if not a hundred - where they knew this was coming and did nothing about it. It wasn't a problem until it threatened their livelihoods, or the livelihood of someone they love, because it is only a problem because it threatens their livelihoods.

5 years ago I thought that everyone concerned about AI was crazy. I just didn't think the technology was there. I imagine others felt the same.

DALL-E 2 is the first thing that made me pay attention and acknowledge that there really was something there. Maybe machine language translation should have done that sooner, but it didn't, for whatever reason. DALL-E 2 was the first time where I was truly blown away by a new technology in at least the last 15 years.

Hm. Well. If I tried to speak outside my own experience, I know I'd get slapped for that, too.

We've already had technology interrupt "the nature of art." Is photography art? Just point-and-click, after all; there's no talent or Soul necessary for that, its critics would say. But photographers would strenuously disagree, and perhaps it's been long enough and they've built up enough of a power-base of their own that they're taken seriously.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats