Effectively I believe we are. During my MFA I realized we were simply copying as a form of craft. It’s all we do in arts. Any great work feels like just one continuous story retold again and again.
Effectively I believe we are. During my MFA I realized we were simply copying as a form of craft. It’s all we do in arts. Any great work feels like just one continuous story retold again and again.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
This is deeply cynical.
b01f4@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
The Platonic Ion makes similar cynical claims. The idea that art is mimetic is compelling enough without gen AI.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Okay, I feel like we’re doing a motte and bailey here. I’m not arguing that art is never mimetic.
There’s a lot of diversity in the stories we tell. If we were “simply copying as a form of craft,” where is this diversity coming from? Do you mean something different than what I’m interpreting?
Keep in mind, the thing that I am contending with is that the nature of people retelling stories is not unlike a robot that lacks a conscious. I think this is downright silly.
b01f4@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
No, I mean the American MFA and writing craft professionally as an art. Story telling is separate from a specific art, so I believe we are in two different domains. It’s difficult to talk about general art when I am specifically talking about art as a modern phenomena.
The MFA I believe from my experience generates a lot of mimetic art and that much of the “industry” is retelling stories. In art history, I don’t think this is as controversial.
I don’t also think you can say with definition that robots have no consciousness? Like when was this debate settled? From my understanding the academic conversation on consciousness is far more nuanced than robot bad.
But I agree that AI is disruptive, probably illegal and immoral. In a post-modern society however, who didn’t see advanced AI coming?