PhormTheGenie
@PhormTheGenie

Doug wants to be a filmmaker, he wants to make art, but he can't, because he's a fundamentally incurious person who isn't much interested in what other people think or feel and all his ideas boil down to 'what if Batman met Mario?'

Dan Olsen deployed this scathing criticism of Doug Walker specifically to shine a light on a desire to create art while simultaneously (and consciously) refusing to engage with art.

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a better descriptor of AI art and those who promote it.


amydentata
@amydentata

I see it like, wanting to be seen as a person who creates art, rather than wanting to create art.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @PhormTheGenie's post:

Yeah like, there's two kinds of selling out. There's the kind where you're so broke and desperate that even things that should never be for sale get pawned off to make ends meet. Then there's the kind where things that should never have been for sale were always negotiable and pricetagged. As a judgement phrase, it always implies that the latter has just been revealed when it's discovered someone has taken money for something the discoverer considers in those special categories, but previously the (often default) assumption was that they too held those principles sacred.

Peeps on bluesky are clowning on AI bros enthusiastically babbling about how "AI" will allow all of us to ask the machines to custom-make movies to please us individually, and the sentiment there is almost exactly the same as Olsen's critique of Walker, that art requires engaging with other people's ideas, and the AI bro vision of the future is simply not that; it's a complete gutting of the meaning of art, the cessation of new ideas, both the creation and confronting of, and an endless remixing of the has-happened with entertainment that, by design, is only funny to a single person