Socializing art means giving people more free time to pursue their artistic passions allowing them to develop those skills to produce quality works.
If you want to talk about fascist art then you need to be willing to address the elephant in the room that is the open embrace of AI “art” by fascists. They were not only the first to start doing it but have pretty much made it their entire aesthetic. There’s nothing proletarian about mass-produced AI slop; it is a modern symbol of fascism and reflects the fascist disdain for creativity & imagination, driven directly by the tendency of creatives & artistic types to be anti-fascist on account of open mindedness being a boon to the creative mind.
Socializing art means giving people more free time to pursue their artistic passions allowing them to develop those skills to produce quality works.
What do you mean when you say “socialising art”? Because I mean socialising labour.
If you want to talk about fascist art then you need to be willing to address the elephant in the room that is the open embrace of AI “art” by fascists. They were not only the first to start doing it but have pretty much made it their entire aesthetic. There’s nothing proletarian about mass-produced AI slop; it is a modern symbol of fascism and reflects the fascist disdain for creativity & imagination, driven directly by the tendency of creatives & artistic types to be anti-fascist on account of open mindedness being a boon to the creative mind
How do you get mass production without the proleteriat?
If we have establised lack of mass production does not absolve its “validity” to fascism then it may be worthwhile re-examining that presumed axiom.
What do you mean when you say “socialising art”? Because I mean socialising labour.
There’s more to art than just labor.
How do you get mass production without the proleteriat?
Redundant question in a world that is becoming increasingly automated. We’re literally talking about computer algorithms generating content on their own without human labor involved.
If we have establised lack of mass production does not absolve its “validity” to fascism then it may be worthwhile re-examining that presumed axiom.
We have established nothing of the sort and so the axiom remains firmly in place.
That’s exactly right. It is paid art where the quibble is, right? So if advancement in technology causes unemployment why does marxism propose not to burn the tech down? How do we sublimate this? GenAi is effectively showing us the limits of trade unionism, it is forcing us to confront capitalism itself and not be happy with concessions anymore.
Redundant question in a world that is becoming increasingly automated. We’re literally talking about computer algorithms generating content on their own without human labor involved.
All dead labour is still labour.
We have established nothing of the sort and so the axiom remains firmly in place.
Do you think if you haven’t figured it out it makes it true? I mean I’m happy to clarify but at some point people may take it personally, and therefore may just need some space. I’ve sent a link in the other reply if you’re interested in further reading.
That’s exactly right. It is paid art where the quibble is, right? So if advancement in technology causes unemployment why does marxism propose not to burn the tech down? How do we sublimate this? GenAi is effectively showing us the limits of trade unionism, it is forcing us to confront capitalism itself and not be happy with concessions anymore.
Now this is idealism. You have no evidence for this assertion at all; it’s purely speculative.
And no, “paid art” wasn’t where the quibble was. That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness and that it takes away the experience of creating & consuming art from real people and replacing it with a complete imitation devoid of the same substance. AI “art” doesn’t make you feel anything, think anything, or give you a memorable experience. It lacks the passion of something conceived of by a human mind and brought to fruition by human skill.
All dead labour is still labour.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
Do you think if you haven’t figured it out it makes it true? I mean I’m happy to clarify but at some point people may take it personally, and therefore may just need some space. I’ve sent a link in the other reply if you’re interested in further reading.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness
I think you are right there. The metasphysical conception of creativity is not in keeping with dialectical materialism.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
So you agree that the proleteriat is involved. And under capitalism this tech alienates workers.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
That was a response to the condescension here:
We have established nothing of the sort and so the axiom remains firmly in place.
^you could have clarified why instead of coming up with that nothingness. You just made a circular argument. And it was to a response to what I thought was a common ground you found. No you want to retreat to a supposed moral high ground.
I think given what you said about soulness that is obviously not dialectical materialist take I think we have reached a cross road here. It makes sense why the arguments against the arguments you have made are taken as arguments as you as a person.
Why should the proletariat strive toward replacing their self-expression with mindless, autogenerated slop manufactured by a machine? I genuinely cannot think of a more effective way a capitalist society could create a false-consciousness and cultural hegemony. Not only are large studios and producers part of the superstructure, but any and all individuals part of the masses should be conditioned into giving up the last vestiges of ideological resistance and means of preventing alienation from their fellow worker.
I’m not even talking about working artists, I’m talking about the masses casting aside any method of self-expression other than the machine provided to them by the capitalists.
Why should the proletariat strive toward replacing their self-expression with mindless, autogenerated slop manufactured by a machine? I genuinely cannot think of a more effective way a capitalist society could create a false-consciousness and cultural hegemony. Not only are large studios and producers part of the superstructure, but any and all individuals part of the masses should be conditioned into giving up the last vestiges of ideological resistance and means of preventing alienation from their fellow worker.
I’m not even talking about working artists, I’m talking about the masses casting aside any method of self-expression other than the machine provided to them by the capitalists.
Could you please explain how this is not an argument against automation and socialisation of labour? If we aren’t to use the output of capitalist production should we do away with technology, and if so then how would we ever hope to overpower such a system? Should you burn your phone and not use the internet? Both have been used for cultural hegemony. Isn’t a given that any technology could be used for their purposes and isn’t it then on us to repurpose it for our needs?
I’m not even talking about working artists, I’m talking about the masses casting aside any method of self-expression other than the machine provided to them by the capitalists.
Because I do not view human self-expression on an individual scale as something that should be automated away as superfluous labour. Art creation is already socialized, that’s the entire idea behind anyone of any skill level being able to do it. Cooking, indie film, paintings, memes, shitposts, doodles, cartoons, singing, music, all of these avenues of expression have readily accessible entry points, and some of them like pencil drawing don’t cost more than 2 dollars a year no matter what skill level you are. I view art created by the masses as the proletariat attempting to reclaim the humanity that capitalism has alienated them from. Relegating that last vestige of connection with their fellow workers is not only dystopian, but antithetical to communism’s end goal of de-alienating the proletariat.
The internet is a communication network. A phone is a machine. I don’t see how these items are replacing anything except less-efficient technologies. If that’s what you want to argue human art is then that’s where we disagree. Human expression isn’t a “technology” that can be automated into obsolescence, because at the end of the day, why? What is accomplished by allowing a machine to create a mono-culture where all works are inevitably the same?
There are a lot of presumptions there that are not a given. Maybe you could clarify what you are alluding to isn’t an appeal to the metaphysical concept of human creativity? We should be dialectical materialists after all.
Why should the proletariat strive toward replacing their self-expression with mindless, autogenerated slop manufactured by a machine?
They are not? They are expressing themselves via new technology.
No need to call them “artists” and I do think it should be stated that it was made with AI (and also if it was made digitally or analog or whatever. This is not specific to AI)
Another strawman argument. Never called you a Nazi, never said using AI makes you one.
Yes you did. You have the tendency to not know what you said. Your intent does not matter.
By saying that AI art is fascist symbolic and engaging with it furthers along the fascists disdain, you are saying that one supports fascism in some way by using AI art.
Therefore you are calling people fascist when using AI to make art.
Engage with what I actually wrote or move along.
I believe you are the one that needs to engage with what you wrote.
This exchange is over. The others have made better points and are less antagonistic than i am and thus more useful for you to talk with anyway.
But I’m afraid that if we aren’t careful with how we critique the use and abuse of artificial intelligence, we might end up, as leftist philosopher Mark Fischer once warned, foreclosing the possibility of a technologized anti- capitalism. I fear that framing this debate as anti-tech versus pro and handing the pro tech position to the right-wing is a generational blunder. Again,
I need you to listen carefully, okay? I don’t like big tech. I’m not here to promote a cryptocurrency. No Gen AI was used in the creation of this video. In fact, my videos have been used to train AI against my will. There are legitimate problems with the ways AI is being developed and implemented. And it’s not as simple as doing the predictable leftist video essay thing that handwaves problems away by concluding that actually the real problem is capitalism.
But we’re stuck with unanswered questions that have kept the left and progressives in a state of constant defense, running aimlessly into the future, swinging a sword around with their eyes closed. What is it exactly that we’re fighting for? What is it exactly that we should resist? What are we trying to build? What is foreclosed within this well-intentioned AI backlash? What types of futures are we abandoning in the race to counter AI hype? What regimes of private property are reinforced when AI training is called art theft? Who actually benefits from the narrative that AI is reaping environmental destruction? What are the human costs of anti-tech humanism?
People often think of the battle over AI art as the conflict between the interests of small independent artists versus large multinational corporations. But the full picture is more complicated and in many ways more insidious. In fact, large multinational corporations stand to benefit from the artists arguments in cases like Stability v. Anderson. The anti-AI art movement might actually result in the largest expansion of media corporations power over copyright law in recent memory. Here’s the thing about copyright law. Capitalism doesn’t really care about artists. It cares about property and therefore the property owning class. In the United States, the dominant intellectual property owning class aren’t independent artists. It’s the mouse. It’s Warner Media, NBC Universal, Paramount, Comcast, not you. When it comes to generative AI, the property owning class is doing everything it can to consolidate its power and promote its interests, even if that means misrepresenting whose interests they defend. One of the artists in the Anderson v. ability case is named Carla Ortiz. She’s a concept artist who’s worked on big name Marvel films and video games, and she’s staunchly opposed to the current uses of generative AI. She’s also a board member of the concept art association who in December of 2022 launched a GoFundMe campaign that raised nearly $300,000 for a lobbying effort marketed as protecting artists from AI technologies. So, what did this campaign do to support human artists? Well, for one, the lobbying team at the Concept Art Association join forces with fellow intellectual property associations like the Copyright Alliance. The Copyright Alliance is a nonprofit organization that claims to represent the copyright interests of millions of individual creators and creative organizations in the United States. They are also one of the most powerful and prominent voices when it comes to generative AI and copyright. But the Copyright Alliance does good work, right? We definitely need advocacy groups like the Copyright Alliance to advocate for the interests of small-time exploited creators like Adobe. Oh, uh, and Disney. Okay. Uh, and NBC, Universal, uh, News Corp, Nike, Oracle, Paramount, Sony Pictures, Warner Brothers. Okay. Well, that’s unnerving. But these aren’t the only people that the Copyright Alliance claims to represent. You can technically sign up to join the organization for free, but whose interests do you think might be disproportionately represented when someone like Troy Dao, the vice president of Disney’s government relations and IP legal policy team, sits on the copyright allianc’s board of directors, or when their board of directors, is stacked with representatives from America’s largest media companies and copyright holders. And it gets worse. The Copyright Alliance has uncomfortably strong ties to the Nichols Group, a consulting firm started by former Republican Senator Don Nichols. When Nichols wasn’t consistently trying to make women and gay people’s lives worse, he spent much of his time as a corporate shill supporting tax cuts for the wealthy and introducing anti-UN legislation. In 2005, he started a lobbying firm called the Nichols Group, which has consistently sided with big corporate media interests like lobbying for monopolistic media mergers and against net neutrality. The Nicholls Group also lobbies and or works with really awesome people like Coke Industries, giant health insurance companies, Walmart, Exxon Mobile, and Jewel. You literally could not assemble a more evil list. But what does the Nicholls group have to do with the Copyright Alliance? Well, let’s check the Copyright Alliance’s list of staff in 2008, shortly after its founding. Nickels. Nickels. Nickels. Nickels. Nickels. That’s like 25. Okay, so what if tons of Nickel Associates, including one of its founding partners, were on the Copyright Alliance’s initial staff list. 2008 was like a 100 years ago. That proves nothing. If only we had firm evidence of a nefarious connection. Something like, I don’t know, a copyright alliance member organization sending dues directly to the Nichols Group. But I guess we’ll never know. LM2 is a financial disclosure form that labor organizations with receipts of 250,000 or more are required to submit yearly. These contributions are legally required to be disclosed to the public. For example, if we look up one of the copyright allianc’s member organizations like the Graphic Artists Guild, tons of reports about their financial transactions come up. So, let’s just quickly verify that they really did pay the Copyright Alliance and not the Nicholls Group. Okay, everything looks good. Wait, that address looks familiar.
Wait, no, wait, no. 6013th Street, Sweet 250. That can’t be because the Copyright Alliance says they’re located at 1331F Street. Okay. Well, uh, maybe they switched addresses or something. What we need to show is that the Graphic Artist Guild sent money meant for the Copyright Alliance to what is exclusively the Nickel Group’s address. All right. So, in 2017, the Graphic Artists Guild sent $10,000 to the Copyright Alliance, which is supposed to be located, as it says here, at 60113th Street. According to the Wayback Machine, in 2017, the Copyright Alliance was located at 1331H Street, not 6013th Street. Now, the Nicholls Group. In 2017, they were located at, you guessed it, 60113th Street. So, can anyone please explain why members of the Copyright Alliance have been sending thousands of dollars in member dues to a corporate lobbying group’s address for at least a decade? Oh, I know why. Because the Copyright Alliance is a front. The point is that campaigns like this GoFundMe, lawsuits like Stability V. Anderson, the Copyright Alliance’s lobbying efforts, all claim to represent the interests of human artists. In theory, they do. and maybe some of the artists on board with the coalition sincerely believe in the work they’re doing. This video is absolutely not a call to harass all the plaintiffs of these cases, but in practice, these high-profile efforts to regulate generative AI disproportionately represent the interests of the intellectual property owning class. Now, there are tons of independent artists who own their own intellectual property. But by far, those who stand to benefit from the expansion of copyright law are not independent artists, but the multinational corporations that the copyright alliance represents. The means of artistic production are disproportionately held by media giants, and copyright law keeps it that way. That’s why companies like Disney have consistently led the way on copyright expansion in the US, spending millions in lobbying dollars every year. Do independent artists stand to benefit from the expansion of copyright? The answer is usually no. Here’s why. If these lawsuits were successful, the end result is not going to be that author’s works are excluded from AI training. This is Dave Hansen. He’s a copyright attorney and executive director of the Authors Alliance, a nonprofit organization that supports authors who want their work to contribute to the public good. The end result is going to be that we will have a group of very very large tech companies entering into licensing deals with very very large content holders and everybody else gets sort of left out in the cold.
Never, not once, at all, ever, did I say anything about copyright. I didn’t even allude to it. I’m not anti-AI, either, for the record. Just in case that needs to be said.
You’re attacking an argument I didn’t make with a video that isn’t relevant to what I’m saying. Please actually engage with what I am arguing; not what someone else is saying.
We could potentially consider:
Socializing art means giving people more free time to pursue their artistic passions allowing them to develop those skills to produce quality works.
If you want to talk about fascist art then you need to be willing to address the elephant in the room that is the open embrace of AI “art” by fascists. They were not only the first to start doing it but have pretty much made it their entire aesthetic. There’s nothing proletarian about mass-produced AI slop; it is a modern symbol of fascism and reflects the fascist disdain for creativity & imagination, driven directly by the tendency of creatives & artistic types to be anti-fascist on account of open mindedness being a boon to the creative mind.
What do you mean when you say “socialising art”? Because I mean socialising labour.
How do you get mass production without the proleteriat?
If we have establised lack of mass production does not absolve its “validity” to fascism then it may be worthwhile re-examining that presumed axiom.
There’s more to art than just labor.
Redundant question in a world that is becoming increasingly automated. We’re literally talking about computer algorithms generating content on their own without human labor involved.
We have established nothing of the sort and so the axiom remains firmly in place.
That’s exactly right. It is paid art where the quibble is, right? So if advancement in technology causes unemployment why does marxism propose not to burn the tech down? How do we sublimate this? GenAi is effectively showing us the limits of trade unionism, it is forcing us to confront capitalism itself and not be happy with concessions anymore.
All dead labour is still labour.
Do you think if you haven’t figured it out it makes it true? I mean I’m happy to clarify but at some point people may take it personally, and therefore may just need some space. I’ve sent a link in the other reply if you’re interested in further reading.
Now this is idealism. You have no evidence for this assertion at all; it’s purely speculative.
And no, “paid art” wasn’t where the quibble was. That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness and that it takes away the experience of creating & consuming art from real people and replacing it with a complete imitation devoid of the same substance. AI “art” doesn’t make you feel anything, think anything, or give you a memorable experience. It lacks the passion of something conceived of by a human mind and brought to fruition by human skill.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
I think you are right there. The metasphysical conception of creativity is not in keeping with dialectical materialism.
So you agree that the proleteriat is involved. And under capitalism this tech alienates workers.
That was a response to the condescension here:
^you could have clarified why instead of coming up with that nothingness. You just made a circular argument. And it was to a response to what I thought was a common ground you found. No you want to retreat to a supposed moral high ground.
I think given what you said about soulness that is obviously not dialectical materialist take I think we have reached a cross road here. It makes sense why the arguments against the arguments you have made are taken as arguments as you as a person.
I will leave it there for now. Have a good day.
Unserious af
Automating the proletariat’s necessity away.
So should we then harken back to reaction? Re-employ the weaver and burn the loom?
(And all dead labour is still labour anyway. The machine is the product of labour)
Why should the proletariat strive toward replacing their self-expression with mindless, autogenerated slop manufactured by a machine? I genuinely cannot think of a more effective way a capitalist society could create a false-consciousness and cultural hegemony. Not only are large studios and producers part of the superstructure, but any and all individuals part of the masses should be conditioned into giving up the last vestiges of ideological resistance and means of preventing alienation from their fellow worker.
I’m not even talking about working artists, I’m talking about the masses casting aside any method of self-expression other than the machine provided to them by the capitalists.
Could you please explain how this is not an argument against automation and socialisation of labour? If we aren’t to use the output of capitalist production should we do away with technology, and if so then how would we ever hope to overpower such a system? Should you burn your phone and not use the internet? Both have been used for cultural hegemony. Isn’t a given that any technology could be used for their purposes and isn’t it then on us to repurpose it for our needs?
Because I do not view human self-expression on an individual scale as something that should be automated away as superfluous labour. Art creation is already socialized, that’s the entire idea behind anyone of any skill level being able to do it. Cooking, indie film, paintings, memes, shitposts, doodles, cartoons, singing, music, all of these avenues of expression have readily accessible entry points, and some of them like pencil drawing don’t cost more than 2 dollars a year no matter what skill level you are. I view art created by the masses as the proletariat attempting to reclaim the humanity that capitalism has alienated them from. Relegating that last vestige of connection with their fellow workers is not only dystopian, but antithetical to communism’s end goal of de-alienating the proletariat.
The internet is a communication network. A phone is a machine. I don’t see how these items are replacing anything except less-efficient technologies. If that’s what you want to argue human art is then that’s where we disagree. Human expression isn’t a “technology” that can be automated into obsolescence, because at the end of the day, why? What is accomplished by allowing a machine to create a mono-culture where all works are inevitably the same?
How does AI’s existence threaten people’s ability to put paint on a canvas?
There are a lot of presumptions there that are not a given. Maybe you could clarify what you are alluding to isn’t an appeal to the metaphysical concept of human creativity? We should be dialectical materialists after all.
They are not? They are expressing themselves via new technology.
No need to call them “artists” and I do think it should be stated that it was made with AI (and also if it was made digitally or analog or whatever. This is not specific to AI)
Fascists also made the gym and self improvement their thing.
Bench pressing does not make me a Nazi. Using AI to make art does not make me a Nazi either.
Another strawman argument. Never called you a Nazi, never said using AI makes you one.
Engage with what I actually wrote or move along.
Yes you did. You have the tendency to not know what you said. Your intent does not matter.
By saying that AI art is fascist symbolic and engaging with it furthers along the fascists disdain, you are saying that one supports fascism in some way by using AI art.
Therefore you are calling people fascist when using AI to make art.
I believe you are the one that needs to engage with what you wrote.
This exchange is over. The others have made better points and are less antagonistic than i am and thus more useful for you to talk with anyway.
Much of the anti-AI narrative is literally being funded promoted by large right wing corps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRq0pESKJgg
Some points from the video to consider
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Never, not once, at all, ever, did I say anything about copyright. I didn’t even allude to it. I’m not anti-AI, either, for the record. Just in case that needs to be said.
You’re attacking an argument I didn’t make with a video that isn’t relevant to what I’m saying. Please actually engage with what I am arguing; not what someone else is saying.
My point was that anti AI narrative is directly sponsored by large far right corps.
Most obvious lie ever