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?
It’s so weird to see people argue that on the one hand AI generated art is slop that nobody wants to see, and on the other that it’s going to make artists obsolete.
“The enemy is both weak and destined to fail by its mere merits while simultaneously strong and will cause in-groups doom if not fought with the most severe measures”
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)
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?
It’s so weird to see people argue that on the one hand AI generated art is slop that nobody wants to see, and on the other that it’s going to make artists obsolete.
“The enemy is both weak and destined to fail by its mere merits while simultaneously strong and will cause in-groups doom if not fought with the most severe measures”
Where have I heard such thought patterns before.
indeed
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)