would’ve been more appropriate in the shit reactionaries say community if you ask me
I considered deleting the post but that would also delete the comments. I don’t agree with all of the comments–e.g., I’d argue that art can be used to “speak” truth to power in a way that shouldn’t be discounted. But I can now see that the post sounds like AI is bad and human art is good by necessity. Not at all what I took the comic maker to be saying, but I can understand the criticism.
Keep the post up! It’s good to have these discussions and form a line
Art has never once been a real threat to the status quo in the way the comic is saying. At best, you have art produced by the subaltern like Palestinian art which destabilizes the colonial order. And Palestinians do use AI art which is as destabilizing to the Zionist colonial order as any other type of art. There is not a single antifa formation more worthy of being antifascist than Al-Qassam Brigade for the sheer number of fascists they have liquidated, and even Al-Qassam Brigade has used AI art for their propaganda. They have more important things to do like blowing up tanks and sniping IOF goons, so they offload less important things to technological tools.
And the idea that artists are generally on the left or that fascist art is not actually art is ahistorical in the first case, post hoc cope in the second… the nazis made tons of propaganda movies, and so did plenty of other fascist or comprador regimes. In fact even today the nazis are remembered for their uniforms. Futurism was a fascist movement originally, and Salvador Dali (surrealism) was a huge fash.
The common argument that fascist art is not art is because it subordinates art to propaganda, or that they lose the independence to make what they want to make. Everything in capitalism is progaganda get real, even fanfic or fanart, even if the author doesn’t intend it. It repeats their ideas and they get their ideas from their social context. In fact a lot of these arguments against fascist art were made after World War 2 to equate the soviets with the nazis.
Even this comic artist’s comic would not be considered art under these rules because it is propaganda before being artistic expression.
Art is an output of material conditions, it doesn’t somehow exist outside of society, trying to study artistic movements outside of their context as if universal laws could be fished out from them.
Art has never once been a real threat to the status quo in the way the comic is saying.
Art is not the revolution, art can play a part, as in spreading ideology, but that is just the start. To quote a song I really like.
Ah it’s written in radlib.
“Artists” being an inherently superior masterrace that the “oligarchs” can never ever become: Harry Potter’s wizards/muggles divide.
“soulless” = bot, “oligarch” = putin -> “All AI users are putin bots.”
Yeah…actually coming to grips with the fact that terrible people can be artists, even good artists, was a very depressing but necessary part of my intellectual development.
“They see art as a threat because it questions and deciphers the myths, dogmas, lies and illusions that fascism is built upon.”
Bullshit: it just as easily supports the ‘myths, dogmas, lies and illusions’ that fascism is built on. Panzerlied was a banger of a song and carries just as hard as Bella Ciao, and Hugo Boss’ uniform designs put all the Allied uniforms to shame.
AI is a problem because the capitalists control it, and anyone who ignores that qualifying clause and calls AI ‘unconditionally’ a problem is a fucking idiot, and a useful idiot to fascists. It’s the same thoughtless lack of nuance that ACAB has when it includes police in China. Police are an arm of the state and they are a problem when capitalists control the state. That kind of myopic stupidity had so many western leftists supporting the wrong side in Hong Kong which caused such a high degree of harm that it nearly passed a catstrophic tipping point. And now they’re doing it with AI. They’re making it cultural anathema for a ‘progressive’ to touch what could be one of the most powerful progressive tools that Educators in the West have in their struggles as the fascists take their textbooks away.
Really great points. I think it would have been a lot more helpful without the insults though.
That’s true. I have friends who were harmed during the riots in Hong Kong and I’m angry about it.
Okay i feel that. The amount of shit happening is off the charts, no doubt.
The people who died supporting palestine while the whole fucking country in many cases (looking at you germany) were also completely unnecessary.
I think the issue here is that the anti AI crowd is basically left wing reactionaries. I’m just starting to learn about left reaction (e.g. moralizing) which seems to be used to derail the left by the bourgeoisie. Today I heard a podcast on rev left radio which was very good and they basically explained how people were trained like pavlovs dog to react a certain way when presented with positive sentiment about the ussr for example. I think this is what is happening with AI as well. Since the discussion is so loaded with emotion, normal debate seizes to work.
I’ve had this issue on here already. Myself being on the anti AI side. While the argument is correct that ai will never replace human art, the possibilities shown are very numerous. That imo is the key to winning this argument. The issue that I see with some pro ai sentiment is that the fear that rises in people through massive chaos around the world isnt taken seriously enough and that leads to increasingly negative responses.
But I guess this (AI topic) discussion needs more back and forth and probably q&a style answers to get anywhere long term. Otherwise increasingly scared left reactionaries will scream at increasingly frustrated ai proponents.
But I guess this (AI topic) discussion needs more back and forth and probably q&a style answers to get anywhere long term. Otherwise increasingly scared left reactionaries will scream at increasingly frustrated ai proponents.
I think a few critical parts of the conversation surrounding AI to keep things grounded in perspective is:
-
Recognizing that how art is perceived culturally is not a static, universal thing across cultures and time periods. (A good example of this is how Hula dance in Hawaiian culture is a means of telling stories and passing down history. It’s not merely some tool of “self expression” and commodity that western capitalist art tends to be.)
-
The western investor class are not the only ones working on AI research. (Socialist China is playing an important part in its development too.)
-
Generative AI (text, image, audio, etc.) is only a portion of AI research. Automation that could be called AI has been around for decades. The difference is that its level of capability is now being seriously compared to humans in some skillsets in limited contexts; anyone who tells you generative AI is overall nearing levels of capability comparative to humans is selling you a bridge. What people tend to hate in a reactionary way is generative AI, but they talk about it like it’s AI as a whole, which confuses the issue.
I find there’s also just a lot of basic things about it that people don’t know and this ignorance probably makes it harder for them to approach it in a grounded way. For example, even among people who use generative AI, it’s not uncommon for people to think a model has a “database” of information. As if it saved everything it was trained on intact and calls on it to make new things. When it’s closer to something vaguely like the model has a Katamari Damacy ball of concepts glommed together by association and it makes probablistic guesses on what should come next, depending on where in the glom of “things like what it was trained on” you have ended up in.
People also tend to associate text gen AI with ChatGPT, but the underlying architecture of those models is just a continuation model; it tries to guess what “token” (which may be a whole word “go” or a component of a word such as “-ly”) comes next. The chat format AI are just designed with special UI and other tweaks to make sure that it stops before writing your part of the conversation. If you removed that component, what you would observe is the model seemingly having a conversation with itself. That’s what it’s always doing because it doesn’t know there’s a you and and it, truly, but with the right presentation, it can appear as if it’s waiting for you to say your part.
The point of all this info dumping is like… if someone is bent on hating it, at least understand what it is, ya know? And when you do understand, you might realize it’s a bit more complicated than you thought. Some people might hate it anyway, even if they understand fully what it is because of it threatening their livelihood, but I’d still rather them know than not know.
I agree to all of this.
What I think people hate is the capitalist way of treating it and selling it. As a world wonder that will solve everything and make thinking obsolete.
But at the same time they hate the people who believe this, which feels like the majority, which points at the contradictions in society.
Then what I personally hate on top is the layer that we are made to fight about this constantly and so on.
And all these are the material conditions we are forced to exist in which makes my neighbor use chatgpt in a discussion with me which ultimately just breaks my spirit at any future for us human monkeys. Its literally heartbreaking.
So yes, i absolutely see the potential that ai has for leftists and people in general, I just totally refuse to have a discussion with what feels like ai evangelicals who seem to think its the best thing since bread.
I mean the contradictions show up in myself too. I positively wept looking at rosa fucking luxembourg singing a marxist rock song because I’m fucking easy to emotionally manipulate and I understand that this will work on goddamn everyone. But it ultimately means we are going to lose because it means whoever has the bigger model will win the fight to manipulate the masses. Then again china is showing that socialism even in its infancy is the fucking terminator of capitalism if properly applied. This does show strong promise and pretty much proves that they are right playing the ai game.
This list can go on forever, going back and forth (which I alluded to before).
I can understand that, I have definitely had some back and forth on it myself. I think like with anything, we have to keep firmly in view that it’s a tool distorted by the societal model it exists under and that most of what it’s doing in the bad way is intensifying issues that were already there. For example, when someone uses chatgpt as a source, is that bad because AI is bad or is it bad because it highlights the problems with people individually turning to the internet for answers to questions (which has long been a problem with web searching and wikipedia and so on, just wasn’t as bad before). Or when a publishing platform gets flooded with AI genned low effort crap, is that bad because AI is bad or is it bad because it highlights the unsustainable nature of internet platforms that have little to no gatekeeping and the inability to manage the volume of “content” that gets uploaded on a regular basis.
I do think it’s contributing to the acceleration of some problems. But it’s not as anomalous as it’s made out to be, if that makes sense. If it didn’t exist, similar problems would still exist because (I would argue) AI in its current form is an accelerated stage of automation rather than a wholly new form of development. There are aspects of it which are unprecedented as forms of automation, but automation as a whole is nothing new. So the favored response to it for us is also nothing particularly new; it’s a technology that, if it is going to exist, needs to be in the hands of the organized proletariat and the organized liberation forces of imperialized and colonized peoples, not in the hands of a capitalist class or other like exploitative classes.
I think the more you get into the AI ecosystem and use it, the more you integrate that it’s not actually as deep as you thought “mentally” speaking, like all the questions you might ask yourself about it before getting into the matter proper just disappear. It’s definitely put a lot of things in perspective for me. I think at this time, we’re still kind of seeing what comes out of it, with everyone scrambling to turn their idea into an AI startup. Down the line there will come best practices, i.e. “if you’re gonna use AI to do [task], then this is the only way you should do it”. It’s part of the bubble: it expands at first but then after some time shrinks. The plethora of AI tools and models will probably shrink eventually.
And on that I think all of this was a long time coming. It was just slow until it wasn’t (you could say quantitative turns into qualitative change, leaps and bounds etc). There’s always been low-effort books on Amazon, we live in a world of 9 billion people who are increasingly getting access to the Internet and everyone wants to make it out of capitalism alive in any way possible. There’s always been shitty Sonic OCs on deviantart (not my qualifier, it’s what people on the website call them) and tons of “wtf is this” books that had absolutely 0 editing done to them, Amazon accepts those no problem. In fact, I don’t know what the amazon kindle ecosystem is like now but before AI, top sales were basically dominated by established authors who had a publisher behind them to put marketing money in their new book. It was very difficult to make ANY sale as an indie, artisanal writer who worked only by themselves and AI hasn’t changed that at all, because it was always the case.
If you look at the authors who bemoan AI books on Amazon what they’re worried about is the perceived loss of sales. It’s the same old story. They think they’re losing out on something and they want protectionism where it helps them. Again not making a value judgment I don’t really care either way about either AI books or the petit-bourgeois authors lol, but that’s what their problem with AI books is. And certainly Amazon doesn’t worry about it either as long as they sell books.
Like you said web searching wasn’t necessarily better before AI. I remember google being pretty good up until 2018 or so, then they started mutating your search query so you’d spend more time on search. And before that people were against AMP pages and snippets as they don’t drive traffic to your website but it stays on google. But again kind of a financial problem to have because you’re trying to get clients or ad revenue, I’m just happy they see communist theory.
And speak of ads back in the early 2000s you could get up to 2.5$ per click on an ad banner lol it was wild. Now everyone has an ad blocker and a click might net you 30 cents if that. It’s just dialectics that situation couldn’t go on forever.
But I use perplexity a lot too (LLM search engine) and it’s pretty good because you can follow up on stuff you’ve already asked and go down the rabbit hole in the course of a single conversation instead of making fresh searches every time. But it could still be improved in many ways imo.
I think one contradiction people against AI have is they say it’s both replacing your brain while also not being that good. It’s a complete contradiction because it can only be one or the other (is it better than human cognition or is it not?), and until one addresses the contradiction and resolves it, they will live ‘in utter chaos under heaven’ as Mao said (paraphrased lol), and it leads to problematic conclusions such as “people who use AI are lesser people because AI is not very good, so clearly if they use it, their brain must be worse than AI, that’s why they think they gain something from it”.
-
deleted by creator
The comic maker needs to pull their head out and read a book. hitler was a fucking painter. His art work was a large part of how he showed his vision to other members of the nazi party and convinced them to follow his lead.
There is nothing special about professional artists. They are just a profession where it was harder for the big bourgeois to control the means of production. This bred a class of petite bourgeoisie artists who are now having their monopoly on the means of production challenged by open source technology.
Anti-AI sentiment is vibes based and emotional which is the basis for all reactionary thinking.
It also overlooks how there are artists who have worked in other mediums that also work with AI as a medium to, as if AI can’t be a medium, when it is one. There’s are also artist who train models off of their own works as well. Which only makes this comic logic more nonsense.
Hitler’s art fucking sucked ass.
Both his writing and his painting. Reading Mien Kampf is easily among one of the most excruciatingly painful reading experiences I’ve encountered over the course of my life, and I have nothing to say about that book other than that it’s incoherent garbage.
Hitler’s paintings are also awful and show a complete disregard and misunderstanding of basic art principles and compositional cohesion. His work is incredibly amateurish at best.
Also his artwork wasn’t how he showed his vision to anyone? Unless you meant his writing. His paintings are just castles and random still life pieces.
Not all of his artwork was terrible. (Possibly NSFW.) Some of his drawings like Selbstporträt and his WWI scenes certainly do look lousy, but other pieces like Schloss Neuschwanstein actually look pretty okay. He was a petty bourgeois who made a living vending his artwork, so apparently some of it was good enough for the German market.
That being said, Mein Kampf is such a slog that not even Benito Mussolini could finish it.
awful and show a complete disregard and misunderstanding of basic art principles and compositional cohesion. His work is incredibly amateurish at best.
You could say the same things about Picaso.
His paintings and writing may not be to your taste but they were certainly evocative to his followers.
“AI art” being soulless, depthless, and uncritical is a feature… not a bug
The vibes-based conclusion of someone who has never been near AI research and is ignoring business interests on top of it. It absolutely is a “bug” how much of it has become associated with “slop”. You think people who put billions of dollars into AI research want it to have a reputation for being “soulless”? That makes it harder for them to make money off of it. You think people who put their career into doing AI research want it to have that reputation either? Who would intentionally spend their life’s work trying to work on something “soulless” that is normally thought of as having meaning to it?
Fascists aren’t villains in saturday morning cartoons who talk about how much they love being evil. With the exception of the rare sadistic psychopath, or the opportunistic grifters who gravitate to any power structure they can feed off of, they’re mostly going to be people who sincerely believe in what they’re doing, in spite of how fucked it is.
Furthermore, not every entity in AI is fascist just because it funds it or wants to profit off of it. If that was the meaning of fascism, it would be watered down as to be meaningless. Nor do actual fascists have control over all of the R&D of AI.
It’s the closest that oligarchs can get to artists’ power to create universes out of thin air
George Bush took up painting after he did his part for the empire in helping to ravage another foreign country alongside Dick Cheney and others. And no, it wasn’t “AI” painting. Oligarchs, capitalists, imperialists, colonizers, fascists… none of them are incapable inherently of working on an artistic craft. And, in fact, art is used heavily to reinforce the status quo. There’s nothing that makes the craft immune to such.
Artists also don’t “create universes”. What artists do is tap into the imaginations that people have. When you look at a cutely drawn electrical outlet and are able to see a face, it’s not because electrical outlets are anything resembling human in actual characteristics. It’s because the human mind can do associating, anthropomorphizing pattern recognition quickly and easily. When an artist draws a flat image that somehow looks three dimensional, that’s also tapping into the human imagination and the way it perceives shapes and colors in space.
Artists work with the human mind’s existing functionality in order to get it to temporarily perceive something that isn’t real as plausibly close enough to real that a reaction can be evoked, for better or worse. If you see it this way, it’s not far off from that to see how it can be used for deceptive propaganda at times; yes, even fascist propaganda.
They see art as a threat because it questions and deciphers the myths, dogmas, lies, and illusions that fascism is built upon.
*Only in the hands of anti-fascists is art used this way.
Don’t underestimate fascism and related awful isms. Not all of their “art” is rightist chuds oozing grotesque racism in a meme format.
Propaganda can be more subtle. Like The Hunt for Red October movie and its anti-communist, “pro US side of the cold war” undertones.
Colonialism hasn’t ravaged the world for hundreds of years by being as obvious as Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Take what we’re up against seriously.
It’s the closest that oligarchs can get to artists’ power to create universes out of thin air
I didn’t catch onto that when I made my comment but this is exactly what Artisanal Intelligence was saying lol. Ever since AI came out artists are trying to find ways to explain how art is not actually something anyone is capable of.
Actually let me detail this a bit more. The essay makes the inverse point: that before AI artists tried to convey how skilled their craft is (to be on an equal basis as specialized workers such as engineers, doctors, etc and demand same compensation, the essay says), and since AI they say anyone can actually do art. But I think since 2023 (when the essay was written) we notice a reversal happening, where more-or-less established artists such as the comic artist here are arguing that to be an artist is something not everyone is capable of, which imo is a way to differentiate themselves from AI image gen that is becoming always better at doing photography and artistic styles. YMMV of course.
Like at face value it comes off as incredibly elitist to say that artists have a power to create universes out of thin air, and non-artists don’t. And I couldn’t even say that they’re saying “everyone can be an artist and create universes out of thin air” because they’re clearly drawing a line between artists and non-artists (in which they consider, at the very least, oligarchs to be).
That’s a good article. I think I had seen it before but not read through it in full.
Like at face value it comes off as incredibly elitist to say that artists have a power to create universes out of thin air, and non-artists don’t. And I couldn’t even say that they’re saying “everyone can be an artist and create universes out of thin air” because they’re clearly drawing a line between artists and non-artists (in which they consider, at the very least, oligarchs to be).
Yeah, it’s interesting how the motives and narrative shift in response to the changing conditions. And I think it is aligned with communist goals and views to insist that art does not arise from “special talent only reserved for a select group” but from a mixture of predispositions and applied process like any other capability (an example of predispositions and their impact being how most people can learn to sing, but a limited number have perfect pitch… this doesn’t mean only those with perfect pitch are “real musicians”, it just means they will have an easier time becoming a skilled musician, all other things being equal, than those who don’t). It reminds me of the idea of bridging the developed gap between “intellectual” and “worker”. The gap between “artist” and “worker” appears to have a similar kind of line drawing going on that will need to be overcome. But artists who are stuck seeing themselves as transcendent beings tapping into something mystical will have a harder time relating to the factory worker whose labor is also being exploited in various ways.
Honestly I can understand now why Juche includes the paintbrush lol. Kim Jong Il wrote a book on Cinema – and by book I mean a 500 pages monster. I uploaded it to ProleWiki actually: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/File:On-The-Art-Of-The-Cinema.pdf.
There’s bourgeois art and there’s proletarian art, much like there is bourgeois philosophy and proletarian philosophy.
Oooh, that’s neat, bookmarking to look at later. I remember hearing in passing about his interest in cinema on one of the Blowback Podcast episodes on Korea, but I didn’t know that much detail about it.
Removed by mod
The soulless would. Everyone who works on “ai”, for instance.
Look, I don’t take “no investigation, no right to speak” as some kind of literal doctrine to follow, but Mao did have a point about the value of investigating rather than pure “brain cudgeling”. And it’s evident because I have investigated that anyone making a statement like this has not done shit to investigate the situation with generative AI.
Removed by mod
Everyone who works on “ai”, for instance.
So you are also dehumanizing people like Cao Jun, a visually impaired developer, that is working with AI to make screens “speak,” thereby enabling people with visual impairments to navigate phones and computers more effectively.
In other words, you are dehumanizing someone that is actively working with the AI to make a software that is now serving over 400,000 visually impaired users.
Removed by mod
At face value this is just a dehumanizing comment. You’re basically saying some people have no soul, and the soul is understood to be a wholly human thing. As materialists we don’t believe in the soul (a. it’s a metaphysical concept and b. where is it located? It’s clearly not an organ) but that’s why @amemorablename and I used it between quotes.
And so what, everyone who works on AI, even the engineers who are finding medical applications to save lives, are soulless just on virtue of the stuff they work on? Even the workers who were shuffled into AI research instead of idk Youtube UX, because that’s where their boss wants them to be now?
Removed by mod
So you admit to just dehumanizing people?
Removed by mod
I’ll be honest “my guy” I truly don’t care for your trolling. You would probably fit better on 8chan or similar image boards because you both share hate for the working class and think dehumanizing people is a valid strategy. Ironically it’s the anti-ai crowd that is closer to the “soulless” fascists than the pro-AI crowd judging from this type of language.
I’m just gonna put this here as a warning, it’s not okay to dehumanize people just because you don’t like or agree with them and we will start to moderate on this. If you can’t have conversations without pulling these types of arguments then just don’t say anything.
I upvoted this post to give it visibility, but I absolutely hated the article that spearheaded all of this “AI art is fascism” discourse (this one https://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissions/ai-the-new-aesthetics-of-fascism/). It makes a few worthwhile points but doesn’t really dig into them and the most of it is mired in “i just don’t like it okay :(” and name-dropping niche artists and writers to try and appear smarter than it is. It’s absolutely not proletarian but feels like an ivory tower wizard worried about the unwashed masses accessing his esoteric magic.
The chief criticism that this comic repeats is “soulless”. As materialists we don’t believe in the soul so that’s an insufficient argument, they have to find something stronger if they want to make it. And I think there’s something to be said about a comic redrawing AI generated videos even if to make a critical point. In the same way that no matter how critical a movie director wants to be about the mafia, depicting mafiosi on screen will inherently endear them to the viewer. Depicting something is necessary to make a point about it, but it’s still a contradiction.
Going further cinema was not considered an art form in its early years because prior artists considered that the act of filming was not art, but rather the subject being filmed was (e.g. a theater play). Then filmmakers invented the cutting room and the art was born. It was actually art before editing was invented (because even before that how you framed the shot and how you chose to capture it was important too and made it different from what your eyes captured in a live performance), it’s just that the people’s consciousness lagged behind their material reality.
I just published my own essay though it focuses more on AI and intellectual property/copyright: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:Intellectual_property_in_the_times_of_AI. I purposely didn’t really go into what is or counts as art because I don’t even think that’s where the dialectic will emerge.
In fact in terms of agitprop there is potential there and this is why I used the AI gen of Samuel Jackson as Lenin as the cover to the essay. People across the spectrum loved those pictures when they came out. It’s not about the tool but how you use it and this is what irks me with the “it’s fascist aesthetic so I won’t use it”. Fascists are known to coopt everything and it used to be that antifa punks (literally what they called themselves) chased them out violently. Now we are at the level of letting them coopt stuff as long as we can retain moral superiority over them.
Or that rap deepfake of Angela Rayner: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9604410. You can’t see this and tell me it’s fascist. Gaza youth posted their own AI video and song response to the Trump AI video that wanted to turn Gaza into a resort, you can’t look me in the eye and seriously tell me that’s “the aesthetic of fascism” too. Of course it can be critical, you can make it say anything! And I’m not making a point about art here, but just about the tool.
I feel what this comic artist really wants to say is fascists, i.e. “some people”, are soulless, depthless, and uncritical, not their art. But they can’t say that without sounding like a huge tool so instead they assign these values to what these soulless people create. What is the difference between fascist AI art and the fascist movie Triumph of the Will? Both were created by fascists and both are depthless and uncritical to power.
I don’t think I like the framing of oligarchs being incapable of what artists do, which is ‘create universes out of thin air.’ Creativity is something any human can do, and while it’s not lost on me that ruling elites are ghoulish and barely human themselves, the whole thing gives me ‘artists are the cultural elite’ vibes.
I think this folds into why ‘pro-AI’ sides of the debate get the most normies. If you’re not hyper online or theory brained you’re going to see artists dunking on a tool that personally really appeals to you, and not understand. You’ll interpret it as jealousy. You’ll engage in the debates further and when anti-AI advocates enshrine the act of creation as sacred and, importantly, unattainable to non-artists, you’ll rightfully see that as bunk and go further into the slop echochamber.
Lmao “soulless” okay you got something else besides that?
Removed by mod
Can I see it, touch it? Can I find where it is in the body? How does it interact with the rest of my physical form?
Do you have any empirical evidence that your soul exists?
Removed by mod
AI art can be cooped so easily by fascists because the art that feeds the models is overwhelmingly cooptable by fascists. The vast majority of artistic output by volume is absolute slop, and AI art is simply a reflection of that reality.
Leftist art for me has to be modernist or meta-modernist. We value art that empowers someone to say something new. Art nouveau is an artisan being well-compensated to replace commodities with nature worship, dada is an absurdist attack against imperial propaganda, impressionism is the average schmuck’s every day experience, social and socialist realism are inverting the power dynamics of western art, brutalism strips ornamentation to reinvent utility, constructivism is workers imagining something new, cubism and pointilism are pushing the limits of visual perspective, etc. Even my favourite classical music is stuff that used the shock of the new to make people understand something dissonant as consonant.
Right-wingers can’t do any of that. At best they have a gaudy cult of tradition that modernism directly rebelled against. For the ones that are too lazy to LARP as medieval Catholics, they’re also too lazy to come up with a new idea. That new idea doesn’t serve any purpose for them, and worse it might empower a worker to paint it. Any kind of change it might spark is a threat to people who are too scared to go shopping without an emotional support gun. AI art lets people who are pure Freudian id shit out their impulses as fast as they can feel them. It’s useless to us because it can only regurgitate its training data and cut into the self-reflection that’s critical for leftist art, but a right-winger’s entire worldview is regurgitating their training data and avoiding self-reflection.
pure Freudian id
Goes hard. Perfect description of these dorks.
Meh, it’s basically saying some people are working on nothing more than their impulses and therefore not wholly human. Not the freudian id part itself, but the entire sentence “people who are pure Freudian id”.
